Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

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?

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

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?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

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?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I will, and it will be my final intervention.

[Andrew George]

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?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abtisam Mohamed]

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.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

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?

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The exploitations in the leasehold system are endless: unfair service charges, ground rents, marriage value buy backs, the hidden cost of utilities, inflated insurance—the list goes on and on, as do the ways that freeholders line their pockets while ordinary homeowners bear the cost.

We have seen that acutely in Sheffield, with Andrew Milne buying up hundreds of freeholds at £250, and then shamefully charging homeowners extortionate prices to buy them back. He has rightly faced consequences with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police for blackmail. It was only a few months ago that residents in Walkley in my constituency were receiving legal letters saying that their leases would soon be up for sale, leaving them worried whether they too would be subjected to extortion. No one should be living with that kind of fear.

Across the developments of Columbia Place, Millsands, Riverside House, Anchor Point and Little Kelham in my constituency, residents speak with one voice: the problems in their homes are overwhelming; the responsibility to chase managing agents is taking up their time; and they are being charged extortionate amounts for work that never seems to happen properly, or at all.

Two weeks ago, I met with over 40 residents from Little Kelham. Their stories told of one horror after another. I heard from a family with a six-year-old child living in a home with a broken window, who were told by the managing agent that there was not enough money to fix it. Another family were told to move out from their home for six weeks for repairs. It ended up being 14 months, and when they moved back in, the repairs were incomplete.

Another resident told me that her service charge went up by 250%, and when she challenged that, so opaque were the figures and how they were calculated, they were then dropped. Many other residents, who had tried to take over the management of their properties, complained that the finalised accounts they requested never materialised. The lack of financial transparency is staggering. It shows that these are not only isolated failures but symptoms of wider structural problems. There are two things that my constituents are calling for above everything else: transparency in their arrangements, and accountability when things sadly go wrong.

Today’s motion rightly says that the absence of statutory regulation for property management agents represents a major weakness in our plans for reform. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has made it clear, as does the evidence in Lord Best’s review, that voluntary self-regulation has not delivered the standards that leaseholders deserve, nor will it deliver the accountability they want. Where management agents repeatedly fail residents, simply issuing guidance is not enough. The regulator should be able to impose meaningful financial penalties and, where appropriate, remove licences altogether.

Leaseholders deserve far greater transparency over their service charges, stronger rights to challenge unreasonable costs, and easier routes to replace managing agents who fail to deliver. We have got to seize this opportunity to ensure that managing agents are properly regulated. That is the action that my leaseholders deserve and that I hope the Minister will carry out in following through the recommendations of the Committee.

Royal Mail: Performance

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the dedicated postal workers in Sheffield Central, who work tirelessly to ensure that people receive their letters and deliveries throughout the year.

I have also been contacted by constituents in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield who have complained of delays and missing post. Some residents have missed important work papers, legal documents and hospital appointments, while others have found themselves waiting endlessly for their gas or electric cards. One constituent in particular is responsible for planning decisions in the Peak district, and is still waiting for official committee papers posted first class nearly a month ago. That has directly impacted his ability to do his job.

Many described receiving nothing for weeks on end, and then finally receiving a bundle of post on one day. Missing vital mail has become a danger to people’s health, wellbeing and financial security. Despite contacting Royal Mail, it has not responded to a single one of my emails; it is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what Royal Mail is telling us and what their workers are saying is happening on the ground, particularly about the deliberate strategy within the company to devalue those who are doing their jobs in the sorting offices?

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress on the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This week marks the start of COP30 in Brazil, a moment when world leaders, scientists and campaigners come together, united in purpose, to confront the climate crisis head-on. Last week, the World Meteorological Organisation delivered another sobering warning that 2025 is likely to be the second or third warmest year on record. With every passing year, we see the growing cost of inaction—wildfires, floods, droughts and communities displaced across the world. The message is clear: we need bold action, and we need it now.

Since 2022, environmental charities and organisations have fought every step of the way to ensure that we have a competent and detailed carbon budget delivery plan. The last Government’s plan—if we can call it that—ignored expert warnings and was twice ruled unlawful by the High Court. The Climate Change Committee said last year that, under the previous Government, the UK net zero ambitions were “off track”. Thankfully, we are no longer in that chaotic place; this year at COP30, the UK delegation is carrying the message that climate action is not a burden but our route to a future, with stronger communities and a safer planet.

We know that without decisive action, bills will continue to rise, businesses will struggle, and the environment we all cherish, from the peaks to the coast, will be lost. We must be clear, credible and ambitious in our plans to decarbonise. It is how we will not only create high-paying clean energy jobs but cut households energy bills and invest to secure our future. The plan published by the Government at the end of October is a start, and it provides welcome clarity, but is it ambitious enough? In my constituency of Sheffield Central, people understand how urgent this is. They want action. They want the Government to commit to protecting our planet and making life more affordable.

It is disappointing that Sheffield will continue to be the only major UK city without electrified rail. Over the past year, when I have met Sheffield Friends of the Earth and our local Greenpeace group, they have shared my view that we must go much further, and we must work at a faster speed. I look to the Minister to provide answers to locals, who have now missed out on electrification, as well as newer, faster and cleaner trains in the region.

