PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban - 9 July 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I call Abtisam Mohamed, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, the Government for allocating time for it, Members from across the House for supporting the application, and 32,000 constituents for writing to their MPs and asking them to attend and speak on this important issue.

Two embattled generations have grown up in the ashes of the collapse of the Oslo accords. What little hope was cultivated then—the promise of two states, of dignity and of democratic rights for all—has been replaced with abject misery. This is how injustice survives: not through one dramatic moment, but through gradual acceptance, the lowering of expectations and the repetition of the same statements while the reality on the ground continues to change.

For years, successive British Governments have said that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, that settlements undermine peace and that they threaten the viability of a two-state solution, yet the settlements continue to expand. I pose to the Government the simple question that sits at the heart of this debate: if settlements are illegal, why have we not banned trade with them outright? What exactly is it that we are waiting for? Why do we continue to maintain a status quo that has rewarded Israeli expansionism while punishing Palestinian aspiration—a status quo that has expected Palestinians to quietly accept that their humanity, rights and self-determination must always play second fiddle?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech; she always holds up a moral compass to us all in this place. Does she agree that those who deny access to medical treatment to children as young as four—who, while waiting for medical treatment, get to the point of near-fatal dehydration—and those who deny cancer patients in their thousands access to medical care in these settlements, are and should be defined as terrorists? If these settlers should be defined as terrorists, is it not incumbent on us and this Government to strain every diplomatic and every technological sinew to ensure that not one single pound of our money is spent enabling this behaviour?

I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a powerful point.

Some time ago, the Palestinian ambassador, Dr Husam Zomlot, reminded parliamentarians that Gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank are not separate issues, but all parts of the same national story. They may be separated, occupied and besieged, but they are all connected by the same struggle for freedom. Together, they are the beating heart of one state of Palestine—a state that the UK, our Government, has quite rightly taken a historic step to recognise. Yet, although we have recognised Palestine in its entirety, we have failed to make that recognition a meaningful reality through any follow-up action.

The expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank has seen almost 500,000 acres of Palestinian land appropriated since 1967. In the last year alone, more than 120 checkpoints and obstacles have been installed to control Palestinian movement. More recently, the E1 settlement plan, which was approved by the Israeli Government, includes just short of 3,500 housing units. It includes the construction of a new neighbourhood, a new employment and commercial zone, and a new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. She points out that Conservative and Labour Governments have for decades recognised these settlements as illegal, and now things are worse than ever. We have recognised Palestine, which is a good thing, but with the expansion plan and the promised further occupation, it is surely inconsistent for us not to have a complete ban on illegal settlement goods. If not now, when?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

The new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only, will reroute Palestinians and seal off the E1 corridor permanently. This is a state-wide strategy that uses every civilian and military means to appropriate land, isolate Palestinians and make a Palestinian state impossible to realise.

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. As somebody who first voted in this place to recognise Palestine in 2014, I think it is absolutely imperative that we realise a two-state solution if we are ever to see peace and prosperity for either Israel or Palestine. Does she agree that the very conduct she is talking about puts that two-state dream at risk, and that that is why it must stop?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why it is essential that we are having this debate and that there must be a ban on trade. I will not take further interventions now because I have to make progress.

The annexation has accelerated so fast that today 750,000 settlers are believed to be living on occupied Palestinian land. Their presence each year robs the Palestinian economy, which is largely agricultural, of over £38 billion. Water in the west bank is extracted disproportionately to sustain Israel and Israeli settlers. Seventy per cent of grazing land in the occupied territories is systematically denied to Palestinians. Olive orchards are regularly set on fire. Toxic waste is dumped on their crops to destroy their economic future—I could go on.

Between 2009 and 2020, Israeli settlers in area C received 22,000 building permits; for Palestinians, the figure was just 66. When Palestinians build their homes, their presence is rendered illegal and they are often slapped with demolition orders. Settlers, however, can have their illegal outposts given full legal status by the Israeli Government. In the last two years alone, 3,500 Palestinians have been displaced in the west bank. That is over 80 communities. This is an Israeli Government-backed policy reaching far and wide across the west bank.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will, and it will be my final intervention.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I did give her advance notice that because of the rescheduling of the debate, I would seek to intervene on her. As she knows, I visited the area a year ago, and the whole situation is unacceptable; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has already referred to the current circumstances as “settlement terrorism”. Does she agree that taking action on this is about not just cast-iron sanctions on trade but financial services and visas, including visas of British citizens who serve in the Israel Defence Forces?

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The first act should be that we seek to stem trade from the settlements; the other points are valid ones that must be explored.

Let us imagine two children born in the same land: one is born in an Israeli settlement; the other is born in a Palestinian community—perhaps one of the 58 refugee camps scattered across the nearby region. They may be separated by only a few miles, but they will grow up under entirely different systems. One will enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement, infrastructure investment, dependable access to healthcare, free-flowing water, the right to be educated, legal protections and state support. The other may face military restrictions, checkpoints, demolitions, land seizures and profound uncertainty about their future. They will both have the same dreams, the same hopes, the same potential, yet one will grow up benefiting from a system of privilege while the other experiences the consequences of occupation. These two children will be governed by two different sets of laws, one civilian and one military. I am sure everyone will be able to guess which child is which. These waves of injustice will keep flowing, over families, over communities, over generations. How is it possible that two children in the west bank can have such different experiences, yet still there is denial that it is apartheid?

Across Europe, action is starting to take shape. Ireland has moved forward towards a ban on settlement goods. Spain has already implemented a ban. The Belgian Council of Ministers is expected to agree the detail of a ban tomorrow and for it to be in place by the end of this year. Belgium has also asked the European Commission to bring proposals to the Foreign Ministers meeting on 13 July. The Netherlands has begun moving beyond a policy of simple discouragement and has tabled a legal instrument to ban settlement trade. These countries have looked at the same legal questions and the same settlement expansions. They have the same international obligations as we do, but they have concluded that words alone are not enough. The UK remains hesitant, which should concern us all because our Government do have the tools to act. The issue is not capability, but political will.

Some will argue that it is too complex to enforce a ban and that our system of not allowing tariff preferences for settlement goods works perfectly well. It does not work, and it puts us on a collision course with our international legal obligations. Ministers cannot in good faith say that it is impossible to ban settlement trade, not when the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel already depends on identifying whether goods qualify as being of Israeli origin.

Complexity is not an excuse to hide from our international obligations. In fact, the complexity is why a ban is needed. Settlement goods are routinely mislabelled, mixed into supply chains and rerouted to obscure their origin. According to a major Global Echo study, 17% of Israeli goods that are either sold, supplied or advertised in the UK are actually from illegal settlements. In the last week alone, my office has identified products from 12 different companies based in the occupied territories being sold online or physically in our shops and markets. Most of them are marked as Israeli products, so the differentiation system we depend on does not stop the goods entering this country; it only allows us to slap a tariff charge on them. Those tariff charges actually mean nothing because the Israeli Government offer incentives to settlers. They give out millions in grants to companies to cover the costs of doing business from an illegal settlement.

I remind the Minister of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 2024. It includes an obligation not to aid or assist the illegal occupation, and to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that sustain it. When I have written to companies such as Barclays and JCB about their links to Israeli settlements, they offer very little concern, but if our Government were to take stronger action to compel them not to do business in illegal settlements, we would see that action. We would see them sever their links with illegal settlements.

Others say that European countries find it difficult to enforce their bans, and that may make our job even more difficult. However, the question is not about new enforcement powers, but about utilising existing ones. There are enough instruments already to seriously disrupt illegal activity wherever it is happening. I need only point to the successes of legislation such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, through which much more complex sanctions have been applied in much tougher circumstances. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not say that sanctions were too complicated; we relished identifying Russian-linked assets. We did not say that economic pressure was pointless because Russia would just ignore it; we acted because we rightly believed in the principles at stake. What answer does the Minister have to the accusations of double standards that we constantly hear?

If the Government believe that international law has meaning, it should be applied consistently. In years to come, will we have the words to explain that we saw the warning signs, we recognised the damage being done, and still we chose to hesitate? Will we really be able to look back and say that we did enough? There are only so many times that Members can hear the same holding responses repeated at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. The Government say that they support international law, that settlements are illegal and that they support a viable Palestinian state, so what does it mean if we can identify the problem and yet we refuse to take the necessary steps, and refuse to move beyond discouragement and expressions of concern?

The time to legislate for a ban on trade with illegal settlements was decades ago, and now it may be too late to do anything. We must demonstrate that Britain’s commitment to international law is measured not only in what we say, but in what we do, because if settlements are illegal, Britain should not be trading with them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on the tone of her speech, and I agree with her motion.

I could give a speech on dry, legalistic grounds, which in themselves are completely obvious, to show why we should have a trade ban with illegal settlements—because of the Geneva convention, or because of the fact that these settlements rely on international trade. The case is overwhelming, but I want to be more emotional.

I am a Conservative MP. I am not the sort of person who goes on marches, or who chants about a Palestine from the river to the sea. I am also realistic about the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies. I am profoundly philosemitic, and profoundly immersed in Jewish culture—I read the Old Testament every day and that sort of thing. I have been to the site of the music festival; I have wept at the appalling pogrom against our Jewish brothers. So I am emotional, and I am entirely in favour of the right of Jewish people to defend themselves.

But this is so different. I have been to the west bank; I have seen what is going on there. This is profoundly wrong. People who have merely tilled their land for 2,000 years are being bullied and forced out. Even when we went there, we were confronted with armed settlers. This is outrageous. The whole House should cry out against it with one voice, and the Government should take action. That is why the motion is so important.

I am appealing to my Jewish friends, and to so many good, honest, reasonable people who detest what is going on at the moment. They are entirely in tune with Jewish culture, but unfortunately the Netanyahu Government are bound by right-wing extremists, and by people who care nothing about human rights and who have this weird and ridiculous notion that because 2,000 years ago that land was perhaps held by Jewish people—we are not even certain of that—they have a right to go in and force out people and destroy their lives. I appeal to moderate Jewish people: this must stop.

The Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow, couldn’t they? And if the whole world acted with one voice, I think we could put sufficient pressure on them. But just imagine, dear colleagues, if this stopped tomorrow. I will leave you with this thought: if there were no more illegal settlements, if no existing settlements were expanded, and if the Palestinian people were allowed to live in peace and freedom like everybody else, would not the skies lift? Would not Israeli people feel that they could live in peace? We cannot have endless war. Empires come to an end. The Israeli Government cannot just destroy the Palestinian people with the misguided notion that that will give them security. It will give them no security; there will be endless war, endless hatred. Let us in the House say that we believe profoundly in a unity of the human spirit. There should be no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian—we are one people, and we demand that the Palestinian people, like all other peoples on Earth, have a right to their own nation.

The Father of the House got the timing bang on without my having to put a time limit on him, but I will now put a five-minute limit on speeches.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for her powerful speech, and it is an absolute honour to follow the Father of the House.

On the west bank, settlement expansion continues in violation of UN Security Council resolution 2334. That includes the E1 project that aims to cut the west bank in half, and separate East Jerusalem. Last month, Israel approved 2,000 settlement housing units across the west bank, bringing the total approved this year to over 6,000. Those settlements continue to destroy historic Palestinian communities, any chance of long-term peace and a two-state solution. They are also accompanied by staggering levels of violence, and co-ordinated attacks on civilians and religious sites, facilitated by a culture of impunity.

According to the UN, there has been an average of six attacks every day against Palestinians in the west bank since the start of 2026. A recent report from the UN Secretary-General highlighted a steep rise in attacks by settlers on Palestinian children, reportedly often supported by Israeli security forces. It is part of a surge of settler aggression across the west bank, driven by the dynamics of Israeli politics.

We know that elections in Israel must be held by the end of October at the latest, and as things stand, Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right bloc is facing the prospect of defeat. The radical settler elements in the coalition are scrambling to impose facts on the ground in the west bank before the elections. Throughout 2025 and the first half of this year, the creeping de facto annexation of the west bank has increased greatly, driven primarily by farm outposts, which require none of the planning and construction work of older settlements. According to a report published on Monday by Kerem Navot, and its fellow activist organisation Peace Now, farm outposts now control more than 100,000 hectares, which is 18% of the entire west bank. Nearly one third of that wholesale seizure took place in 2025.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for laying out her remarks so clearly—much better than I could have done—and to the Father of the House. Emotion rightly comes into this debate. We are not just legislators, and we need to bring that sense of feeling.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) is right to highlight not just that the settlements are happening, but that the aggression, backed up by the Israeli Government, exacerbates the issue. Does she have any hope that, realistically, any election in Israel will change that, and does she agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that we need to act internationally to resolve this? I do not have faith that an election in Israel will stop this happening.

I agree, and I will come on to that point in a moment.

Recourse to the law has been cut off almost entirely for Palestinians, particularly since another settler extremist, Ben-Gvir, was made National Security Minister. The violence is horrific, and it must end. The Government have been clear that we oppose the expansion of the settlements, which are a violation of international law, and I welcome the sanctions on individual settlers and settler networks that the Foreign Secretary announced last month. However, my constituents have been clear that we must go further.

As well as the ban on trade with settlements that we are debating, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government now need to spell out exactly how they will seek to dissuade those who might engage in the E1 project, which would be so damaging to the prospects of a two-state solution?

I agree. We must hold Israel to account for its actions, and we must end all trade with the illegal settlements. Those settlements do not build themselves; they require money and trade, and they are backed by the Israeli Government. That is the only way we can ensure that we are not financially legitimising violations of international law.

I understand that there are complexities in banning that trade, but I share the belief of many of my constituents, and other Members, that the violence has continued at a rate that demands a proportionate response from the international community. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions the Government have had with international partners to better understand their plans to ban trade with illegal settlements? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, bans are in the process of being introduced in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Spain. No law is perfect—absolutely not—but that does not mean we should not work on banning trade with the illegal settlements.

I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech. She talks about international law; does she agree with me on the importance of applying it consistently? In particular, given that the UK has rightly imposed sanctions and trade restrictions elsewhere—notably on Russia—does she agree that the same measures need to be applied to the Israeli Government’s illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?

I do agree.

The statistics that I referred to must remain in our minds as we focus on illegal settlements, which are rapidly eroding the prospects for peaceful co-existence and a viable independent Palestinian state. Finally, I say to the Minister that it is imperative that we avoid the real prospect of doing too little, too late.

In the interests of time, I will focus my speech on four key areas, having waited nearly 10 months for a response to a letter that I sent to the Minister in which he neglected to answer the questions posed.

First is the issue of complexity. The Government argue that it is just too complex to differentiate between goods produced in green-line Israel, legitimate Palestinian goods and those from illegal settlements. However, the Minister is acutely aware that the UK free trade agreement with Israel already requires settlement goods and those from green-line Israel to be differentiated. At the same time, the UK’s trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority means that Palestinian goods have completely different import codes, so the UK should already be distinguishing between goods. Therefore, why is it too complex to implement a ban on illegal settlement goods when, as was mentioned, the Government can apply complex trade sanctions relating to territory in Ukraine illegally occupied by Russia, including an outright ban on goods imported from Crimea?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I, too, have engaged in written parliamentary questions and oral questions to try to understand why it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between goods from the illegal settlements, which the Minister for the middle east—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—said quite clearly should not be traded, and goods from Israel proper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as long as that differentiation is not made effectively, there is no incentive for Israel to differentiate its goods and to stop hiding settlement goods behind those from Israel proper?

I completely agree with the hon. Member. That point could be made the other way round: if Israel cannot differentiate its goods—or it is hiding goods among others—why do we not just ban all goods until Israel proves otherwise? That would be a way to deal with it.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I assure the Father of the House that the passion he feels finds a strong echo in my part of the world, where the cultural memory of being driven off the land is still very strong.

The Father of the House said that he would avoid dry, legalistic points, but I agree with the hon. Member that that is what the UK Government are doing: using dry, legalistic points. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Government should do as other countries have done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out, and go all-out by imposing a complete ban and then dealing with the legalities afterwards?

I agree with the hon. Member, who pre-empts a point that I am about to come to. Again, the options are there. The Government are either unwilling or unable to deliver what other countries are already preparing to do—including bans—and to look at legalities later.

Secondly, touching on the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), the Government repeatedly claim that other countries have been unable to bring forward a ban. That, too, is nonsense. For example, Spain is implementing a ban, and the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland are enacting legislation to do similar. Again, are the Government either unable or simply unwilling to abide by their own obligations under international law?

Thirdly, I welcome the UK Government’s position—after having been dragged by their own Back Benchers—on recognising the state of Palestine, but we all know that that is utterly meaningless if there is not a viable state where the Palestinians can live.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this very important debate. May I put on record my constituents’ disgust at the actions of Israel in these settlements? Does the hon. Member agree with the Foreign Secretary’s use of the term “settler terrorism”, and that, if that is what we are seeing, we need a much more robust response by Government? If settlements are illegal, the goods are illegal, and we should not see them in this country.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I represent the city of Dundee, which is twinned with the city of Nablus in the west bank—I am also a member of that twinning association—and I have had thousands of constituents write of their disgust at the continued trade we do with illegal settlements and their continued expansion.

Thirdly, as I said, I welcome recognition of the state of Palestine, but that is meaningless unless there is a land to live in. While the Government permit the existence of illegal settlements and continue to trade with them, they must acknowledge that that makes their stated policy of a two-state solution unachievable. After all, in case there were any doubt, Israel’s Defence Minister Katz stated that settlement expansion was

“a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

The International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine, yet that occupation is increasing before our very eyes. Given that the UK is still supplying arms to Israel and has not introduced sanctions similar to those imposed on Russia, we are obviously not doing enough, so what else can the Government do to give the Palestinian people their land back?

I welcome my Celtic cousin’s remarks and I agree with her. On arms sales, one suggestion would be a recommitment to the Committees on Arms Export Controls that we once had and that I served on for seven years, which were dissolved two or three years ago. Such a Committee needs to be reinstated and what better opportunity than now, when we really need to scrutinise and examine what is being exported and in whose name.

Returning to the two-state solution, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that as a result of the E1 settlement expansion plan

“there will be no Palestinian state.”

No need for clues, no need for second-guessing. I put it to the Minister yet again: are the Government unable or unwilling to take action? Their inaction only emboldens further settlement expansion and makes the UK complicit in Israel’s criminal behaviour against the Palestinian people.

My fourth and final point is that it is all very well for the Minister to issue his condemnation, for the UK to

“call on the Government to reverse these decisions”

and for the Foreign Secretary to be “very clear” with Israeli Ministers, but without actions, as a result of the Israeli Government repeatedly ignoring these words, nothing will ever be achieved. Dithering must end and action must begin. What we are witnessing is the trading in misery, mayhem and murder of Palestinians, and their homeland continuously being stolen from them. When we do nothing, we are telling Israel that we support it wholeheartedly, and it shows how little we value Palestinian life. That is unconscionable and it is certainly not in my name or my party’s name, or those of the many thousands—indeed, millions—across these islands.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and speaking with so much passion about an issue that concerns us all.

The ever-increasing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal—each and every one of them. Their purpose is clear: they are a means by which the Israeli Government can encourage land grabs, separate one Palestinian village from another, prevent the villagers accessing water and other utilities, and make it more difficult to map out a contiguous Palestinian state. They are also a way of intimidating Palestinians who find themselves surrounded by these fast growing and well-defended settlements.

The level of violence instigated by the settlers has increased; more than 1,700 settler attacks causing causalities or property damage have been recorded across 270 Palestinian communities in the west bank in 2025 alone. On a recent visit to Israel and Palestine, our delegation saw the scale of the encroachment, the plans for further, larger settlements, and heard about examples of violence and intimidation for ourselves.

We visited the village of Umm al-Khair, where Awdah Hathaleen was shot and killed last summer. Eyewitnesses and bodycam footage suggests that the perpetrator, who has never been charged, was a settler already sanctioned by the UK Government. While we sat in the open, speaking with villagers and playing football with the children, an IDF vehicle stopped outside our meeting and two, fully armed soldiers got out, had a casual look as they passed and slowly walked on, before returning the way they came. That was a minor incident, but let us imagine that it was our life, and we knew that the people living at the end of the street wanted our house and our land, and would do whatever it took to get it, with the full backing of their Government.

