 Yn y cyd-diw, mae'n gwneud i'w prifysgol yn fwyaf i Ff�r 1, 2, 3, 8, 6, yn y ffellyd Irobuson yw'r gwaith gyda'n i gynnwys Cymru yma, newid i'r Cymru. Felly, mae'n gwneud i gyd, i'n gwneud i'w prifysgol. Mae'n gwneud i'w prifysgol yn ffellyd i'w prifysgol. The next item of business is the debate on motion 12551 in the name of Tom Arthur on economic activity of public bodies overseas matters bill UK legislation. I invite members wishing to participate in the debate and to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around eight minutes please. Presiding Officer, the UK Government's economic activity of public body overseas matters engages the legislative consent process because it would limit the executive competence of the Scottish ministers in relation to devolved matters. We must of course be mindful of the context in which this bill is being brought forward. The Parliament has made its views clear on the terrible on-going situation in Israel and Gaza. Although that might sharpen the mind in relation to the implications of the bill, it is important that we realise that this bill and its impact on the Scottish ministers is a broader application than just in relation to current events. I will therefore keep a focus in my remarks on the implications of the bill for devolution and why the Scottish Government does not recommend that the Scottish Parliament agrees to give its consent to it. The bill would apply to all public bodies in Scotland and across the UK, but our consideration today is particularly in respect of its impact on the Scottish ministers, which triggers the need for legislative consent. The bill would limit the executive competence of Scottish ministers by preventing them from taking a moral or political disapproval of any foreign state conduct into account in devolved procurement and investment decisions. Not only that, but it would also make it unlawful for the Scottish ministers to publish a statement saying that they intend to take such matters into consideration or even that they would intend to take such matters into consideration where it is not unlawful to do so. It places the policing and enforcement of that into the hands of UK ministers. The Secretary of State is given sweeping powers to compel the Scottish ministers and other public bodies to provide information. They are given powers to issue compliance notices, setting out the actions that the Scottish ministers should take or refrain from taking, and they are giving powers to fine the Scottish ministers. Subject to interest should he or she conclude that the terms of that compliance notice have been breached. All of that, remember, is in relation to decisions that the Scottish ministers may take about otherwise entirely devolved matters. That displays a complete disregard for devolution for this institution and, frankly, for democracy, limiting, as it does, the actions of Scotland's elected Government. The bill not only potentially prevents the Scottish ministers from taking a decision, now or at some point in the future, in relation to a devolved matter that they consider to be the right decision, but it also prevents the Scottish ministers from seeking to advance debate and discourse on the matter. Scottish ministers will not even be able to publish a statement to say that it is this bill that is stopping them from acting on devolved matters in the way they think is appropriate. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to include the Scottish ministers in the scope of the bill in order to mitigate against the threat of boycotts, which it says undermines UK foreign policy. However, what evidence do they have to support such claims? Public procurement is a devolved matter. Our devolved Scottish legislation makes explicitly clear that goods, services and bidders from a country with which a relevant trade agreement applies are entitled to be treated equally to domestic bidders. It makes explicitly clear that, if a public body in Scotland, including the Scottish ministers, discriminates against a bidder on this basis, that bidder is entitled to bring remedial action in the domestic courts. What all of this means is that it is already unlawful for the Scottish ministers or any public body in Scotland to operate a blanket boycott policy against such countries. The provisions of this bill are completely unnecessary. Procurement and investment decisions must always be taken in compliance with international obligations, but that does not mean that they should be taken in an ethical or moral vacuum. It is important that Scotland is able to take a values-based approach to international engagement. I set out in our international strategy and the vision for trade. It would be unacceptable if the bill were to prevent this Parliament, the Scottish Government and Scottish public bodies from doing what is morally right now and in the future. The bill significantly restricts the Scottish ministers' ability to take rounded, proportionate decisions about the stability of individual bidders for public contracts. Finally, aside from our concerns with the policy content of the bill, we also have concerns about the way in which it is drafted. Clause 14 sets out on the face of the bill the relationship between IT and the Procurement Act 2020-23. That act will largely only apply to UK, Welsh and Northern Irish bodies. Devolved Scottish bodies will continue to be subject to existing devolved Scottish procurement legislation. However, in relation to the procurement legislation in Scotland, Clause 14 takes a different approach. It confers an enduring delegated power on UK ministers to set out that relationship in secondary legislation. We see no justifiable reason for this