Islington Council passes key motion on the Anti-Boycott Bill claiming the Bill poses a threat to local democracy, freedom of expression and civil society campaigns

 I wrote about concerns over the Government's Anti-Boycott Bill some time ago LINK so I was pleased to see that Islington Council last night approved a motion opposing the Bill and pointing out its difficulties. The initial motion was moved by two Green councillors, and amended by Labour. The final motion (below) was passed unanimously:

This Council notes:

•   The “Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill”, otherwise known as the "anti-boycott bill", is slowly making its way through Parliament, and passed its second reading in July.

•   The government’s planned anti-boycott bill poses a threat to local democracy, freedom of expression and civil society campaigns. It will shield states involved in practices that many people in this country find abhorrent, including genocide and occupation.

•   If approved, the bill will restrict the ability of public bodies such as local authorities, universities, and some pension funds to make ethical decisions about investment and procurement. It will violate the rights of individual pension holders to invest their pensions in line with their values.

•   The Labour Party tabled an amendment to the bill which sought to allow public bodies to make their own investment and procurement decisions and remove the threat of fines, ensuring that that such decisions are in accordance with an ethical investment framework that is applied equally across the board. This amendment was defeated in the House of Commons

•   A broad coalition of over seventy organisations including charities, trade unions, human rights and faith organisations are working publicly to stop the bill, alongside the Scottish government.

•   Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK's Chief Executive, called the bill “pernicious” and said “it will close off a key means to hold companies to account and once again show that this Government thinks little of the plight of persecuted communities around the world.”

•   Lisa Nandy, MP for Wigan, revealed that the Labour Party has taken legal advice over the bill, calling it “bad law” and stating that lawyers had raised concerns that the bill could lead the way for endless litigation in the courts over the practice of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

  This Council further notes:

•   Procurement of goods and services is an important part of councils’ expenditure with third party revenue expenditure totalling around £60 billion a year across local government. This council spends £650million with almost 6,000 providers.

•   In our progressive procurement strategy – adopted in 2020 – we seek to encourage and amplify the award of work, supply and service contracts to companies and professionals that perform public contracts with a business model based on ethical behaviour, and to promote democratic participation and drive social innovation.

•   The framework incorporates a series of mandatory ethical requirements that we expect of ourselves and from those who want to do business with the council. By ethical behaviour, we define this as decent wages, fair employment practices, safeguards against modern slavery and environmental sustainability.

•   In 2018, Islington became the first council nationally to sign the Charter Against Modern Slavery

•   Over 80 local authorities across the UK have now signed the Charter, which Islington Council helped draft. Addressing modern slavery is a key priority for the council, with work on it overseen by the Safer Islington Partnership. We have an ongoing training programme to assist staff and partners to identify the signs of modern slavery.

•   We use our leverage as a major commissioner to encourage suppliers to support and endorse accreditations and charters such as ethical procuring and supply chain visibility.

•   Trade Unions have an important role to play in the fight against modern slavery and exploitation by supporting and championing workers’ rights. Workers and providers are frequently not aware of their rights and responsibilities. It is for that reason that the Council has taken a stand against blacklisting of trade union members and emphasise this requirement as mandatory.

•   BDS has a centuries-long tradition as a successful method of peaceful protest and local government has played its part in following this democratic political practice.

•   BDS campaigns have been used by social movements to change the course of history for the better.

•   Concerned members of the public and local authorities have championed BDS tactics in prominent campaigns such as the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, the rejection of sugar produced on slave plantations, led by nineteenth century British citizens, and divestment from fossil fuel companies. The best-known boycott was the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

•   During the campaign to end South African apartheid, similar limitations were introduced. Nonetheless, millions of people, including local councils, continued their support for the movement.

•   In 2016, a UK High Court ruled that the boycotts of Israeli settlement goods by local authorities in Leicester and Wales were not anti-Semitic, nor did they contravene laws on equality.

