Harpreet Uppal
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.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
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?
Harpreet Uppal
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.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
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.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
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.
Kit Malthouse
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.
Kit Malthouse
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.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
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.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
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.
Andy McDonald
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.
Chris Bryant
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.
Chris Bryant
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.
Andy Slaughter
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.
Chris Bryant
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.
Chris Bryant
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.
Chris Bryant
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.
Chris Murray
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?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I have asked officials to produce advice on how we might proceed.
Chris Bryant
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.
Chris Bryant
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.
Matt Western
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?
Chris Bryant
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.