Having been to the west bank many years ago, I know that that is not a new thing. Does the hon. Lady agree that the use by the IDF of artificial intelligence machine guns, which are trained on people using sponge-tipped bullets and tear gas, is a way of dehumanising Palestinian people as an attempt to make people abandon their homes? We should be working with international colleagues to stop these new technologies being used in civilian spaces.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I know that there have been such examples in Gaza, too. I raised that in a Westminster Hall debate almost two years ago, and I was reassured by the Minister that none of those drones are being produced in this country, which is at least a start.

It is also clear that sexual violence is being used as a method of intimidating and humiliating women and girls in Palestinian villages. Some 70% of displaced families cite sexualised violence as the decisive reason for leaving their homes. Some 41 new settlements in the west bank were approved in 2025, and smaller unauthorised outposts are becoming an increasing feature on the landscape. Let us be clear: the settlements we are talking about are an integral part of the Israeli economic system. European imports of settlement products outweigh imports from Palestine, and we cannot as a country allow that situation to continue.

My hon. Friend is setting out very clearly the illegality of the settlements on the west bank, and the Geneva convention is very clear on this point. There are reports that properties on the west bank are now being advertised for sale, which is absolutely despicable. Does she share my outrage that the Advertising Standards Authority has been silent on this point until now?

I absolutely share that outrage, and I will mention it later in my contribution.

We cannot as a country allow this situation to continue. We are out of step with so many of our European partners. We have declared Palestinian statehood, which is great, but we owe it to the people of that state to ensure, in whatever ways we can, that it can function as a state. Increasingly, we are seeing the economy of these settlements moving from agriculture into tourism, real estate, financial services, construction, transport, digital platforms and logistics. Any action we take must be applicable across the entire range of goods and services, and must cover any goods and services that facilitate, support or benefit economically these illegal settlements. A ban that simply covered agricultural products, for example, would just encourage the movement of activity into those other areas.

We know that existing restrictions on trade have been neutralised, in effect. The Israeli Government operate a reimbursement scheme in respect of EU customs duties, and settlement goods are often being routed through Israel for repacking. As colleagues have said, what we need is an outright ban on the importation of settlement goods and on advertising such goods, too. If we cannot do that, we should ban Israeli goods until they can prove that they do not come from settlements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, if not now, when?

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and it is always a pleasure to hear the gentle Yorkshire accent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) raised in fierce defence of peace, justice and international law.

Colleagues, let us make no mistake: while this country does need to rebuild its physical defences, in the end our defence lies in international law and the set of rules that we created after the second world war to decide how countries should peaceably settle their disputes. At the heart of the problem of international law at the moment sits the plight of the Palestinians, and if they sit at the heart of the problem, so do we. This debate is so important today because it is not just about the Palestinians; it is also about we Britons, the world we live in and the way we want the world to operate when it is in dispute.

As has been illustrated in the debate so far, nobody in this Chamber believes that the way the Palestinians have to live at the moment is acceptable. Nobody who has stood in the middle of Hebron and seen Palestinians living in cages or watched them being dragged from their homes, their olive trees uprooted, run over with cars and detained without charge; nobody who has seen the guns, the checkpoints, the walls, the UN signs saying where people can and cannot go or the enormous so-called settlements—that makes them seem somehow quaint, like “Little House on the Prairie”, but they are fortresses, forcibly invading and stealing other people’s land; and more recently, nobody who has watched these psychopathic settlers, though they are more like terrorists, roaming across the west bank, terrorising innocent Palestinian families on a daily basis and setting ablaze entire villages, can think that this is acceptable. Yet our country still sells them bulldozers, buys their goods and sells them financial services, and by those means, we financially support and help sustain this appalling situation, while hiding behind the fig leaf of complexity.

Therein lies a mystery that, I must confess, I have not been able to understand over the last couple of years. A third of the Labour party has put its name to a letter calling for a ban on trade with the settlements, yet the Government still do not move on this. Other countries across the world are instituting, or have instituted, bans. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, the complexity argument falls away when we look at Crimea. A ban is not too complex for Spain, Ireland or other countries. Presumably, it was not too complicated for the civil servants who drafted the ban on trade with Crimea, or any of the other trade bans we have used, with effect, over the years.

As the Trade Minister will know, for other reasons to do with trade, we have insisted on the labelling of goods. We have even gently warned businesses off goods from settlements. We heard stentorian words in the last statement—“Take care in trading; there may be legal risk”—but the Government have done everything except the obvious, which is to just ban that trade. The question I am left asking is: why? Why the reluctance? Why the hesitation? Nobody is buying the complexity argument; we do not buy it in any other circumstance of trade. If we want to ban modern slavery, or goods produced by forced labour, we oblige businesses that are importing to prove that they have not acquired goods produced in that way.

I thank the right hon. Member for his speech. Maybe I can answer his question. Perhaps it is because of a nostalgia for an Israel that no longer exists—an Israel that made the desert bloom. We now have a state of Israel that routinely breaks human rights law, busts human law, and creates a situation in which it is accused of genocide before the ICJ. This is not a state that anyone in this House, let alone on the Labour Benches, should have any sympathy for, because it undermines our ability to hold up international law. When we think about it, the state that now exists is ultimately one that everyone in this House should be able to condemn wholeheartedly.

Strangely enough, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is probably the first time in our political careers that we have agreed. He puts his finger on the point that I am trying to make. This dispute involves our own security. We do not have to be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel to take that view, just pro-British, which everybody in this House should be, first and foremost. That involves being pro-international law, pro-peace and pro-justice; the dispute goes to the heart of that. He put his finger on the point that I was coming to. Nobody is buying the idea that the argument is practical, Minister.

I have not made any argument!

I know, but I ask the Minister not to patronise us all by standing up at the end of the debate and pretending that this is all too complicated, which I am afraid is what his ministerial colleagues have said to us before.

We know that the argument against a ban is not a legal one; that has been proven time and again. Indeed, we have supported resolutions at the UN and used our position on the Security Council to say that it is not a legal issue. I am left with the only other option, which is that the decision must be political with a capital “P”. I am afraid that is the most appalling thing to contemplate. Either we fear consequences from other countries, such as the United States or whoever it might be, or we believe it is in our national interest to recognise that Palestinian self-determination and Palestinian lives are disposable in the face of that political decision.

Even worse, it may be that we just do not care. It may be that at the higher echelons of political command, whether it is in No. 10 or the Foreign Office, they really just do not care. They think, “If we squint a bit, make some statements from the Front Bench and have a couple of sanctions here and there, in the end, the caravan will move on, and nobody will care.” I am afraid that until Ministers realise that this is not some kind of complicated chess game across the world, but a matter of our security, our interests and our morality, we will not make any progress.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing today’s debate, and thank Members from all parties for the powerful speeches we have heard. There is clearly cross-party support for the proposition we are debating. I recognise the work that the Government have done, supporting the Palestinians, whether it is targeted sanctions, aid, or recognition of the state of Palestine. However, we must be clear that the UK already recognises that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. We would oppose the illegal occupation by force of any country, and we must do so in Palestine, too. As in Russian-occupied Ukraine, so too here.

More than 750,000 Israeli settlers now live in settlements on the west bank and in East Jerusalem, and there is continued expansion every week, supported by the Israeli Government. That means the demolition of Palestinian homes, the forced displacement of communities, restrictions on movement and the annexation of territory. Save the Children, a charity I worked for before being elected, warns that settler violence has reached “unprecedented” levels, with 1,600 attacks on Palestinians in 2025, attacks on schools, and children facing physical violence on their way to and from school. I remember visiting Palestinian refugee camps and meeting children displaced by Israeli settlers. Those children are the victims of terrorism. The Government’s recent sanctions against a limited number of settlers are a welcome step, but they are insufficient, given the scale of expansion we see. Be in no doubt: the objective of establishing these illegal settlements is to render an independent Palestinian state unviable. The method is terrorism, expropriation, violence and intimidation, and the outcome will be that the two-state solution that this House has long called for will be impossible.

I will make two final points. First, trade is important, and bans should not be undertaken lightly or as a gesture. We all recognise the value of deep and complex trade relationships with other countries, both for our economy and prosperity, and so that our societies engage with and understand each other. However, trade relies on rules that are respected—on a system that is rules-based. Our constituents are consumers, and in a free market, they rely on the Government to ensure that trade rules are observed and that their purchases are not making terrorism and instability profitable.

Has the hon. Member seen today’s news that the EU is now considering a trade ban, and does he have a comment on it? If it is good enough for other countries, and if it is now good enough for the EU, it should definitely be good enough for the UK.

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not just in the UK that people are recognising that Israel is crossing multiple lines; it is across the world, so we must act. As others have said, countries such as Ireland and Spain are taking the decision to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements. We must too, and now is the time to do so.

Secondly, it would be impossible for me to overstate the importance of this issue to my constituents in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. In my two years as an MP, I have never been asked by constituents to speak in a debate as many times as I have been asked to speak in today’s debate, so I make this speech in their name. The time is long overdue for a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. The UK must comprehensively ban all trade in goods and services with settlements in the occupied territories.

I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped.

The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too.

We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said:

“at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.]

Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership?

The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.

The hon. Member is doing an excellent job of expressing the moral outrage shared by constituents from Herefordshire to Sunderland to Sheffield, but does she agree that if it is possible for international groups to find origin fraud relating to goods that originate from illegal settlements on the west bank, but are incorrectly labelled as being from within Israel, it is entirely possible for the British Government to do the same? There is no valid reason there for our not implementing sanctions.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse.

We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?

I will have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

For my constituents in West Dunbartonshire, a community geographically far removed from Palestine, the horrific injustice being inflicted on the Palestinian people resonates deeply. They look at the systematic confiscation of Palestinian land, the draining of Palestinian water resources and the suffocating restrictions on movement, and they quite rightly see an intolerable violation of human dignity via the illegal Israeli settlements.

In 2009, when I was a councillor, my West Dunbartonshire local authority became the first council in Scotland to pass a unanimous trade ban on anything made or grown in Israel. The ban was extended in 2010, and again in 2011, to discourage investment and trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and it remains in place today.