•   Restricting the ability of local councils to engage in BDS in wrong. In a world where Uyghur’s, undergoing ethnic cleansing, are forced to produce garments and commodities, where local government pension funds are invested in arms companies known to be complicit in violations of Palestinian human rights, and where Saudi Arabia, accused of crimes against humanity, is the world’s largest oil exporter, we need these tactics to hold those complicit to account.

This Council resolves to:

•   Write to the Prime Minister to share, and ask him to consider, the legal opinion published by the Labour Party on the rights of councils to boycott oppressive regimes and illegal practices, emphasising the need for councils to make their own decisions on procurement and investment matters.

•   Continue to ensure that our own ethical procurement strategy doesn’t include procuring goods and services produced by oppressive regimes,

How would the government's Anti-Boycott Bill impact on Brent, Camden and Harrow Councils' right to make ethical decisions. Film and Discussion September 20th

The battle against the Government's Anti-Boycott Bill will be hotting up this Autumn as opposition builds across the trade union, human rights, religious, anti-arms trade, peace and  climate movements.

The bill would prohibit public bodies, including universities and councils from supporting BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) on issues not in line with government foreign policy.

This would directly impact on Brent Council's freedom to make ethical decisions on its investment decisions, including the staff pension fund, and  procurement decisions.

It does not prohibit individuals and other organisations from advocating BDS but could well have a chilling effect, particularly if extended to other issues as the film Boycott shows in the US context. There will be a local showing of Boycott followed by a discussion on Wednesday September 20th.

This is the Trade Union Congress motion that was moved by the National Education Union and seconded by UNISON that was passed yesterday:

The current right-wing Israeli Government, having launched its biggest military incursion in the West Bank in two decades, is announcing new illegal settlements, expelling Palestinians from East Jerusalem and Masafer Yatta, demolishing homes and schools, and failing to prevent armed settlers from rampaging through villages killing and attacking Palestinians, destroying homes and agricultural lands.

The Israeli military has this year killed more than 180 Palestinians.

Congress further notes:

The Government’s Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill would undermine ethical investment and procurement by public bodies by restricting the consideration of human and workers’ rights, international law and environmental concerns, linked to the behaviour of a foreign state. It damages freedom of speech, local democracy, devolution and pension scheme members’ rights.

The legislation would shield the Israeli government from accountability, alongside companies complicit in its occupation, by legislating to silence those trying to achieve change.

Congress believes:

Any attempt to delegitimise the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and to suggest that Palestinians should be denied the right to appeal to people of conscience for support, must be rejected.

The ability of public authorities, including public sector pension funds, to divest from companies responsible for violations of human rights should be defended.

Such legislation could have blocked the boycott of goods and companies complicit in Apartheid South Africa.

Congress resolves to:

Reaffirm support for Palestinian rights, including our commitment to “boycott the goods of companies who profit from illegal settlements, the Occupation and the construction of the Wall”.

Support the Right to Boycott coalition
Campaign with affiliates against the Bill.

Mover: NEU
Seconder: UNISON

 

On Wednesday 20th September Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Camden PSC and Brent Friends of Palestine  are joining together for a free showing of the film Boycott that reveals what happened when similar rules were introduced in the US.

The film will be followed by a discussion led by Ben Jamal, Director of Palestine Solidarity, on the implications for the UK.

 

FREE REGISTRATION HERE

We must defend the right to boycott as a peaceful means to bring about change - Public Meeting Monday April 24th Chalkhill Community Centre

 RIGHT TO BOYCOTT PUBLIC MEETING APRIL 24TH

WEMBLEY PARK

 

Monday April 24th  at 7.30 to 9pm.   Chalkhill Community Centre,  Welford Centre, 113 Chalkhill Road, Wembley Park, HA9 9FX 2 minutes walk from Wembley Park tube station and served by many buses from all parts of Brent and Harrow.

 

SPEAKERS: Andrew Feinstein, Former ANC MP in South Africa and Ryvka Barnard, Deputy Director, Palestine Solidarity Campaign. 

