The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (EAPB Bill), also known as the anti-BDS bill, may have passed you by. It has been ignored by most of the mainstream media. The Bill, backed by Michael Gove, was introduced to the Commons on 19 June 2023. It proposes to ban public bodies, including local councils and universities, from using boycotts, divestments, or sanctions (BDS) against foreign states unless aligned with UK Government foreign policy. It has proved to be controversial even within Conservative ranks. BDS was used successfully in the campaign against apartheid in South Africa and is now part of an international movement to put pressure on Israel to follow international law.
The government’s case is that it will make foreign policy more consistent and community relations more cohesive. From the early stages though, Gove stressed Israel was intended to be the prime beneficiary. This singling out of one foreign state above others is the main cause for criticism.
Three areas of concern
From documents we reviewed on the UK Parliament website and related press coverage, we summarise three areas of concern.
First, the special status given to Israel. It is protected from BDS in all circumstances, both now and in the future. This means that human rights infringements, including genocide, torture, or breaches of the Geneva Convention, could never justify BDS against Israel. More widely, without government approval the prohibition would extend to other groups such as the Uyghurs in China.
Second, the conflation of the State of Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights. This is a breach of long-standing UK cross-party policy and UN Security Council resolutions. It prevents BDS action against all goods produced for export in the illegal settlements throughout the West Bank.
Third, it prevents local authorities from making ethical investment choices. This includes local council pension funds.
To see how these controversial elements were handled, we tracked the progress of the Bill through parliament. The stages of the Bill are available on the UK Parliament website.
The EAPB Bill and Parliament
The Bill was first debated during the second reading, which ended with two votes. The first was on a reasoned amendment brought by Lisa Nandy (Labour). Had this passed the Bill would have been stopped.
The amendment began by asserting that Labour agreed with the government in opposing BDS being used by public bodies. Apparently, this had always been Labour policy. Nandy went on to list the criticisms we have identified. However, she struggled, probably as had been intended, to reconcile being against BDS in general and also against the Bill. Her phrase “[the Bill] singles out the State of Israel in effect creating the issue it intends to solve” typifies the compromised thinking that led to a weakly argued case.
It took a Conservative, Alicia Kearns, to marshal a coherent attack on the Bill, which she did with forensic determination. Her case was compelling and well-argued. She did not attempt to fuse irreconcilable positions but instead drilled into the detail, revealing how, for example, UN Security Council Resolution 2334 would be breached.
Government interventions
For the government, there were the usual planned interventions, adding nothing to the debate. For example, Simon Clarke, who is not a lawyer, was allowed to cast doubt on the advice given to the Labour front bench by Richard Hermer KC. Gove was happy to give way and then agree.
Labour lost the vote on the amendment (212 to 272), but then abstained on the final vote, a move that looked like more muddled thinking. The government won the vote on the second reading 268 to 70. With a substantial majority, the government was always going to press home its advantage.
Considering the flak the Bill took from its own side together with some less effective criticism from the opposition, it would be hard to disagree with this summary from Margaret Hodge (Labour):
“The government have put forward legislation that is flawed, poorly drafted, and will have damaging consequences both here and abroad. They have not done it to support Israel, to demonstrate solidarity with the Jewish community, or to show they really care about undermining the BDS movement. They simply want to set a political trap for Labour. By putting their crude party-political interests above the public interest, they confirm what voters think about us – that politicians waste time on childish political games rather than trying to make the world a better place.”
The EAPB Bill rolled on
From the second reading, the Bill complete with all its faults moved to the committee stage. There were 41 amendments suggested, largely by Anum Qaisar (SNP) and Alex Norris (Labour), none of which was accepted. The Committee, however, had a strong Conservative bias (10 out of 17 members) and took no notice of the criticisms from the second reading debate, the expert witnesses or the written evidence.
The Bill then passed through the two remaining stages in the Commons – the report stage and the third reading – without mishap. Its next stop is the Lords where the usual handwringing and expressions of dismay will probably not delay it long.
The Fourth Estate – democracy in jeopardy
The final hurdle is the court of public opinion, for which we look to the Fourth Estate; our fearless watchdogs in the press and broadcast media.
To see how well the Fourth Estate performed, we concentrated on the most likely candidates to have taken some interest: what we termed the ‘trusted media’.
From a YouGov poll, the top five are the BBC, Financial Times, ITV, Channel 4, and The Guardian.
From the first mention of the Bill in May 23, we found 11 instances of the Bill being discussed, mostly in the Guardian (six). The BBC, the most trusted news source in the UK, reported on the Bill a mere three times and the FT reported twice. For comparison, the Daily Mail ran the unfounded “Beergate” story on its front page for well over a week.
The Bill passed you by because the story was hardly covered.
What about Scotland?
The EAPB Bill treats to the devolved nations in a manner that potentially overrides the role of the Scottish government. According to George Peretz KC:
“The government accepts in the explanatory notes published with the Bill that clause 1 and clause 4 modify the powers of the devolved governments and asks for the legislative consent of the Senedd and Scottish Parliament: but it also claims, despite the fact that procurement and public investment decisions are usually regarded as devolved matters, that the Bill falls within an area reserved to Westminster (international relations).”
Not only is the Bill flawed and seems to be motivated by political reasons, but it could also degrade the devolution settlement. It represents a creeping centralisation of power and for Scotland another example of Westminster arrogance.
Another blow to our right to protest
The Bill, probably drafted to trap Labour on antisemitism, will achieve little. In fact, as Margaret Hodge and others argued, it could even inflame community relations. Combined with other restrictive legislation, the Bill will further diminish our right to protest and will do so without Scotland having much say.
The Bill indicates the limits of parliamentary oversight, particularly when a government is determined to exploit its majority and the main opposition party is not clearly focused. Anything can be bulldozed through.
The Fourth Estate will most likely turn a blind eye.
More on politics