Later, as provost during the 2014 Gaza war, I made the decision to fly the Palestinian flag from Dumbarton town hall—the municipal buildings. We were the first council in Scotland to do so. Yes, that was met with a backlash, but it sent a message of hope. It raised awareness of the suffering and deaths of people in Gaza and the west bank, and it showed that they were not forgotten. We must not forget them here in this place either, 12 years on. It was a simple act of solidarity from a small local authority thousands of miles away from the occupied territories, but a combination of acts can make a real difference. That is why I support today’s call for a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

My hon. Friend just mentioned small acts. Last week, three of my constituents, Mike, Fiona and Mary, travelled to Parliament and green-carded me so that they could talk to me about the situation in Gaza. They join about 40 constituents who have written to me ahead of today’s debate, and over 800 constituents who have emailed me on the issue since I was elected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when so many constituents are moved to act, the least that we can do is make progress on ending trade with illegal settlements?

Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. I think all hon. Members in the House have had the same volume of correspondence from our constituents, emphasising the strength of feeling up and down the United Kingdom.

Today, the situation in the west bank and East Jerusalem is at breaking point. Settler violence has reached an all-time high, displacing entire villages in a blatant abuse of human rights. Yet as the crisis rages on, the UK is not doing enough. I appreciate that we have finally recognised the state of Palestine, but we need to go beyond that and take decisive action.

The Charity Commission is being urged to investigate 32 British charities that have funnelled at least £28 million into these illegal territories—a figure that has been boosted even more by the British taxpayer through gift aid. We are inadvertently helping to fund infrastructure on stolen land. We should be funding peace, not obstacles to peace, and not apartheid.

Furthermore, the settlement enterprises know exactly what they are doing and they know that it is wrong. We know that because they routinely mislabel Palestinian products as being produced in Israel to sneak them into international trade markets and bolster the settler economy. Any goods or money obtained via trade with these illegal settlements are tainted by criminality, which is not something that our country should be associated with. They are the proceeds of crime that underpin Israel’s illegal occupation.

I welcome the actions that our UK Labour Government have taken so far. We have sanctioned extremist Ministers and violent settler networks, and we have updated the business risk guidance. In May last year, we also rightly suspended negotiations on a free trade agreement with Israel. But guidance and warnings are no longer enough. We must ensure that the illegal settlements have no viable economic future.

On 7 June, I proudly signed the letter co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) calling on the Foreign Secretary to introduce a ban on trade with illegal settlements. By delaying, we are falling behind our international allies: Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and even, we hear, the EU.

I want to place on record that my constituents feel as strongly as my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dumbarton about this: we have to ban trade with illegal settlements. Does he agree that although the Government have taken welcome steps, as he referenced, they must go further to ensure this trade is not allowed?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am sure his point has not been lost on the Minister, and we await with great anticipation what he will say from the Dispatch Box.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude. Trade with these settlements is fundamentally incompatible with international law. It is time to turn our solidarity into decisive action, cut off the economic lifelines of this illegal occupation and implement a total trade ban.

I thank my Yorkshire colleague the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this debate, and for introducing it with the passion and power she did.

Every single pound that goes from Britain to Israel is in one way or another helping Israel perpetuate its illegal occupation and apartheid system against the Palestinian people. Just this week, Haaretz reported that Israeli nationalist crime in the west bank is up by 560% since 2019, according to official police data. We know that the vast majority of the crimes by these terrorist settlers go unreported and unpunished, so if the percentage increase is officially 500-plus, it will actually be in the thousands given the crimes that will have gone unreported.

These settlements are illegal colonies. For years, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and rightly described these “settlements” as illegal under international law—this Government have done so more times than I can count—yet the condemnation rings hollow. If settlements are illegal, why are we still treating their products as legitimate? Every shipment from a settlement carries a human cost in the displacement, deprivation of income and death that it constitutes. It is the economic bedrock of a system of apartheid.

Up to 110,000 Palestinian families rely on the olive harvest as their source of income. For generations, olive trees have sustained communities economically and culturally. There has been settler violence for many decades, but during last year’s harvest it reached unprecedented levels, all against the backdrop of a genocide in Gaza. A Palestinian farmer named Jamal Daraghmeh was beaten alongside his sons as Israeli settlers tried to harvest olives from the land his family had cultivated for generations. That is how settlements expand: families are terrorised, livelihoods are destroyed and communities are driven from their land, creating the single greatest obstacle to Palestinian economic development and self-determination.

These injustices are accelerating before our eyes. As we have heard, since the genocide in Gaza began, settlement expansion has surged, with 165 new settlement outposts established. That is an average of 47 every year, up from just over five between 1996 and 2022. The consequences are also measured in the number of lives taken. According to B’Tselem, Israeli forces or civilians have killed 4,000 Palestinians since 2000. In the past year and a half, 70 Palestinian children have been murdered in the west bank, at an average of almost one every week.

Just last week, Smotrich celebrated what he called the “revolution” in settlement expansion. That a sanctioned Minister is publicly boasting about accelerating annexation while settlements continue to grow unabated shows that this Government’s approach is having zero meaningful impact.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any debate on Palestine is incomplete if it fails to confront the elephant in the room, which is the allegation of genocide? I wonder whether he can help with this question; I suspect he will not be able to. What threshold of civilian suffering or alleged violence would cause the Government to reconsider their policy of maintaining normal economic and diplomatic relations with a state accused of genocide?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As a barrister, he knows, as do many across the House who are not in that profession, that it is incumbent—an obligation—on the UK Government to take any and all practical steps to prevent and stop a genocide happening anywhere to any people, and that includes the Palestinians.

To conclude, history will not remember how many times this Government have condemned illegal settlements. It will remember that Britain, for decades, has chosen to keep trading with Israel and the settlements anyway. Condemnation without consequence is nothing less than complicity. Israeli settlers, aided and abetted by the IDF and the Israeli Government, have taken away the rights of the Palestinians to live. Instead of sanctioning the settlers, successive British Governments have actively facilitated and allowed goods and services from the settlements to be sold in the UK. Why do the British Government despise Palestinian life so much?

It is not often that I agree with both the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The Father of the House said that the whole House should cry out against the situation in the west bank. He is right and, as I look around, I think that is what is happening in the Chamber. I am not sure that anybody, apart from possibly the Front Benchers, is going to disagree with the motion, so brilliantly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed).

I support a two-state solution, but every day, as the result of illegal settlement expansion, driven by violence and supported by the Netanyahu Government, that only real hope for a sustainable peace in the middle east gets less likely. Every day there are violent attacks on Palestinians in the west bank: homes demolished, farmland seized and roads blocked. Every day Palestinians are blocked from accessing healthcare, water, employment and education—the basics of life—as a result of their inability to move freely across their land. The settlements make the situation more intolerable and intractable every day.

Of course the settlements are a breach of the fourth Geneva convention. They are condemned as illegal by the ICJ, the UN Security Council and the vast majority of member states, including the UK. If we accept that settlements are illegal, we cannot just stop there. Many of my constituents in Manchester Withington have contacted me, calling for the UK to do what international law requires of us: to ensure that our trade policy reflects both our values and our legal obligations, and to do everything we can to stop the Israeli Government’s actions in supporting settler violence. That means, as a bare minimum, a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

I am not naive enough to think that what the UK does alone will change the Netanyahu Government’s policy, but the international community, working together, has to use every lever we have in this situation. Last year, the ICJ set out its advisory opinion on the situation in the OPT. Governments who are committed to the rule of law should take its conclusions seriously. The court said that states should take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that assist in maintaining the illegal situation created by the occupation and by the settlement enterprise.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this issue is not just about products coming from settlements to the UK, but companies in the UK trading in goods and services in the settlements? Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia are all selling tourism services in the occupied territories.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and we should not overlook the role of services—it is not just about goods.

The Government will say, and have said, that it is difficult to enact in practice, but just because something is difficult does not mean we should not attempt to fulfil our obligations. Yes, there will be practical complications about enforcement, but complications are no reason to do nothing. They do not stop us committing to the principle. Then we can work out how we make it work. We have heard a number of examples of how we can make the situation work.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a very powerful and informed speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). I just want to press him on that point. Is not the important thing now for the Government to commit in principle to a ban on settlement trade? We can agree with our international partners that we should work out the technicalities when possible, but such a commitment would give the public the moral clarity that we are prepared to act in line with our values.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts it better than I did. We can figure out how to make a ban work once we have committed to the principle, and there are ways of doing it. As we have heard today, the Government already have processes in place to distinguish between goods coming from Israel and the OPT as a result of the processes on preferential access for Israeli goods, and we can build on that experience. We have heard that other countries are already instigating such measures, and we can learn from their experience.

A settlement trade ban is no longer a marginal or unrealistic demand; it is becoming a mainstream response. A ban on trade with settlements would not, on its own, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, but it would ensure that Britain is not contributing to an unlawful situation that the world’s highest court has concluded all states have a duty not to support. It would demonstrate that our principles are reflected not only in our words, but in our actions.

I congratulate the Government on recognising the state of Palestine. That recognition was long overdue, but a state needs territory, and its citizens need safety and security. The state of Palestine and its citizens do not have either.

Gaza has been devastated by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military action, which has widely been called out as genocide. Many of Gaza’s residents have been killed or injured, and the survivors have lost family and friends, homes, health services, businesses and jobs. Meanwhile, in East Jerusalem and on the west bank, so-called settlers, who are better described as terrorists, are threatening, injuring and even killing people to take Palestinian land. The Israeli Government take no action to prevent this; indeed, they openly encourage the settlements. Members of the Israeli Security Cabinet have even stated that their goal is to make a sovereign Palestine unviable. We have to prevent that, because a two-state solution is the only way to achieve peace in that part of the world.

The Government have confirmed that the settlements are illegal, so now they have to go further. Like many Members here today, I have had reams and reams of emails about this issue, and my constituents have called on me to ask the Government to take more action. As well as using diplomacy, which I am sure we are doing, we must make the settlements economically unviable, so I call on the Minister to ban all trade in goods and services with these illegal Israeli settlements.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this very important debate.

Somewhere in the UK today, a shopper will put a box of dates or a bottle of wine in their basket. A fraction of what they pay at the till will travel back to a hilltop settlement built on stolen land, which illegal settlers have bulldozed, fenced off and armed against the families who have farmed it for generations. Let me be clear: settler violence is not the work of a lawless fringe group; it is very much supported by the Israeli Government, the state, the army and Israeli Ministers. Israel’s basic law declares that settlement developments are of national value.

