Birmingham Local Conservatives have condemned a council motion targeting Israel-related investments, warning against discriminatory double standards and demanding that the Council put residents, essential services and taxpayers first.
The motion, which was debated at City Council on 3 November, sought a review of pension investments with options including exclusion or divestment, alongside a review of the Council’s banking relationships.
Conservatives opposed the motion, because of its selective focus on Israel and the diversion of council attention and resources whilst Birmingham faces financial pressures and serious service failures.
Cllr Robert Alden, Leader of the Birmingham Conservative Group, said:
“Human rights standards should be applied consistently. Singling out the world’s only Jewish state for exceptional treatment raises serious questions about the principles behind this motion. The internationally recognised IHRA definition identifies double standards towards Israel as a potential manifestation of antisemitism. Councillors should take that warning seriously. Israel is a democratic partner with longstanding ties to Britain in trade, science and security. Its government can and should be scrutinised but its people’s right to security and the Jewish people’s right to self-determination deserve respect alongside the rights and security of Palestinians".
“Concern for Palestinian civilians deserves a serious response, but this motion offered no credible explanation of how Birmingham reviewing its banking arrangements or lobbying over pension investments would improve their lives".
"Birmingham residents need a council concentrating on reliable bin collections, support for vulnerable children and adults, decent housing and getting its finances under control. Those are responsibilities that this Council can actually deliver. The Better Birmingham group would do well to remember the name they gave themselves in the summer and ask how concentrating on a conflict thousands of miles away will deliver a better Birmingham.”
In a letter dated 1st November, UKLFI raised serious concerns about procurement restrictions, pension investment responsibilities and the Council’s public sector equality duty. It called for the motion to be withdrawn or deferred pending proper legal and equality advice.
Conservatives say these concerns should have received a substantive response before councillors were asked to approve the proposals. Qualifying a motion with references to legal duties does not explain which actions could lawfully follow, what the reviews would cost or what benefit they would deliver.
The Group is warning that, even if commissioning a review was permissible in principle, spending public money on a review directed towards outcomes the Council could not lawfully pursue could itself raise serious questions about compliance with its statutory Best Value duty.
Cllr Alden added:
“We opposed this motion because its selective approach is wrong and Birmingham deserves better priorities. Our opposition does not depend on whether lawyers ultimately conclude that its wording is lawful. But councillors must also know whether the proposals can lawfully be delivered before they vote. The warning from UK Lawyers for Israel raises serious questions which the Council must answer. Simply saying that this is ‘only a review’ does not resolve those questions. If the Council cannot lawfully pursue the outcomes being sought, what does spending taxpayers’ money reviewing them achieve? A review with no lawful, useful purpose could itself breach the Council’s duty to secure Best Value".
“Pension investments must be managed responsibly in the interests of scheme members. Council banking and procurement decisions must protect public money, maintain services and comply with the law.
“Birmingham has enough urgent problems that its councillors have the power and responsibility to address. That is why we opposed this motion and press the Council to put its energy into cleaning up Birmingham.”