 

Entry is free  but PLEASE register with Eventbrite https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/595697135167

 

A public meeting at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday April 24th will focus on Government plans to limit the right of public bodies to boycott. A Coalition has been formed to challenge the  proposed Bill  that could affect many campaigning organisations and its declaration has been signed by 60  human rights and environment campaigns, religious organisations and trade unions. Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) have long been an effective and peaceful means of bringing about change.

THE DECLARATION

As a group of civil society organisations made up of trade unions, charities, NGOs, faith, climate justice, human rights, cultural, campaigning, and solidarity organisations, we advocate for the right of public bodies to decide not to purchase or procure from, or invest in companies involved in human rights abuse, abuse of workers’ rights, destruction of our planet, or any other harmful or illegal acts. We therefore oppose the government’s proposed law to stop public bodies from taking such actions.

The government has indicated that a main intention of any legislation is to ensure that public bodies follow UK foreign policy in their purchasing, procurement, and investment decisions, particularly relating to Israel and Palestine. We are concerned that this would prevent public bodies from deciding not to invest in or procure from companies complicit in the violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. We affirm that it is the right of public bodies to do so, and in fact a responsibility to break ties with companies contributing to abuses of rights and violations of international law in occupied Palestine and anywhere else where such acts occur.

From bus boycotts against racial segregation to divestment from fossil fuel companies to arms embargoes against apartheid, boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns have been applied throughout history to put economic, cultural, or political pressure on a regime, institution, or company to force it to change abusive, discriminatory, or illegal policies. If passed, this law will stifle a wide range of campaigns concerned with the arms trade, climate justice, human rights, international law, and international solidarity with oppressed peoples struggling for justice. The proposed law presents a threat to freedom of expression, and the ability of public bodies and democratic institutions to spend, invest and trade ethically in line with international law and human rights.

We call on the UK government to immediately halt this bill, on opposition parties to oppose it and on civil society to mobilise in support of the right to boycott in the cause of justice.

 Badges from the 1980s

 

BRENT HISTORY

The presence on the platform of former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein is particularly appropriate as Brent has a proud record of opposing South African apartheid as I wrote in a previous article:

 South African fruit was a particular target and small groups were set up across the country and in universities with at its peak  140-150 groups.  The deaths of two students in 1976 in the Soweto Students Uprising generated further support for action against apartheid and in 1984 Brent Anti-Apartheid was working with the National Union of Students, women's groups and black organisations appealing to Trade Unions not to handle South African goods.

There were calls for boycotts that  have similarities with those promoted today by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign with a wider focus targeting sporting links, divest from companies profiting from apartheid, pension fund divestment, arms embargo and the release of political prisoners.  Barclays Bank, the biggest  high street  bank in South Africa,was targeted locally and Brent Labour Party moved its account to the Co-operative Bank.

The Labour Council at the time was part of a local authority delegation to Margaret Thatcher to present a petition if favour of the boycott and the Council stopped contracts with firms with South African links and councillors took part in pickets of supermarkets urging them not to stock South African goods.

Reflecting on that history it is to be hoped that the current Labour Council will also stand up for the right to boycott and divest.

 Monday's meeting is jointly organised by Brent Friends of Palestine who raise funds for the charity Brent Friends of Palestine, and the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign.  With Amnesty International claiming that  Israel is operating a system of apartheid LINK it is telling that two of the 1980s badges above, on ending investment and boycotting Barclay's Bank, apply to current campaigns on human rights in Palestine, the arms trade and investment in fossil fuels.

Ryvka Barnard from Palestine Solidarity will make the links with current campaigns, the situtation in Israel-Palestine and the need to strongly resist the Government's propose new law.

In 2020 when PSC asked Brent Council for details of its Local Government Pension Fund Investments the following companies that they invested in were involved in arms sales etc:

Barclays £1,252,342
Barclays is a British multinational bank and financial services company. Barclays hold approximately £1,167.6 millions of investments in companies that are known to supply the Israeli military. This includes Babcock, BAE and Boeing, Cobham and Rolls Royce. More information available in War on Want’s 2017 ‘Deadly Investments’ report.

