“It’s absolutely contemptible the Government would seek to bar public bodies from making choices when it comes to their investment that is about opposing a state engaged in human rights abuses or environmental vandalism.”
John McDonnell MP
By John McDonnell MP
The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill is due to have its Third Reading on Wednesday 10 July. It has not been substantially changed since its Second Reading, when I voted against this egregious and divisive Bill.
The legislation – which has been widely termed by campaigning groups, NGOs, trade unions and others as the ‘anti-boycott bill’ – takes up a point from the 2019 Tory manifesto to “ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.”
The Bill argues that public bodies making investment or procurement decisions must not allow that decision to be influenced by “political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.” It will apply to a range of public institutions, including local councils, some pension funds and universities. In this regard, it can also be seen as a direct attack on local democracy from an increasingly authoritarian Government.
It has been widely opposed by a range of social, climate and global justice campaigners on the grounds that boycott and divestment have for decades been tools used by campaigners for human rights, workers’ rights and the environment.
It is absolutely contemptible and anti-democratic that the Government would seek to bar public bodies from making choices when it comes to their investment or spending that is about opposing a state engaged in human rights abuses or environmental vandalism – or companies tied to them – unless explicitly permitted to do so by the national government, especially since the current national government has so many dubious allies internationally, most notably Saudi Arabia.
The most obvious example of a successful boycott campaign, both in Britain and internationally, is perhaps the global movement against apartheid South Africa. And it is one that is deeply relevant to the debate on this bill today.
Supported by millions around the globe – and numerous public bodies including local councils here in Britain – the international boycott campaign’s importance in helping to ensure the end of Apartheid was recognised by Nelson Mandela and the ANC after they came to power.
In the 1980s I remember one Christmas morning singing carols as part of the City of London Anti Apartheid Groups 24 hour permanent picket of the South African Embassy that went on for years, calling for sanctions to be used to secure Nelson Mandela’s freedom.
Margaret Thatcher of course opposed international campaigns against apartheid in South Africa, and we should be clear that, as Liberty have put it, “had this law been in place during the 1980s it would have forced local authorities & universities to do business with apartheid South Africa.”
Much of the debate on this Bill will inevitably focus on Palestine, and it is certainly the case that trade unions, religious groups and others have declared their support for divestment when it comes to supporting Palestinian rights, after research in 2020 argued that Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) funds in England and Wales have invested at least £3.2 billion in companies involved in the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, and the violation of Palestinian human rights.
To give one example, UNISON explained their support for divestment in 2021 by saying that “In February 2020 the UN Human Rights Council published a database listing some of the business enterprises involved in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory” and that “UNISON is calling on pension funds to begin the process of divesting from these companies as an important first step.”
As we witness daily war crimes against the people of Gaza – some it is becoming apparent has been carried out with weaponry from the UK – the case for more such actions in solidarity with the people of Palestine is overwhelming. They certainly shouldn’t be banned.
But it is vital to also understand that this Bill isn’t just applicable with regards to Israel, it could be used to cover boycott of – or disinvestment from – any number of human rights abusing countries.
I have been involved in successive boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaigns for decades.
I have backed campaigns for action when it comes to supporting Palestinian human rights, but also against the abuses of Saudi regime – including over a decade ago where we called for no public contracts to be awarded to companies operating in Saudi Arabia at a time when they were beheading people for being gay.
Additionally, I have been active in support of Ukrainian rights against Russia’s occupiers, with regards to the Sri Lankan genocidal attack on the Tamils, against Chinese oppression of the Uyghur in Xinjiang, and opposing the disgraceful treatment of the LGBT community in Uganda.
The list of the BDS campaigns I have supported over the years just goes on and includes other cases too.
The focus of all these campaigns has been to press for action from government but also from local councils, pension funds, private companies and investors.
One of the pension funds that has been targeted is the Local Government Pension Fund of which I am a member.
The funds it invests are my money.
They are my stored wages. It should be for me and my fellow pension fund members to determine the investment policies of the fund not government diktat.
On many of the international human rights issues I have listed the national Government has not always agreed, and therefore would not have granted an exception to allow boycotts or divestments under this proposed legislation.
We also need to recognise that the deepening climate emergency demands ethical investment and procurement decisions from all public bodies and levels of Government. Divestment from those Governments – and associated companies – that continue to expand the fossil fuel industry no matter the human and environmental cost could not be more important in the years ahead.
It is clearly not the role of a central Government which is failing totally in this area to potentially restrict the ability of others to take effective action.
And the Bill is also a threat to freedom of expression. As Ruth Ehrlich of Liberty has said, “For a government that professes to care about free speech, the proposed anti-boycott bill, once again, shows their flimsy commitment to protecting freedom of expression.”
For all these reasons and more, this Bill represents yet another Tory attack on democratic rights and civil liberties – it must be opposed.
- John McDonnell MP is a regular columnist for Labour Outlook. Follow John on Twitter here and Facebook here.
- Find out more about the Right to Boycott coalition here.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
Featured image: John McDonnell speaking to fast food workers holding a strike meeting at London’s Leicester Square on Thursday 4th October 2018. Photo credit: Garry Knight under CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