We heard Prime Minister Netanyahu declare last year that there would be no Palestinian state. He was describing the Israeli Government’s E1 plan, which cuts the west bank into two parts, and his Finance Minister has published plans for annexation of the west bank. Many Israeli leaders have said that they do not want two states, and we have seen that the terrorists torching olive groves and the Ministers signing annexation maps are not separate problems. This year alone, two communities, Khirbet Yanun and Ras Ein al-Auja, have ceased to exist. More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, settler violence is at a record high, and 350 Palestinian children remain in Israeli military detention. The illegal settlers have swimming pools, but the neighbouring Palestinians cannot even get water. The International Court of Justice looked at the situation and said that there has been an international violation, and that it is racial segregation and apartheid, yet nothing has been done.

We in this Government recognised the state of Palestine and restored the UN funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have also said that we would accept the decisions of the Internation Criminal Court, which has said that we should honour the International Court of Justice’s ruling that the occupation is unlawful and states must not help to sustain it. By not banning trade, we are effectively not abiding by what the International Criminal Court has said. I say to the Minister: please, promise us that those illegal goods will be stopped from coming to this country.

I also ask the Minister to recognise that over a number of years we have seen devastation, destruction and genocide in Gaza, we have seen what has been happening in the west bank—what has been mentioned is only part of what has been happening—where old and young people have been terrorised from their homes, and it is about time that we stopped overlooking what the Israeli Government have been doing. It is ironic that, when it is a country that we are supposed to be allied with, nobody criticises their actions or does anything, but when it comes to other countries, we are happy to impose sanctions, make armed interventions and everything else.

I welcome this debate and say a huge thank you to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it, for what she said and for the enormous amount of work she has done for the Palestinian people since she was elected two years ago. It is much appreciated across the whole country.

The issue is basically one of international law. The ICJ landmark advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 says that states must not recognise, aid or assist the unlawful situation arising from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. The ICJ made it clear that all states have an obligation to

“abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory”.

Furthermore, the ICJ calls on states to

“take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

It could not be clearer, so why, as a country, do we still support Israel diplomatically in many ways? Why do we still provide weapons and security information to Israel, which have been used in the destruction of Gaza and other places? I would like to know exactly what information is passed on, given the increasing military presence of Israel in the west bank in support of the settlers.

I have many good friends in the west bank and Gaza, one of whom is Mustafa Barghouti, the president of the Palestine National Initiative. He frequently sends me messages describing what has happened in the past 24 hours. The messages he sends are heartbreaking. I would like to share with the House the message he sent yesterday. He pointed out that the US is now building its embassy in Jerusalem on land that it has been given by the state of Israel for $1. The land itself was stolen from Palestinians by using the absentee owner law that Israel created for the occupied territories. It is not Israel’s land to give to the United States for a dollar; it is Palestinian land that should belong to the Palestinian people.

I will give the House an example of the day-to-day horror story of the behaviour of the settlers, strongly supported by the state of Israel, the IDF and the Israeli police. A school in Masafer Yatta was told that it had 14 days to vacate the building and disappear, because it was going to be demolished to make way for yet another settlement that had been “authorised” by the state of Israel. We see the destruction of ordinary life all across the west bank.

I have visited Gaza, the west bank and Israel many times. I have seen the horror story of what the occupation does; I have seen the theft of land, the destruction of water systems and the inability for anyone to get around in a normal way. Surely to goodness the very least we can do is support what has been said today, end all trade whatsoever that helps to support the illegal occupation of the west bank and show our solidarity with the people of Palestine.

Order. I will implement a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I want to start by putting on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for bringing forward this important debate. I congratulate her on her tremendous, very passionate speech.

I am grateful to all Members who have outlined the legal position. We know that Ireland has passed a Bill banning products from illegal settlements, as has Spain, and Belgium is pushing to do the same. I am going to bring Members right back to the common-sense argument. The case put forward this week by the Irish Parliament was clear: goods should not enter freely into commercial markets, as doing so would allow illegal goods and services to be transformed into legal entities in Ireland. That is the crux of it for me, and it is that premise that has been highlighted in expert legal opinions by Richard Fisher KC and Rabah Kherbane of Doughty Street Chambers. They say that there is a legal basis under domestic UK law for prosecuting the trade of goods from Israeli illegal settlements into the UK and that it amounts to production under part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The decision not to ban these products seems driven less by genuine legal application than by how such a position might be politically received by Israel. Fundamentally, the question is not about trade with Israel but about trade with illegal settlements in illegal occupied territories and a matter of international law.

Does the hon. Member agree that the ICJ advisory opinion leaves the decision not as a political one but as a legal one? In respect of domestic law, we know that the Government accept the illegal settlements. Therefore, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, if the Government do not make a firm decision, are they not putting our financial institutions at risk?

I thank the hon. Member for his comment. I was going to come to that in my speech, but I am having to miss lots out because of the time limit.

Currently, the UK Government strongly advise against conducting any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, including financial transactions, investments, procurement and other economic activities. The Government confirm that that has legal and economic risks according to international law.

Here is the thing: so long as consumers are aware that goods originate from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land—according to international law, illegal settlements amount to war crimes—and are illegal produce, they can choose whether they want to buy the goods or not. Let me spell this out. If something is grown on stolen land, which is recognised as illegal by our Government and recognised to pose legal risks as proceeds from stolen land, so long as those goods are clearly and correctly labelled as “stolen goods”, they can legally be sold in Asda, Morrisons, Tesco or even Marks & Spencer.

Imagine if we were to apply the same principle in the UK to ordinary citizens. It would suggest that so long as a product or good is labelled, even if the product is linked to criminal property, it is fine. In fact, one could go even further and argue that if Asda, Morrisons, Tesco or any other supermarket were to sell stolen TVs, for example, so long as they labelled them “possibly stolen”, and businesses were warned of the legal and economic risks, it would be fine to buy one from the local supermarket. That is the bottom line: the consumer has the knowledge, and the authorities are happy to turn a blind eye.

We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the annexation and terrorism that the Palestinians are facing from terrorist settlers. Make no mistake, this is a state-sanctioned occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory. We cannot and must not stand by, because history will not be kind to us.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on leading this debate today.

The Government rightly say that Israel’s settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law. If that is the Government’s position, I welcome that recognition, but there is an obvious question: why does Britain still permit trade and financial activity that helps sustain those illegal settlements?

In a matter of days, it will be two years since the ICJ advisory opinion was given, which people have commented on. Two years on, the Government are yet to explain how they intend to give effect to those obligations in UK law and policy. In a statement on 9 June, the Foreign Secretary said:

“I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 162.]

I had a look at that guidance this morning. It goes no further than advising against economic and financial activity in the settlements. It does not say that trading with settlements is unlawful, and it does not say that such trade, financial services or investment are prohibited.

That contradiction was exposed during the Great Israeli Real Estate Event in London, where property in illegal settlements was marketed to British buyers. The Government referred the organisers to the Advertising Standards Authority. With respect, this is not principally an advertising issue; it is a question of whether commercial activity linked to illegal settlements should be taking place at all. If such activity is taking place through Britain’s financial system, Britain’s regulators should be asking whether it is facilitating activity connected to settlements that this Government accept are unlawful. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and I, as co-chairs of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, have written to Britain’s anti-money laundering supervisory bodies—but they bounce the matter straight back to the Government.

Ministers point to travel bans, sanctions on two Israeli Ministers and updated guidance. Those are all welcome, but they do not answer the wider question of whether Britain is using every available tool to uphold international law. The Government say they lack the powers—we have heard today that they do not. They cannot occupy two positions at once; they cannot say that settlements are illegal while allowing British commerce to help sustain them. They cannot condemn them in speeches and maintain those positions.

Today’s motion cannot change the law, but it can tell the Government that Parliament expects the law to reflect its own state’s position. This country has a history of having betrayed the Palestinian people since 1915, with the betrayal of the Sharif of Mecca in 1917, the 1936 put down of the uprising, and the facilitation of the Nakba. It is about time we discharged our legal and moral responsibilities to the Palestinian people.

The continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied west bank and East Jerusalem is having a profound impact on Palestinian communities, where military violence and attacks by extremist idealogues are spiralling. Poverty is pervasive and economic development is almost non-existent thanks to Israel’s systemic abuse and seizure of Palestinian land and resources.

Palestinians are being forced out of their homes, while road closures and checkpoints prevent them from accessing the services they require. Israel has committed ethnic cleansing and war crimes, as well as genocide, in Gaza. Children have been targeted, maimed and killed. It is right that the Government have recognised the state of Palestine, introduced sanctions on certain individuals and groups, and suspended some arms licences, but that is nowhere near enough. The time for expressing concerns and taking limited action was over decades ago. To continue with the strategy when Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide beggars belief. We must stop looking the other way; we must not allow financial support for Israel’s crimes.

There have long been calls to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements and the Government must heed those calls now. Spain has already implemented a package of import restrictions on Israeli settlement goods, and earlier this week the Irish Parliament approved legislation banning imports from settlements. The proposed law states that it is designed to abide by Ireland’s

“international legal obligation, as identified by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion”,

and it specifically includes taking steps

“to prevent trade relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

The Government agree that Israel’s control of the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza amounts to occupation under international law, so why are we refusing to comply with international law by failing to ban trade with illegal settlements? That is the bare minimum—I would argue we should be implementing much broader economic sanctions against Israel—but it would at least be a start. By failing to do so, we are contributing to the systemic abuse of human rights and international law on which the settlements rely.

History will remember the way that the international community stood by and allowed Israel to commit crimes against humanity. I am afraid to say that the Government are on the wrong side of history, but they do not have to stay there. They could and should pull every lever at their disposal to pressure Israel to comply with international law. A ban on trade with illegal settlements is a lever that we should have pulled long ago.

I rise to speak in support of a UK ban on trade in goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and for all her work on the issue.

Last month I organised a letter to the Foreign Secretary, which was co-signed by more than 140 Labour colleagues, to call for such a ban. The strength of feeling among Labour Members, and across the House, is clear. I hope that the Minister has heard that.