difference in approach, and no reason why the impact on Scottish devolved legislation should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the impact on UK legislation. I have asked UK ministers to consider amending the bill to address this point, but I understand that they have decided not to agree to that request. This bill, and in particular the inclusion of the Scottish ministers within its scope, is an unacceptable restriction of executive competence in relation to devolved matters. The threat of fines for the orwellian thought crime of daring to set the simple effect that the law has on Scottish ministers' decision making would set a dangerous precedent. It is all just so unnecessary given the protections that exist in relevant international and domestic law already. I move the motion, and I ask the Scottish Parliament to withhold its consent to this bill. As we have heard, the economic activity of public bodies overseas matters intends to prevent public bodies, including local councils, NHS boards and devolved administrations, making decisions about procurement and investment based on political considerations. The bill is currently in the House of Lords continuing with its parliamentary progress at Westminster. The fundamental point is that the matters of foreign policy and trade are reserved to Westminster. It is therefore not a matter for councils or public bodies to run an alternative foreign or trade policy. Indeed, there are many. Many local councils might not be well equipped to consider all the relevant factors in arriving at such decisions, where issues might well be complex or heavily disputed. Westminster and its committees, which have the responsibility for foreign and trade policy, are the correct avenue for those matters to be properly considered and debated. Foreign affairs are not under the remit of the Scottish Parliament, and I hope that the Labour Party will share our view on that particular matter. Daniel Johnson, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint Murdo Fraser. Ultimately, is it not the job of public bodies to use their judgment in accordance with their values, and if people do not think that that is appropriate, is the mechanism to deal with that, not the electorate at elections? Murdo Fraser. If people want to change the foreign or trade policy of the United Kingdom, they can do so in a general election. However, I do not think that they should be tearing up the devolution settlement and rewriting the UK constitution just because of Mr Johnson's concerns. I am not surprised that the SNP and Greens object to this, because they do not want the UK Government to have foreign or trade policy. I am a little bit surprised that the Labour Party seems to share that view. However, despite the minister dressing us up as a great matter of constitutional principle, there is another angle to that that should concern us. The member makes the point in his view that that relates to trade and foreign affairs. In that case, why do the explanatory notes to the bill published by the UK Government state that it triggers legislative consent requirements? Murdo Fraser. I am going to come on and explain why I have wider concerns about this piece of legislation than the minister should listen to this. There are many oppressive regimes and states in the world, many with appalling records of human rights towards their own citizens and their others. There are numerous examples that I could give to the chamber, space sponsorship of terrorism by Iran in the Middle East and elsewhere, Myanmar's treatment of the Rohingya population, China's treatment of the Uggers and its atrocities in Kashmir and Tibet and many more. I am not aware of any organised campaigns to boycott, divest or sanction any of those countries or any of those regimes. There is only one country that is subject to campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction, and that is Israel. Criticism of the current Israeli Government is perfectly legitimate, but Israel still has a track record of human rights far better than any of its neighbours. For minority religions, for women, for those of the LGBT community, it is streets ahead, centuries ahead of any other country in the Middle East, and Israel is the only fully functioning democracy in the region. Yet only Israel is singled out for boycott, divest and sanction campaigns. Why? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is directly linked to the ethnicity of the majority of the population of Israel, in other words, the Jewish people. This is the world's oldest hatred, reading its hideous head once again. There is no other reasonable explanation for Israel alone being signalled out compared to other countries. We might be the only party in this chamber prepared to point out the double standards of the boycott, divest and sanction movement, but we make no apology for doing that. If the UK legislation is blocking that, it should be supported and not opposed. That is not just our view. It is also the view of the Scottish—let me just make this point and I will give way. It is not just our view, it is also the view of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, who are extremely concerned at the stance taken by the Scottish Government on this issue, as the minister will know. To the member for giving way, Israel is already part of the relevant agreements that give bidders from Israel relevant protections and domestic procurement law in Scotland, and Mr Fraser always had a long-standing concern with legislation being required and necessary. Why, in that case, does he think that this bill is necessary? Lord Fraser, I will give you the time back for the interventions. I understand why