HUMAN rights groups, unions and environmentalists have urged Scottish ministers to reject a UK Government bill which stops public bodies from imposing boycotts on foreign countries.
The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill bans councils, universities and other bodies from imposing economic boycotts on countries not sanctioned by the Westminster government, singling out Israel as particularly worthy of protection.
Tory ministers argue that UK foreign policy should be a matter for the UK Government only, and that the bill protects Jewish communities against campaigns it believes are fuelling antisemitism.
These include the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which campaigns for organisations to cut economic ties with Israel in protest over its treatment of Palestinians.
However, critics of the bill argue it protects the Israeli government from a legitimate international movement concerned over human rights, and would limit campaigns against abuses in other parts of the world – such as the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China.
The Scottish Government has still to decide whether to grant legal consent to the bill. It can issue a veto – in the form of a legislative procedure known as a “consent mechanism” under the Sewel Convention – over anything that gives UK ministers powers in devolved areas. MSPs then vote on the recommendation from Scottish ministers to refuse legal consent.
The UK Government announced the bill in the last Queen’s speech and introduced it to the House of Commons in June. Earlier this month, the bill received initial backing after several hours of debate in the House of Commons. MPs voted by 268 to 70 votes in favour of the legislation.
It has been sponsored by Michael Gove MP (below), the communities secretary, who has long been a critic of the BDS movement.
The bill specifically names only one country, Israel, so the debate has largely focused on boycotts of Israel and illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The BDS movement calls for broad-based economic and cultural boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements – similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.
Such boycotts are backed by Palestinians who see them as applying pressure on Israel to end its military occupation.
The Israeli government, on the other hand, sees the entire BDS movement as unjustly singling out Israel and describes it as antisemitic.
In Scotland there have been campaigns urging councils, pensions funds and universities to cut economic ties with illegal West Bank settlements, as covered by The Ferret.
In 2021, for example, we reported that Lothian Pension Fund no longer held shares in an Israeli bank which financed illegal West Bank settlements, prompting pro-Palestinian divestment campaigners to claim to have won a “landmark victory”.
Critics of the bill include Naomi McAuliffe, Amnesty International Scotland director, who pointed out that while international relations are reserved to Westminster, their implementation in devolved areas, including procurement, is a devolved matter.
She said the legislation would “cut across” the Scottish Government’s policy of discouraging public bodies from sourcing goods from Israel’s illegal settlements.
It could also mean a Scottish public body taking the decision to stop procuring from distribution companies whose products are linked to deforestation of the Amazon, may be challenged in the High Court. This would be on the grounds that the decision was influenced by “political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”, McAuliffe said.
She added: “The Scottish Government has placed a strong emphasis on using procurement policy to advance equality and human rights and to tackle climate change. We are concerned that policies like these could fall foul of this bill.”
Gerry Coutts, vice chair of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, argued the bill would be a “clear infringement” on Scotland’s powers under devolution. He claimed it is “doing what Margaret Thatcher tried to do in the 1980s – protect an apartheid state, in that case South Africa, from an international solidarity movement”.
Coutts added: “The anti-boycott bill is clearly highly political, with the stated aim of protecting Israel from the BDS movement. BDS was called for by Palestinian civil society in 2005, and demands equal rights for Palestinians living inside Israel, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, and the end of the occupation. All of these demands correspond to very basic rights enshrined in international law.”
The Scottish Greens MSP Gillian Mackay (below) claimed the UK Government cares little for ethics, human rights and environmental responsibilities, and the bill is a “charter for making institutions across the country complicit in some of the worst human rights abuses and violations of international law happening around the world”.
She added: “But using legislation to legally ban others from caring takes this to another level. It’s an attack on freedom of speech, on freedom of conscience, and paired with planned restrictions on our rights to strike and to protest, it’s an attack on the fundamentals of democracy.”
Emily Apple, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, described the bill as “extremely worrying” and argued public authorities should make their own ethical decisions on boycotting human rights abusing regimes without interference from the government.
“Boycotting and divesting has long been a successful tactic of campaigns, enabling the exertion of financial and cultural pressure both against foreign states and the government,” said Apple, who also claimed the bill is part of a “concerted effort by the UK Government to clamp down on all forms of dissent”.
Other organisations opposed to the bill include the Fire Brigades Union, which described it as a “pernicious attempt to undermine those fighting against oppression”. Friends of the Earth said it is “deeply concerned” about the negative impact the legislation could have on campaigns to encourage public bodies to cut economic ties with countries, companies or products contributing to climate change.
Supporters of the bill include Scottish Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw who claimed the Government’s “sensible measures” have been backed by the Jewish community. He argued that councils and other public bodies “have often acted well beyond their remit with gratuitous bans, making life very unsettling for Jewish communities”.
“It may be predictable but nonetheless, it is nothing short of a disgrace that the SNP-Green government are not planning on following suit and are willing to hang Scotland’s Jewish community out to dry,” Carlaw added.
THE bill has divided opinion in the Jewish community but has strong support from the British Board of Deputies, which reportedly said: “We appreciate how the [UK] Government is working to prevent these organisations from setting their own foreign policy, which all too often creates a deeply divisive local situation as well as being deeply unsettling to local Jewish communities.“ The Ferret asked the Board to comment for this report but it declined and referred us to the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. Its director, Ephraim Borowski, said: “We intend to consult among the community in order to assess how the proposed legislation might impact on Jewish people in Scotland, and then submit evidence once the legislative consent motion has been published.
“We expect there to be a wide range of opinions throughout the community but until we have done this, we are not in a position, as a representative organisation, to express an opinion on behalf of the entire community.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Scottish Government officials have discussed the Bill with UK Government counterparts and are now examining its detail and impact on Scotland.
“As required by the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament, ministers will lodge a legislative consent memorandum setting out their view on whether consent should be given in due course”.
In 2014, the Scottish Government discouraged trade with illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. First Minister Humza Yousaf, in his role then as external affairs minister, published guidance for public bodies dealing with companies that may be involved in West Bank settlements.
He said then: “The exploitation of assets in illegal settlements by any company is likely to constitute grave professional misconduct for the purposes of procurement legislation.
“This government expects public sector contractors to maintain high standards of business and professional conduct. The policy note we have issued today underlines that expectation and advises purchasers to seek assurances that any Israeli-based company they consider entering into a contract with, is not in any way involved in illegal settlements.
“Contracting authorities are also advised to seek assurances that any goods they are looking to procure which originate in Israel have not been produced in illegal settlements.”
The UK Government has been asked to comment.