The existence and expansion of Israeli settlements is an impediment to peace and to a two-state solution. Some Israeli Government Ministers are now helpfully clear that that is their purpose. In response, British Jewish organisation Yachad has a letter from British Jews in support of a settlement trade ban, with almost 1,000 signatures so far. As they know, Israeli settlements are not normal places, and we should not deal with them as if they were. Instead, we must follow through both on our historic recognition of the state of Palestine and on the ICJ advisory opinion. A trade ban would be one way of properly delineating between the state of Israel and the state of Palestine.

Settlements are an affront not only to international law, but to human decency. In 2013, I had the life-changing experience of serving as a human rights observer in Hebron, in the west bank. In this Palestinian city, day after day, I witnessed the routine violence against and humiliation of Palestinian civilians by Israeli settlers and soldiers alike. I do not have time to share with hon. Members all the events that I witnessed, day after day, but they included a man being harassed and held at a checkpoint for hours because he took some biscuits to a kindergarten; a family with a young child and a disabled son being attacked by settlers, who called on others to “come and attack the Arabs”; and Palestinians being barred from entering their home by neighbouring Israeli settlers while Israeli soldiers stood and watched, as we asked them to help, before attacking us—internationals who were observing the situation—and arresting one of the internationals, with settlers cheering as they took him away in a van. We also witnessed daily, on the school run, Palestinian children being tear-gassed and having stun grenades thrown at them by Israeli soldiers. The Palestinian children were terrified. And so it went on.

Which other population would we expect to put up with that day after day? Every time I have returned since, the situation has worsened. Year after year, Governments issue statements about the situation. It is time we got on with a ban on settlement trade. It is no use the Government’s dragging their feet. We have had that on too many issues. Can we please just get on with it?

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am honoured to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing the debate.

Earlier this year, I travelled to Israel and the occupied west bank as part of a cross-party delegation organised by Yachad. I met survivors of the 7 October attack and Palestinian families driven from their homes and living under daily intimidation from settlers. Let us be clear: illegal settlements are not simply an obstacle to peace; they are a deliberate strategy to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.

I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine, but recognition must not be simply symbolic. We have a responsibility to make that state viable, and that starts with banning trade with illegal settlements. The UK should not allow goods produced on occupied land to enter our markets, and nor should British businesses profit from activity that our own Government say is illegal. We should also suspend trade concessions and sanction any company bidding for contracts to design, finance or construct illegal settlements, such as those in E1.

There needs to be far greater scrutiny of British money flowing into settlements. No UK charities should retain charitable status while facilitating settlements, and no British financial institutions should be investing in companies sustaining settlement expansion. There must be accountability when British-funded infrastructure is destroyed. In Khirbet Zanuta, I saw the remains of a school partly funded by UK aid. It was destroyed by sustained settler attacks, which forced the community to flee. The British Government should seek compensation from the Israeli Government for the destruction of infrastructure funded by UK taxpayers.

Finally, we must support the institutions of the Palestinian state. Representatives of the Palestinian Authority described to me the financial crisis caused by Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax and tariff revenues. Its continued withholding weakens the institutions that any future Palestinian state will depend on. If we are serious about nation building, the UK must apply renewed pressure for the release of those revenues in full, without delay.

None of these measures are anti-Israel; they are pro-peace. They are about defending international law, supporting those on both sides working for co-existence, and preserving any realistic prospect of a negotiated two-state solution. My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of principle, and of strong values and determination, and he will resist excuses for not acting. I urge him to apply those principles and that determination to this problem. The world watches us, and we must act.

For over half a century, successive Governments of every political persuasion have affirmed to this House that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are unlawful. This is not a matter of personal interpretation, but a consistent and well-established legal consensus—consensus that is shared by the Foreign Office, codified in resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and, since July 2024, articulated with exceptional clarity by the International Court of Justice. Yet the stain on our moral fabric is that despite recognition of that, those same settlement goods are sold in British shops, and just last month, settler properties were marketed at a fair in London.

When settlement expansion threatens to extinguish the very two-state solution that this Government are committed to, we must ask ourselves what purpose is served by delaying the upholding of moral and legal obligations that some of our European allies have already begun to uphold. Put simply, when Spain has banned all settlement trade, why cannot we?

Across the House, there is consensus among Members on our position that this expansion is illegal under international law, yet through our continued delay in banning trade with these settlements, we risk in practice, if not in principle, giving legitimacy to Israel’s claim to sovereignty over occupied territory. If we are not prepared to match our rhetoric with action, our condemnation of settlement expansion amounts to lip service.

In January, many of us took to these Benches to stress the importance of the rules-based order when the President of the United States threatened to take Greenland. We have time and again championed that same order in condemning Putin and rightly standing with Ukraine. We risk losing credibility for having made those correct calls the moment we permit commerce with what we, and everyone around us, deem an illegal enterprise.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not, in the interests of time, thank you.

Nor is it only Israel’s sovereignty over occupied land that we risk legitimising; it is also the violent means by which these territories are being occupied. The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs documented over 1,700 settler attacks on Palestinian communities across the west bank just last year. Not taking action now is to underwrite, however indirectly, the conditions in which violence is inflicted on Palestinian men, women and children by Israeli settlers, and the military force that stands behind it. I therefore urge the Minister not to delay any further, and to take action today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) not just on the power of her words, but on her extensive work, day in, day out, on this issue. When discussing this issue, we should start from a clear principle: if we support a two-state solution, we cannot trade with those who, through illegal activities, make that less achievable with every passing day. This is about life on the west bank, and whether we are prepared to acknowledge realities that impede the everyday life of Palestinians. Prosperity and dignity depend on very ordinary things that we all take for granted—getting to work on time; children being able to see their grandparents; and accessing water, services and opportunities—but those things are simply not possible for an increasing number of Palestinian communities.

I am fortunate to know the Antonine Friendship Link, a humanitarian group in the Falkirk area that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians in Jayyous on the west bank, creating friendships and solidarity across communities and borders. Those long-standing connections gave me the opportunity to hear directly from Sharif, an olive farmer in the village. He gave deeply moving testimony about life at a time when there are extraordinary constraints on people’s liberty, freedom and agency. Sharif spoke to me about regular obstructions that he faced in getting to his land and place of work, intimidation from nearby settlers, and the frustration of lawlessness. He has taken on multiple legal cases, including in the Supreme Court of Israel, and he has won. However, those decisions are not meaningfully upheld in practice, and obstacle after obstacle has been placed, often literally, in his way. His olive groves, his livelihood, and his community remain isolated.

Sharif’s account is like much of the evidence available to us, and the only conclusion I feel able to draw is that communities such as Jayyous are being increasingly and purposefully squeezed, isolated and made less viable. For people like Sharif and communities like Jayyous, and for their peace, security and chance to lead normal lives, we must be prepared to examine seriously whether trade with illegal settlements is compatible and consistent with the values and objectives of our overall goal of a two-state solution. In my view it is not.

I think the Minister has got the message—[Laughter.] No, I am being serious. We cannot go on like this. We cannot keep on turning up and debating like this, and taking no action. The Minister is effective and has got the message, and I think that over the next few weeks we might see some action. I desperately hope so.

We have all been talking about physical infrastructure and the annexation of the west bank, but I also want to talk about what the Israelis are doing to civil society, and mention two cases that I have been raising over the last few weeks. About two weeks ago, the house in Ramallah of Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known on the west bank as the doctor of the poor, was raided and he was arrested. We have not seen or heard from him since, and we do not even know where he is detained. He is chair of the Union of Health Work Committees on the west bank. It is registered with the Palestinian Authority, but it has been declared illegal by the Israelis. We do not know why, as no grounds have been put forward. Will the Minister convey to the Foreign Office that we need information about where Dr al-Rantisi is, and how we can get him some independent access and assessment?

The second case is more worrying for me. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya has now been in solitary confinement for 18 months. His lawyer visited him last week—we all got the message, didn’t we? His lawyer saw him. It looked as though he had been interrogated again, and tortured, and his lawyer said that he could not sit up straight and was falling over. In addition, his lawyer said, “I actually think his life is now at risk.” I raised the issue in the House 10 days ago, and directly with the Foreign Office Minister, and we got an assurance that it would be raised by the FCDO.

I have been here long enough to know that, in other such instances, the country’s ambassador has been brought in and given a clear view of the Government’s position. With regard to Dr Safiya, all we are asking for is access to an independent medical assessment, so that he can be assessed and receive some treatment, rather than being tortured in the way he is being. I raise that because I have fear that if we do not take some action, within a few weeks, he may no longer be alive.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to my visit to Palestine with Yachad. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and for her exemplary argument, among the many given by colleagues.

I have always supported a Palestinian state in the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Israeli settlement land grabs and control of Palestinian territory are illegal under international law, and I consider them an occupation of Palestinian land. We do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, and we do not recognise the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine. We do not trade with the Russian occupied territories, and we must apply the same principle here: no trade with the Israeli occupied territories of Palestine.

Violence and harassment by Israeli settlers has reached unprecedented levels. According to the UN, in 2025, more than 1,700 settler attacks causing casualties and property damage were recorded across more than 217 Palestinian communities in the west bank. I witnessed that myself in the south Hebron hills in 2024.

The international trend is moving towards prohibiting settlement trade outright, rather than relying solely on differentiation, as the Government do. Spain has enacted legislation prohibiting settlement trade, and the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium and Norway have advanced legislation or Government proposals. Bills have been introduced in the French and Italian Parliaments. I therefore support the call for a total ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, in line with our European counterparts.

I will use my remaining time to raise the need to free Marwan Barghouti. Marwan has been illegally held by Israel for 24 years, two months and 22 days. He has been unjustly imprisoned by Israel for over two decades, convicted in a trial by a court he did not recognise. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has declared multiple breaches in his case, starting with his illegal arrest and transfer to Israel. Despite his imprisonment, poll after poll shows that he is Palestine’s most popular leader. He is a powerful symbol of unity and a long-time advocate for freedom and dignity for the people of Palestine. In the words of Nelson Mandela in 2002,

“What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me.”

We must free Marwan and end the occupation.

Many people across the country will be watching the debate with real interest. I welcome the thoughtful contributions of colleagues across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), who I thank for securing the debate.