the minister does not recognise the concerns that there are in the Jewish community in Scotland that I have just referred to about the approach that has been taken by the Scottish Government on this particular issue. We have seen since the 7th of October a significant and well-reported rise in anti-Semitic incidents in Scotland. We have reports of Jewish people in Scotland feeling unsafe in their own country. We should do nothing here that increases those fears. In the words of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, it is a cause of concern to the Jewish community that the decision to issue special procurement advice about Israel alone may inadvertently encourage anti-Semitism from those who conflate the local Jewish community with the state of Israel. I will quote directly the conclusion that we have from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, because it is important. While I am undoubtedly welcome, ministerial comments that Jewish people in Scotland should not be a proxy target for those who dislike Israel or Israeli Government policy, or that dislike of Israel should not be an acceptable excuse for anti-Semitism. Pious sentiments do not change behaviours. Legislation does. We therefore urge the Scottish Parliament to take note of the vulnerability and anxiety of many Jewish people in Scotland, as demonstrated by the large majority view among the Scottish Jewish community in support of the Westminster Bill and so reject the Scottish Government legislative consent memorandum to the economic activity of public bodies overseas matters bill, so as to permit the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland on this occasion. We would do well to listen to that plea. Avoid giving sucker however unintended to those in Scotland who would attack the Jewish community and reject this motion before us. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I now call Daniel Johnson in around five minutes, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by agreeing with the minister? He says very clearly that the context that this legislation is taking place. We are right to acknowledge and repeat that what happened on October 7 was an act of terrorism. It was barbaric and it was horrific. Similarly, what has happened subsequently in Gaza is nothing short of a humanitarian disaster. We must make every effort to stop the killing and get the support that is required in place, and we must take every effort to ensure that there are no further acts of terrorism. That may be very clear with Mr Fraser. My views on those issues are a matter of record in this place. We must have no complacency about antisemitism and that may be very clear. Any procurement policy that singled Israel out specifically would be an act of antisemitism under the IRA guidelines. Let me say that unequivocally, but it is unfortunate that he approached this debate singling at that particular issue, because this is legislation that will go far beyond the Israel-Palestine issue, as difficult as that might be. I am very happy to give it a word. I am grateful to Mr Johnson for giving way. Can you name me any other countries where there have been campaigns to sanction? Any other countries with human rights records far worse than Israel have been campaigns to sanction, because this debate is only about Israel? They may well not receive the prominence, but there are campaigns against procurement from Myanmar, China because of the Uyghur situation. The situation in Israel-Palestine receives a lot more attention, but it is incorrect to say that it is the only situation that receives that attention. More importantly, although I agree with the Government motion, the issue goes much further, because it is about stifling local government. Critically, we need to remind ourselves that local government has a long-standing, historic role—dare I say—constitutional role, given that that has been mentioned by Mr Fraser in this country. It is because of local government that we have seen much of the social progress through municipal socialism, just in a moment, developing healthcare welfare systems that we would not have if it was not for local government. Likewise, the position that it has taken over key global issues has been important. In 1981, Glasgow district council permitted the freedom of the city to Nelson Mandela. Subsequent that the campaigns undertaken by local government were instrumental at a time when national government did not want to concede the issues regarding South Africa. Thank you, Mr Johnson, for giving way. The point that Mr Johnson has made about South Africa and the campaign against anti-apartheid South Africa was largely led by local authorities here in Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK. Thank goodness that they played a part. The other aspect of that is that many of our local authorities have twin cities, and sometimes hardship has gone through with some of those twin cities. I have seen in Aberdeen two twin cities—Boolywale, Zimbabwe and Gomel and Belarus—where the local authorities have chosen to break links for certain points because of political situations in those countries. Is Mr Fraser and others really saying that local authorities should be unable to do that? I think that Mr Fraser and others would need to answer for themselves, but in my view it is important that democratic bodies such as local government reflect the values of the people that elect them. I think that it is important that they are able to use their economic judgment, and it is not just matters of global import, but other issues such as fair work, fair trade, the environment. It is only right that local government is able to exercise its economic