UK Government Warns Labour-Led Councils Against Boycotts of Israeli Firms Amid BDS Dispute
Communities secretary says councils risk legal action and must align with national policy after motions targeting Israel-linked companies
The United Kingdom’s national government has issued firm warnings to several Labour-led local councils over their support for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns against companies linked to Israel, saying such actions could expose authorities to legal challenges and run contrary to central government policy.
The intervention from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities comes amid a broader debate over the role of local government in foreign policy matters and the limits of council autonomy.
Several local authorities, including Labour-run councils, have passed motions that would see them avoid contracts or investments with firms identified by activists as complicit in human rights violations in the Middle East.
Companies targeted by the councils, critics say, may be entitled to sue under provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 if they can demonstrate financial harm caused by boycott decisions.
Communities Secretary Steve Reed warned that local bodies should focus on delivering core services rather than using public procurement to pursue international political agendas.
The government has reinforced this stance with updated guidance that prohibits local councils and other public bodies from imposing de facto boycotts against foreign countries or corporations unless such policies are consistent with the United Kingdom’s national foreign policy and international obligations.
Ministers argue that disjointed procurement decisions by councils could put taxpayers at financial risk and undermine a unified British approach to complex international issues.
The controversy over BDS activity in local councils follows the passage of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill in Parliament, a measure designed to prevent public bodies from unilaterally boycotting, divesting from, or sanctioning nations outside the scope of official government foreign policy.
The legislation — which has advanced through the Commons and is awaiting further scrutiny — has been supported by the government as a way to maintain coherence in foreign affairs and protect community cohesion.
Opposition to the national bill and to government warnings has come from pro-Palestinian activists and some councillors, who argue that ethical investment and boycott decisions reflect deeply held values and a concern for human rights.
However, the government’s position underscores a preference for centralized control over foreign policy-related decisions and a desire to prevent public bodies from inadvertently conflicting with national diplomacy and legal obligations.
Labour Party officials at the national level have reiterated their opposition to BDS against the state of Israel, aligning with the government’s broader policy against boycotts by public bodies.
Councils that have entertained BDS motions are now navigating the tension between local political activism and compliance with upcoming legislative restrictions and ministerial guidance.
The intervention from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities comes amid a broader debate over the role of local government in foreign policy matters and the limits of council autonomy.
Several local authorities, including Labour-run councils, have passed motions that would see them avoid contracts or investments with firms identified by activists as complicit in human rights violations in the Middle East.
Companies targeted by the councils, critics say, may be entitled to sue under provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 if they can demonstrate financial harm caused by boycott decisions.
Communities Secretary Steve Reed warned that local bodies should focus on delivering core services rather than using public procurement to pursue international political agendas.
The government has reinforced this stance with updated guidance that prohibits local councils and other public bodies from imposing de facto boycotts against foreign countries or corporations unless such policies are consistent with the United Kingdom’s national foreign policy and international obligations.
Ministers argue that disjointed procurement decisions by councils could put taxpayers at financial risk and undermine a unified British approach to complex international issues.
The controversy over BDS activity in local councils follows the passage of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill in Parliament, a measure designed to prevent public bodies from unilaterally boycotting, divesting from, or sanctioning nations outside the scope of official government foreign policy.
The legislation — which has advanced through the Commons and is awaiting further scrutiny — has been supported by the government as a way to maintain coherence in foreign affairs and protect community cohesion.
Opposition to the national bill and to government warnings has come from pro-Palestinian activists and some councillors, who argue that ethical investment and boycott decisions reflect deeply held values and a concern for human rights.
However, the government’s position underscores a preference for centralized control over foreign policy-related decisions and a desire to prevent public bodies from inadvertently conflicting with national diplomacy and legal obligations.
Labour Party officials at the national level have reiterated their opposition to BDS against the state of Israel, aligning with the government’s broader policy against boycotts by public bodies.
Councils that have entertained BDS motions are now navigating the tension between local political activism and compliance with upcoming legislative restrictions and ministerial guidance.