From the outset, I express my solidarity with both Palestinians and Israelis who want to secure a lasting peace that will ensure that generations to come do not grow up under the shadow of war. There is one angle that I would like to examine more closely in my remarks: the critical impact on the lives and livelihoods of women and children among these illegal settlements. Their rapid expansion has helped to push the Palestinian economy into its worst decline since records began. That means that many women within the west bank are forced to seek employment in these settlements, where the work is exploitative and dangerous. Ninety-three per cent of workers report hazardous conditions, and 94% are without a written contract between them and their employers. The propensity for sexual and gender-based violence is spiralling and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said, 70% of displaced Palestinian families identify the risk of sexual violence as a key factor in leaving their home.

Such appalling treatment is designed to humiliate and punish Palestinian communities, and it is being conducted with impunity. To compound that, the expansion of checkpoints and roadblocks is precluding women and girls, as well as men and boys, from accessing health care, education, legitimate employment and connection to their communities. Nearly 350 children from the west bank are held in military detention for alleged security-related offences. That is children being held in military detention—we cannot countenance that.

More broadly, the daily exposure to settlers and settler violence has changed Palestinian children. Save the Children reports that years of warfare, violence, arbitrary attacks and curtailed freedoms have led to hyper-vigilance, anxiety and trauma among children across the west bank, born from a pure desire to survive. One cannot qualify the suffering of the Palestinian people. What they have endured is beyond our comprehension. Contemplating what children in Gaza and the west bank have gone through fills me, a relatively new mother, with sheer horror.

I would appreciate clarity on whether a complete ban on trade and investment in illegal settlements will be implemented. There has obviously been considerable delay in moving forward in this area, and strongly advising against trade is clearly not enough. Advising against trade with the settlements and an outright ban are two different things entirely. What conversations have taken place between the Minister and his Israeli counterparts pertaining to the treatment of civilians—especially women and children—in the west bank? What was the outcome of those conversations?

We cannot control Israel, but we can control our own standards of trade and commerce, especially on the enduring issue of illegal settlement. The diplomatic tide is with us, and the will of the House is clear. I urge the Minister to reflect on that and fortify his words with action.

One year ago this month, Awdah Hathaleen, a resident of Umm al-Khair, who was a consultant on Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land” and who I and others in this House met during his visit to Parliament in 2024, was murdered by the settler Yinon Levi. Awdah is desperately missed by his community in the village of Umm al-Khair, who are under severe threat of settler attacks and from the Israeli miliary. Only this week, it has been reported that over 30 armed settlers under military protection rampaged through Umm al-Khair to attack Palestinians.

I raise this case to point out how weak the UK’s west bank policy is in practice. Yinon Levi runs an earthworks and construction company that enables the construction of new illegal settlement outposts and uses its heavy machinery to destroy Palestinian infrastructure, including pipes and powerlines. Even though Levi is sanctioned, it is entirely legal for UK firms to do business with him and to sell his firm diggers or spare parts, concrete for new outposts or anything else. The limits of these sanctions are simply a travel ban and an asset freeze—weak.

The point is that this designation means nothing in practice if trade sanctions are not brought in to stymie support for illegal settlements. As hon. Members have said, these “complexities” are not fit to hide behind. When we see the action quite rightly taken on Russia and we see that many countries have already made a commitment to banning settlement trade, complexity comes across as a lazy excuse. The UK is being left behind internationally on this front and the Government appear to be farcically weak to the public, their MPs, the Palestinian people and even the Israeli Government.

We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for bringing such an important debate to the House. I appreciate all the speeches that have been given with such force. The issue is enormously important to many of my constituents in Witney.

A disaster is happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Some 2,000 people have been killed just in the west bank since October 2023, but that is just the tip of an iceberg of settler violence and state-sponsored violence that is carving up land and putting in barriers. Between half and three quarters of a million Israelis now live in settlements in the west bank that are illegal under international law. The Israeli Government have doubled down on this with their active plans for a massive further expansion in the E1 zone, while the UK Government look on passively.

We need to introduce a legislative ban on all UK trade in goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements. That should include a package of sanctions including large fines for any UK firms that bid for tenders relating to illegal settlement construction in the E1 area or elsewhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These sanctions should extend to include any financial institutions here in the UK that through the provision of finance directly facilitate UK companies’ involvement in construction or other service provision for illegal settlements —and yes, we are all thinking about you, JCB.

Various hon. Members talked about the contrast with the speed at which the Government introduced sanctions on Russian-occupied Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine, so I will not rehash those arguments, but the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs play key roles in those sanctions, which they are not being asked to play in relation to these sanctions. Members also talked about how other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, are implementing bans or legislating to implement bans. If we do not know how to do it, why do we not ask them how they did it? We might learn something.

I want to stress the important subject of services. Compared with the value of goods, the value of services is unknown, but it is almost certainly large, perhaps much larger than goods. Whatever that value is, we want services to be included in the sanctions. I am looking for a commitment from the Minister to a ban that includes services, and to the enforcement of that.

On the Government’s non-enforcement of their own labelling measures, the Business and Trade Select Committee, of which I am a member, has written to the Government twice, most recently in April 2026 following a meeting with Palestinian delegates on 4 February and a Sub-Committee session with the Minister for Trade—I thank the Minister—on 25 February. The Government, however, have since refused the Committee’s request for evidence on enforcement of their current labelling measures. Will the Minister give us that evidence? These commitments matter, because we made them, along with Israel, under the UK-Israel free trade agreement, which requires the UK and Israel to differentiate goods produced within green-line Israel—within the pre-1967 borders—and goods produced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a key point.

At the moment, I think many Members of this House share the overall impression that the Government’s inaction means that they are talking the talk about protecting human rights and upholding international law, but not walking the walk. This is a Labour Government; bluntly, I expect more from them, so I really hope we will see something today on this issue.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate on trade—granted, of course, by the Backbench Business Committee.

Before I turn to the specifics of what we are debating today, it is important to be clear from the outset that Conservative Members, like all Members who have spoken, want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. Israelis, Palestinians and people across the region deserve to live in peace with security, and it is my party’s long-held position that this can be best achieved through a two-state solution. We also want to see the Abraham accords expanded and wider regional barriers to peace overcome. At the same time, the official Opposition’s view is that settlements are not conducive to achieving long-term peace. We believe that the Israeli Government should firmly clamp down on settler violence, and we are against the expansion of settlements.

The shadow Minister says that the Israeli Government should stop these settlements, but as he knows, the Israeli Government have put their full weight behind them. The IDF are there when the settlers are doing these things, so on what basis does he say that the Israeli Government should be doing something about it? They are behind it.

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will address the point that she raises later in my speech, but our shared aim across this House, which is peace in the region, cannot be achieved without Britain maintaining an enduring relationship with Israel and with our allies in the region. It is through engagement that we will be able to achieve the resolution we all want. Engagement is vital to achieving the peace that unites the House today.

That is why I regret that, in my view and the view of the official Opposition, Britain’s influence has been diminished to such a degree due to a series of misjudged decisions. These include the decision to cancel trade talks while Hamas were still holding hostages after the 7 October attacks; the decision to impose export licence suspensions while Israel was burying hostages so barbarically taken from their loved ones; and the decision to recognise a Palestinian state when no formal peace process had been agreed. Of course we support a two-state solution, and it is right that we would recognise a Palestinian state, but recognition of a Palestinian state is only meaningful if it is part of a formal peace process. As my shadow ministerial colleagues have pointed out, the Government’s actions to date have left our relations with Israel in a deep freeze, with our ability to influence the situation in the region severely diminished.

The shadow Minister has been talking about the views of our allies in the region. I wonder when he last met or spoke to our allies across the Arab world, because they have been crying out for many of the actions that our Government have taken. They have been calling on us to act in support of a two-state solution, and to avoid dithering and doing nothing, which is what he is suggesting his party supports.

The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that we are saying we should do nothing. If Members remember, it was a Conservative Foreign Secretary in 2024 who imposed sanctions on the settlements. The House has heard me say from this Dispatch Box that the expansion of settlements is wrong. She is being unfair. What I am talking about is a point of execution. We have to engage with our allies—Israel is a critical ally of the United Kingdom—and that is not done by banning trade with Israel.

The shadow Minister says that Israel is a critical ally. Is it not possible ever to be critical of one’s allies in return?

We can be critical of our allies and we can be critical friends—of course we can—but what I am saying is that disengagement is not a solution to achieving what the House wants, which is peace in the middle east.

I will make a little progress in the interests of time, because I know that Members will want to hear from the Minister. It is the official Opposition’s view that a proposed ban on the trade of Israeli settlement goods and services will bring about the same result as I have been talking about and will prove counterproductive and ineffective.

Secondly, aside from the ineffectiveness of the policy, it is not even clear that it could be implemented, according to the Labour Government. The Government have repeatedly pointed out, as have many Members today, that a ban on settlement goods would be difficult to enforce. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said that countries imposing such a ban are encountering “technical difficulties”. Will the Trade Minister address that point when he responds to the debate, and confirm that the Government still hold these concerns about practicality? Labour Members have been questioning that. It is all well and good making a point and arguing for an action, but the Government say that it cannot be executed, and it needs to be explained.

I realise that many anti-Israel campaigners will not be concerned with the answers to these questions that I am posing of the Minister. They may not care whether a ban is effective or having an impact, but only that it should be in place. By the way, I have heard nobody in this debate mention that one in seven medicines dispensed by the NHS comes from Israel. Those who have suggested that we should have an outright ban on Israeli trade have offered no solution to that point. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital that the Government take the full impact of any policy into consideration.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Not right now, and I have already taken an intervention from the hon. Lady.

Finally, and more broadly, we worry that the campaigners ultimately want this ban to become a gateway to a wider ban on trade with Israel. If that is the case, they simply do not accept the importance of the relationship that we have with Israel. On trade and the economy, Israel is a technology and health superpower, with the UK-Israel trading relationship worth £6 billion. When the last Government launched bilateral trade talks in 2022, we estimated that the reduction in trade barriers could benefit almost 7,000 UK businesses in all Labour Members’ constituencies, including 5,600 SMEs employing 1.7 million people. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on the status of the trade agreement discussions. [Interruption.]