BAE Systems £970,233
According to CAAT, “BAE Systems is the world’s fourth largest arms producer. Its portfolio includes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles and small arms ammunition. It has military customers in over 100 countries. BAE has a workshare agreement with Lockheed Martin producing the US F-35 stealth combat aircraft. Israel, for example, took delivery of its first F-35 in 2016. According to Investigate, a project by the American Friends Service Committee, BAE has worked in cooperation with Lockheed Martin and Rafael to produce and market the naval Protector drone used to maintain the siege of Gaza along the Mediterranean coast.

Smiths Group £316,811
According to CAAT “Smiths Group is a global technology company with five divisions: John Crane, Smiths Medical, Smiths Detection, Smiths Interconnect and Flex-Tek. Smiths Connectors is part of Smiths Interconnect and comprises Hypertac, IDI and Sabritec brands. Products include connectors used in fighting vehicles, unmanned vehicles and avionics systems.” They have applied for a number of military export licences to Israel.

Rolls Royce £294,535
Rolls-Royce is a British manufacturer that produces military aircraft engines, naval engines and cores for nuclear submarines. Despite arms comprising only 26% of its total sales, it is still the world’s 17th largest Arms trade. In 2014, the year of Israel’s arial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, which killed over 2,200 civilians, nearly a quarter of them children, Rolls-Royce was granted export licenses for engines for military aircrafts to Israel

When PSC requested updated information last year Brent Council said they were unable to supply details of individual companies as they were incorporated into various investment funds.

Cracks in the Wall - Beyond Apartheid in Palestine/Israel - November 20th 7.30pm Granville Centre - with Ben White

UPDATE Barnet Council tonight debates banning those calling for Israel boycott on grounds of ‘antisemitism’ as defined by the IHRA examples

From Palestine Solidarity Campaign

UPDATE via Barnet Momentum The motion was not taken last night. It has been referred to Barnet  Policy and Resources Committee which next meets on October 23rd.

Barnet Councillor Brian Gordon is to propose a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion [below] cites the hotly disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document on antisemitism as justification for the move. The meeting is at Hendon Town Hall, 7pm tonight.

The motion calls for the London Borough of Barnet to ‘consider the legality of ensuring’ it does ‘not to provide or rent any space’ to individuals and groups supporting the BDS movement – effectively seeking a ban on events promoting sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Councillor Gordon’s motion specifically quotes the contentious guidance notes to the IHRA document in order to claim that BDS is antisemitic, because other countries are not similarly targeted. 

However no other country that the UK treats as an ally has been in illegal occupation of another country for over 50 years, suppressing the human rights of its inhabitants.

The motion has national significance because the Labour Party – which has adopted the 38-word IHRA definition of antisemitism – has been criticised for not fully adopting the guidanceattached to it, including the two examples cited in the motion.

Jonathan Rosenhead, Vice Chair of Free Speech on Israel, said:

Those criticising Labour for failing to adopt the full IHRA guidance claim the document poses no threat to freedom of expression. This motion being put forward in Barnet clearly demonstrates that they are wrong and vindicates the adjustments made by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

Palestinians have a right to describe their history and the continuing racist injustices that deny them their rights, whether as unequal citizens of the State of Israel, living under military occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, under siege in Gaza, or as refugees denied the right of return. Others have a right to hear this information and, in line with a commitment to fighting racism in all its forms, to respond to the Palestinian call for global action via Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

Despite the clear warning from distinguished lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC in his legal opinion on the IHRA document, groups lobbying for Israel have continued to press public bodies both to adopt the IHRA definition and to use it to suppress both legitimate criticism of Israel, and calls for action on behalf of the Palestinian people. In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel , Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights including Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour and Palestine Solidarity Campaign are calling for the motion to be withdrawn. They have also called for the UK government to issue a clear statement that no public body should use the IHRA definition to prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel (which includes describing its laws and policies as “racist” and meeting the legal definition of “apartheid”). Nor should they use it to prevent calls for peaceful actions including boycott divestment and sanctions in response to Israel’s continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.