judgment using its procurement powers to ensure that its procurement is following in line with its value judgment. If that is deemed to be unacceptable, exceeding their parameters, there is a mechanism for that. It is called an election, and local people can judge for themselves about who they return to local government in order to do that. What does it say about the state of this Government's foreign policy that it is so weak that it is undermined by the procurement positions of local government? That is a nonsense, but what is worse is that it goes further because it is not just local council that supplies to bodies such as universities. Universities that are supposed to be independent, and I worry about what that does in terms of their independence and what further ramifications it may have. Universities guard their independence with great pride but are also very cautious about anything that would undermine it. It is useful and important to note that the University of Scotland has said unequivocally that they would want universities removed from the provisions of that. Ultimately, I think that that is the sign of a weak Government, a Government that would rather stoke culture wars because it struggles to deal with the consequences of the ruin economic decisions. A weak Government that would rather seek division because it struggles to be relevant of the day-to-day issues faced by people. Ultimately, it is not no wonder that this is a Government that is seeking to avoid an election itself because it fears the consequences and what the people's judgment will be when the general election comes along. Mr Johnson and I call on Tom Martha to wind up the debate minister around about five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and to members for their contribution. The strength of feeling in relation to this bill is obvious for anyone who is watching this debate. It is clear that, whilst the effects of the bill are felt in relation to decisions that may be taking about relatively technical public procurement and investment matters, it provokes a range of views about issues that are the utmost important, including the current situation in the Middle East. As I hope my opening remarks made clear, I do not think that a half-hour debate on legislative consent is the place to do justice to those issues. The Government's view on those issues is well known and I do not propose to go into detail on it again here. Indeed, the current constitutional settlement means the consent of the Scottish Parliament is only needed in relation to the inclusion of the Scottish ministers within the scope of the bill and the limitation of executive competence as a result. However, whilst we may recognise that there are a range of views in those matters, a recognition that there may be a range of views is precisely what this bill fails to achieve. It would, by force of law, prevent Scottish ministers from even publishing a statement saying that they would do things differently with it not for this UK Government bill. I will state that again, Presiding Officer. It would, by force of law, prevent the Scottish ministers from even publishing a statement saying that they would do things differently with it not for this UK Government bill. It would allow the Secretary of State to investigate issue compliance notices and even levy fines on the Scottish ministers if they do not comply. That cannot be acceptable. The nature of parliamentary democracy means that there will inevitably be some members who think that the Government should be doing more in relation to a given issue in its procurement and investment decisions and, inevitably, there will be some members who think that the Government should be doing something differently or not at all. The effect of this bill is to remove the ability of the Scottish ministers to take those views into account and to make decisions on them in relation to what are devolved matters. It will also remove the ability of this Parliament to hold Scottish ministers to account for those decisions because Scottish ministers will be unable to act or, potentially, even explain why they have not acted. The Scottish ministers would only be allowed to take a disapproval of foreign state conduct into account in procurement and investment decisions such as we have done in relation to Russia if the UK Government had first permitted this by way of regulations. If members will forgive the understatement, I am not sure that it is optimal to always have to rely on sound judgment from the UK Government on such matters. However, that is not the point. The point is that on devolved matters such as in relation to public procurement, devolved ministers must be able to make the decisions that they see fit, albeit always in compliance with international obligations and international law. The bill is to roll a rolling back of devolution and we must stand firm against that. Let us not forget those international obligations. They already prevent boycotts, they already give bidders from Israel and elsewhere the right to bring legal action against discrimination and they were put into domestic law by the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. The limitation of executive competence imposed by the bill on the Scottish ministers is unacceptable. It is disproportionate and unnecessary and it runs contrary to the basic principles of democracy and devolution. I therefore ask members to agree the motion and to send a message to the UK Government that its proposal is deplorable. Thank you. That concludes the debate. Time to move on to the next item of business. And there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business while we change front-bench.