I see that you are asking me to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. We firmly believe that the proposed trade embargo would have no practical effect whatever on the situation in the region. We are concerned that it is part of a broader push by Israel’s opponents to isolate the Jewish state politically and economically. The ban would be legally and administratively complex, it would have limited economic effect, and it would hinder diplomatic efforts to find a sustainable, long-term peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. No matter what Members might say or shout, the ban would not bring about peace in the middle east. We have already seen Britain’s voice marginalised and Britain’s ability to influence Israel diminished. To go further down this path would not serve British, Israeli or Palestinian interests at all, so we cannot support the proposed ban.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), who has raised many of these issues not just today, but on other days. It is important that we are having this debate.

I hope that hon. Members do not mind, but I will not go through each individual Member’s contribution; I will just try to answer the single voice—well, the nearly single voice—that I have heard in the Chamber today. I will try to do so in the most straightforward and up-front way possible.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) said that we should not avoid the elephant in the room—the humanitarian situation in Gaza. He is absolutely right. It is appalling, disgraceful and despicable. There are so many starving; so many thirsty for clean drinking water; so many lacking shelter and shade; so many lacking daily medicine and emergency care; so many children without teachers, without parents, without brothers and sisters or uncles and aunts, and without friends to join in the playground; so many orphans; so many homeless; so many injured; so many disabled; so many frightened and angry; so many grieving; so many dead. It does shame us all. The Israeli Government must immediately allow all humanitarian aid in so that the people of Gaza can breathe and live. The ceasefire must be abided by.

The settlements are morally wrong, legally indefensible and completely counterproductive when it comes to achieving a two-state solution—many hon. Members have said that that may be the deliberate intention of some—or for that matter, I would argue, when it comes to achieving an Israel that is safe and secure within its borders.

Will the Minister give way?

I will in a moment.

The violence is criminal too. We are grossly alarmed at the expansion, including the proposed E1 settlement bloc, and at the Israeli’s Government’s legislative changes to entrench Government control.

I know that not everything we have done has pleased everybody, and that we have not gone as far as many would like, but it is important to say that we have taken action. We have recognised Palestinian statehood, although I note that some people do not support that. We have stopped negotiations on a free trade agreement, although I know that some people do not support that, as we have just heard. We have strengthened the enforcement of tariff differentials between green-line Israel and the illegal settlements, but to be honest, I do not think it is as effective as we would like it to be. That is one of the significant problems both for what we are doing now and for what we might want to do in the future.

We have also suspended and blocked military and dual-use licences for equipment that could be used, or is being used, in humanitarian abuse in Gaza. We have sanctioned individuals and organisations linked to the settler movement. We have recently pushed the Charity Commission to look into UK charities that are linked to activities in the illegal settlements.

Let me be absolutely clear: of course we support Israel’s right to exist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, certainly not on the Government side of the House, is anti-Israel, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) suggested. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the activities of the Israeli Government without wanting to undermine the existence of the Israeli state. That is a really important distinction to make.

The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that many UK businesses are engaged in perfectly legitimate trade in green-line Israel, which is a powerhouse in many sectors including high tech, pharmaceuticals and so on. I pay tribute to those who have established strong economic relations between Israel and the UK, and, for that matter, between Palestine and the UK—I would like to strengthen that latter connection more. I would like to name UK companies that engage in trade in medicines, food and beverages, and financial services completely legitimately, and in a way that will be supported by everybody in this Chamber, in green-line Israel. Frankly, however, I will not do so for fear of reprisals against those companies, and that in itself tells a tale about the toxicity of this debate.

As I have said, the settlements are illegal. There is therefore a legal obligation on us as a Government not to aid or assist the occupation. The immediate corollary of that is that we need to stop UK businesses providing economic support and legitimacy to illegal settlements. Of course, we want to design measures to stop trade with settlements in a way that balances that with enabling British businesses and citizens to benefit from a strong trading relationship with Israel and with Palestine. That is one of the tricks we have to pull off.

There are four key things that we could do and are seriously considering. First, we could ban imports to the UK of goods from the illegal settlements. I think all UK consumers would want us to do this effectively, and lots of supermarkets and other chains have been looking to do it in their own way. The challenge is—and this is not an excuse, to respond to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse); it is just a fact—that there is no properly verifiable means of determining the real source. [Interruption.] No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the argument, he can criticise me afterwards if he wants to. This situation is very different from Ukraine, because in Ukraine there is a verifiable process to determine whether something is from occupied Crimea or from Ukraine. That is a significant difference. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is a challenge.

If that is a problem and we want to implement the ban, the issue of distinguishing the goods is Israel’s problem; it should not be ours. We should not be held over a barrel by being told that distinguishing goods is a problem for us. It is Israel’s problem to distinguish which goods to prevent, and we should ban those goods in totality.

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point, but the danger is that, if we end up banning all trade with Israel, we fall foul of the other problems I have mentioned.

Will the Minister give way?

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress, and then I will give way.

The second thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK goods to the illegal settlements. Members have talked, for instance, of banning the sale of UK machinery. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, referred to one particular company. Here, too, the challenge is that goods move in and out very freely between the illegal settlements and green-line Israel, and that poses a challenge for us. It is not insurmountable, but it is a challenge.

I really do appreciate the steps the Government have taken. I particularly appreciate the recognition of the state of Palestine, because the embassy is in my constituency, and I was very proud to be there to see the flag raised. I want the Minister to be part of the almost total consensus here today, but that does mean being unambiguous. The problem with saying, “There are these problems,” or, “We can advise and encourage companies, but we cannot force them,” is that it is saying it is a bit legal or a bit illegal. We want a decisive view on this: we want settlement goods to be banned.

I think my hon. Friend must have misheard, or maybe I misspoke in some way, because I am saying very clearly that there are four things we could do and are seriously considering doing. The important thing is that, where there are challenges, we need to overcome them. It is not that they become an excuse for inaction.

Will the Minister give way?

I will just go through the third and fourth points, because they are important.

The third thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK services to the illegal settlements. To my mind, it must be completely wrong for a UK business to enable the construction of a block of flats or a road, for instance, in the settlements, by providing finance, insurance, architectural services, logistical support or, as has been referred to in the debate, selling properties in the illegal settlements. All of that is a perfectly legitimate area where we should consider banning exports of UK services to the settlements. Likewise, the fourth area we are considering taking action on is banning imports to the UK of services from the settlements.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Just one more moment, and I then I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) would like to intervene first.

Members are absolutely right that other countries are either considering or are in the process of introducing a variety of different bans. As the Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has said, we have had conversations with some of them. Some are expressing concerns about whether what they are going to do will actually be effective. Sometimes I am all for declaratory legislation, but I am much more in favour of doing things that actually take effect. That is one of the key considerations for us.

Let me be absolutely clear: I do not think that any of the legal or logistical problems is insurmountable. We are actively considering what a trade ban that directly targets illegal settlements would look like.

What does “actively considering” mean? Is there anything active about it? Can the Minister refer to meetings, instructions or deadlines that would manifest as active consideration?

Yes, I have asked officials to produce advice on how we might proceed.

By when?

The right hon. Gentleman asks, from a sedentary position, by when? I think my timeline may be rather limited in this post, but as Tagore said:

“The one who plants trees, knowing that he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life.”

I have been trying to progress some of this work. We have not got to a place where we are able to announce anything yet, but that is why I am saying we are actively considering it.

Will the Minister give way?

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I do want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.

I just have a couple more points to make. Any measures must be enforceable, effective and not have unintended consequences on our legitimate trade, for instance in medicines, with green-line Israel. The worst of all possible outcomes would be measures that are morally declaratory but ineffective or ineffectual, and that are not capable of being implemented.

There are several routes we could go down. Members have mentioned the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There was a set of suggestions, not all that different from some of the ideas that have come up to us already, from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. That is an option available to us, but there are other routes we might want to explore.

I really wish that I were able to say more today, but it really is not words that are needed. I fully understand and have heard very clearly, as have the whole of the Government, that it is action that is needed. I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) because he is very keen, but he will have to be very quick.

I thank my hon. Friend, while he is still in post. Very briefly, he will be aware of the mockery that is the situation with dual-use goods between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Surely we can have some sort of ban on the products we are supplying that are essentially enabling civilisational erasure in Palestine?

I will write to my hon. Friend in answer to that point, as I am very keen to let my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central speak.

As I said, it is not words that are needed on this issue, but actions. I very much hope those might be imminent.

I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank everybody for their excellent contributions: those who are here with us now in the Chamber and those who were not able to make a contribution—I know many colleagues have left now but wanted to make interventions. I thank the Minister for his action and the work that will be taken forward. If he is willing, while he is still in position, to meet the many of us who are really keen to ensure that we do have tangible action, it would be greatly appreciated.

I say to the shadow Minister that I think he may have misunderstood. This issue is about the west bank. The west bank is occupied territory. That is recognised. Governments of all shades in the past have recognised that it is occupied territory. The debate is specifically about banning trade in that particular area, so I am not sure whether there was confusion about what we are actually proposing or indeed debating today.

I thank the Minister for his contribution, and please let us arrange a meeting so that we can take this forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, a number of Conservative MPs visited my constituency. That is entirely understandable, as we have fantastic event spaces and hospitality. Most of those Conservative MPs notified me in advance that they would be attending, with one notable exception: the Leader of the Opposition. Surely we should expect the Leader of the Opposition to set the standards, adhere to them, and make sure that we all know about the leadership that she wants to instil. Can you advise me on how we can make sure that those in positions of leadership meet the expectations and demonstrate the standards that we all agree to in this place?

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for informing the right hon. Member to whom he has referred. The document entitled “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that a

“failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.”

A party political activity is not a purely private visit, and I hope that by stating this very clearly from the Chair, it will reduce the frequency of such discourtesies in future.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, constituents from Newcastle-under-Lyme visited this mother of all Parliaments. We went down to the Terrace, where I was informed that the ever-charming and hospitable Richard Pengelly, the long-term linchpin of Strangers, will be retiring next Thursday after almost 40 years of service to this House and to Members of all parties, from all four nations of our United Kingdom of varying degrees and lengths of service. I know that you think very fondly of Richard, as do I and colleagues on both sides of the House. As we give thanks for Richard’s decades of service to Parliament, can you advise me on the best way for this House to place on the record our collective thanks to Richard Pengelly? What secrets he must have!

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Let us not dwell on the secrets of the barmen. However, he will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, even though this occupant of the Chair might have a keen interest. I am sure we all wish Richard well for his retirement.