Administration motion in the name of Cllr Brian Gordon Boycott the antisemitic BDS movement 

On 31^st January 2017, Barnet became the first local authority to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism and its corresponding guidance, which recognises that antisemitism takes many forms including, in certain circumstances, targeting of the State of Israel. 

The IHRA’s guidance rightly points out that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled [sic] against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, Council believes the aims, methods, and rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and believes its go well beyond this, and are consistent with the IHRA’s guidance on the definition of antisemitism. Specifically: 

·      A completely disproportionate focus on the State of Israel to the exclusion of all other territorial disputes and ethnic conflicts in the world, e.g. the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; 

·      “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour [sic]”; 

·      Frequently reported incidents of BDS activists “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” and “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.” 

·      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 
Following similar action taken by the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on 25^th August 2017, Council instructs the Policy & Resources Committee to produce a Use of Council Premises policy and to consider the legality of ensuring:
·      The London Borough of Barnet does not provide any space or areas for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet instructs its companies not to provide or rent any space for affiliates, organizations or individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet appeals to landlords of event venues in the borough not to provide or rent any space for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet does not make any donations or grants to associations, organisations or other groups which support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

Council also reaffirms its commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, whether against religion, race, sex, gender, or age. 


--> -->
-->

Victory for BDS campaigners as G4S sells Israeli subsidiary

G4S has announced that it will be selling its subsidiary, G4S Israel, “in the next 12 to 24 months”.

For the last four years, G4S has been the target of a sustained campaign by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement because of its connection with the Israeli occupation.

Campaigners have attended the company’s Annual General Meeting in London every year for the last three years, dominating the AGM proceedings with questions to the board about G4S’s involvement in Israeli prisons.

Universities across the UK, and globally, as well as local councils have made decisions not to renew security contracts with G4S and not to consider new tenders from the company while it continued to do business with Israel. 

Sara Apps, interim Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

We welcome the decision by the G4S board to sell G4S Israel, and hope that the company will fulfil this pledge in the timescale given.

This decision is a vindication of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its tactics of peacefully putting pressure on companies to divest from the Israeli occupation.

G4S was one of the biggest targets of the BDS movement, and its decision to disinvest from Israel is a landmark victory in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination.

G4S follows other BDS targets, including Veolia and Orange, in announcing its decision to sell its Israeli subsidiaries in the last 12 month

G4S has announced that it will be selling its subsidiary, G4S Israel, “in the next 12 to 24 months”.
For the last four years, G4S has been the target of a sustained campaign by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement because of its connection with the Israeli occupation.
Campaigners have attended the company’s Annual General Meeting in London every year for the last three years, dominating the AGM proceedings with questions to the board about G4S’s involvement in Israeli prisons.
Universities across the UK, and globally, as well as local councils have made decisions not to renew security contracts with G4S and not to consider new tenders from the company while it continued to do business with Israel.
Sara Apps, interim Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “We welcome the decision by the G4S board to sell G4S Israel, and hope that the company will fulfil this pledge in the timescale given.
“This decision is a vindication of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its tactics of peacefully putting pressure on companies to divest from the Israeli occupation.
“G4S was one of the biggest targets of the BDS movement, and its decision to disinvest from Israel is a landmark victory in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination.”
G4S follows other BDS targets, including Veolia and Orange, in announcing its decision to sell its Israeli subsidiaries in the last 12 month
- See more at: http://www.palestinecampaign.org/13160-2/#sthash.W7oXzE7e.dpuf

Labour Friends of Palestine condemn government's attack on local authority ethical policies

I don't normally publish press releases from the Labour Party but this might be of interest to readers and local councillors in the context of previous postings on this blog regarding proposed government curbs on the rights of councils and other public bodies to make ethical choices regarding procurement and pension fund investments.

This statement was released today by Labour Friends of  Palestine and the Middle East:
 

This week the Cabinet Office (17/2/2016) published new government guidelines intended “to stop inappropriate procurement boycotts by public authorities.”

Principally aimed at the Palestine supporting BDS campaign it intends to remove the freedom from local authorities and other bodies to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco and other products.

The change in policy has been condemned by politicians, charities, campaigning and church groups and in the press. Many pointed out that these rules, as intended, would have blocked many groups from supporting the campaigns against Apartheid South Africa.

A spokesperson for Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn MP stated:

People have the right to elect local representatives able to make decisions free of central government political control. That includes withdrawal of investments or procurement on ethical and human rights grounds.

During the General Election LFPME asked candidates to sign up to our 6 election pledges, one of which was - ‘Illegal Settlements: Call for a complete freeze on illegal settlement growth in order to save any hope for a viable two state solution, and end all trade and investment with illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.’

Boycott campaigners have reacted to the new guidelines as simply re-stating existing policy, which will not stop groups from following an ethical procurement policy that discriminates against companies based on their human rights record or compliance with international law.

Grahame Morris MP Chair of the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East said:

We have reached a contradictory situation in which we in the International Community economically sustain a major obstacle to peace—the illegal settlements.

Settlement products are the proceeds of crime. They are illicit goods, the product of a brutal occupation and the exploitation of the occupied and their resources. By trading with those who produce them, we financially encourage them.

Those settlements are built on the foundations of immense suffering—that of the Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed, have been expelled from their own land and are living under brutal oppression—yet we make the illegal settlement enterprise profitable for the occupying power.

That seems to me a gross injustice.

Commenting about the BDS movement, Mr Morris added:

 

We should not have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. I am appalled that the government are more focused on preventing boycotts and disinvestment from the illegal settlements rather than attempting to end settlement trade.

This undermines their commitment to international law, human rights and resolving the conflict.

Government 'shutdown of local democratic space' condemned

War on Want has issued the following statement regarding the  Newcastle City Council motion on local authority pennions and procurement policy:
 

War on Want welcomes the news that Newcastle City Council has voted to approve a motion opposing the government’s latest attack on local democracy.

The motion was passed unanimously, with full cross party support, at a recent council meeting. It is now official Newcastle City Council policy.

In November 2015, the government announced a proposal to block local councils from deciding how to invest their pension funds. Under the new plan, the government will have the power to veto investment decisions made locally on ethical grounds concerning human rights, arms trade, fossil fuels and much else.

Councillor Mick Bowman, North Heaton ward, said: 

This vindictive and ideologically motivated proposal, reminiscent of the­­­ notorious Clause 28 introduced by the Tories in 1988, is a blanket attempt to prevent local councils from having an ethical procurement and pensions investment policy.

Newcastle is a city with a proud commitment to human rights and many local councillors are active in social justice campaigns, including the movement for justice for Palestine, and we are determined to do whatever we can to block this proposal.

Ryvka Barnard, Senior Militarism and Security Campaigner at War on Want, said:

Newcastle City Council is fighting back, as are councils across the country, rightly concerned by the government’s attack on democracy and local decision making.

So much for George Osborne’s so called ‘devolution revolution’. The government’s action has consistently failed to match its rhetoric when it comes to localism and devolving power. This plan amounts to a shutdown of local democratic space and is a dangerous threat to the growing power of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to end UK complicity in Israel’s abuses of Palestinian human rights.

Over 10,000 people have responded to the government consultation, rejecting the proposal.
The ‘Protect Local Democracy’ campaign, initiated by War on Want, has been endorsed by a broad range of groups concerned with the human rights and environmental implications of the proposal. UNISON has also expressed concern that the proposal will deny pension scheme members their right to have their pension funds invested in their best interests.