The cost of energy also remains one of the biggest worries for people in my constituency. Time and again, I hear from residents who are doing everything they can to make ends meet, yet their energy bills are still far too high, and they continue to rise. Too many families have been forced to make impossible choices between heating their homes and putting food on the table. That is why, alongside Power for People, I have pushed for a fundamental reset of how we generate and buy energy locally.

Clean, locally sourced and locally stored power relieves pressures on the grid, and granting local supply rights for community energy schemes is a common sense approach. It makes no sense for the cost of regulatory approval to remain so high that locally sourced energy must be sold back to the central grid, instead of being supplied locally. Can the Minister expand on how the Government will build domestic supply chains for clean energy? How will they create jobs and bring investment back into our communities?

It is also true that far too many of our homes, especially older homes, leak heat through poor insulation measures. That is why the warm homes plan is incredibly important. Investment is necessary for households to install solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and insulation. These measures will, in the long term, cut bills, reduce emissions and tackle fuel poverty for good. However, simply offering these retrofit programmes will not be enough; people must know about them and have confidence in them.

That is why it is so important to have places like the Sheffield Energy Hub, where fuel poverty charities regularly offer advice to people on energy efficiency, energy saving and the links between cold homes and unhealthy futures. Despite the expectation, the wider warm homes plan has not yet been published, and speculation that the upcoming Budget will remove green levies, which pay for home energy efficiency measures, is deeply worrying.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Climate Change Committee’s top recommendation was that the Government’s climate plan ought to remove policy costs from electricity bills. Does the hon. Lady think that the Government could seek to address that in the Budget?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

The Government should consider how consumers’ bills can be reduced. I want to see the warm homes plan feature, and I want it published so that we can have appropriate conversations about what is in it. If the cut to investment without guaranteed funding from elsewhere goes ahead, billions of pounds and over 100,000 jobs in the installation industry would be at risk. I urge the Minister to outline how the Government will end that uncertainty, bring the warm homes plan forward quickly and start the consultation so that experts and communities can help shape what is in it.

Improving energy efficiency is one of the quickest ways to lower bills, but it must go hand in hand with a bold push for renewable energy. We know that solar and onshore wind are now the cheapest and cleanest sources of power available. If we invest in them at scale, we can bring down energy costs for households and businesses alike, while strengthening our energy security and cutting carbon at the same time. That is why I have raised concerns about the extraction of the Rosebank oilfield. When I met Sheffield Rosebank campaigners, they knew, as I do, that extraction of the oilfield will not reduce gas prices, but it will have a significant effect on the climate. Today the developer’s impact assessment shows that extraction would release nearly 50 times more gas than originally cited.

At a time when the focus should be on clean, affordable and home-grown energy, approving one of the largest new oilfields in the North sea sends the wrong message. It risks locking us into decades of expensive, polluting fossil fuels, while doing little to reduce bills here at home. We should instead be putting that same investment and ambition into home-grown renewables, energy efficiency and a fair transition for workers and communities, building the kind of fair sustainable energy future that people in Sheffield and across the country want to see.

This is not just about homes; it is about jobs, growth and opportunity. Clean energy industries have the potential to provide high-skilled, well-paid jobs across the country, driving economic growth while tackling the climate crisis. The green economy has grown at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, yet in Sheffield, I have met businesses that have struggled with soaring energy costs, threatening their future and their workers’ livelihoods. A clear, fully consulted strategy is needed to ensure that support reaches the businesses that need it the most, as well as driving a greener and fairer economy. What are the plans to support small businesses struggling with their higher energy bills?

At the University of Sheffield, world-leading researchers are pioneering advances in sustainable aviation, developing cleaner fuels, lighter materials and cutting-edge technologies to help decarbonise. Through the university’s Energy Institute and Sustainable Aviation Fuels Innovation Centre, Sheffield is proving that climate action can go hand in hand with innovation, job creation and global leadership in the industries of the future. Although I welcome the current plan, I want to push the Government further, because it is vital that we lead by example on the global stage.

Many of my constituents worry about the overreliance on fossil fuels and the impact big polluters have on our environment. We know how disastrous it will be if large corporations continue to go unchecked in relation to their carbon emissions and pollution. That is why I have joined the Make Polluters Pay campaign, and why I am urging the Government to go further by introducing polluter pays measures such as a frequent flyer levy to curb the most polluting activities and fund green investment. COP30 has provided a unique opportunity for the UK to join France, Spain and others in the Premium Flyers Solidarity Coalition, which is committed to raising international climate finance by increasing levies on premium flyers including business class, first class and private jet users.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is estimated that we would have to plant a forest twice the size of Greater London to cancel out all the extra emissions created by the expansions of Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick, next to my constituency of Horsham. Does the hon. Member think that that suggests the Government are entirely serious about meeting our carbon budget?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

There is a recognition that we need to do more on our climate priorities and on addressing increased aviation. We definitely need to explore that, and I will press the Minister on it in the future.

The revenue raised could be used to support domestic priorities, including insulating homes and building clean energy, and provide international climate finance to help the most vulnerable communities around the world adapt to the devastating effects of climate change. By ensuring that those with the largest carbon footprints contribute the largest share, we can show that tackling the climate crisis can be done fairly without punishing those who are worse off.

As the world meets in Belém to chart a path for the planet’s future, the UK can once again lead by example. We must act with purpose, ambition and hope. We must protect our planet, cut bills and create jobs while restoring Britain’s leadership on the world stage. Tackling the climate crisis is not just about saving the planet; it is about building a better, fairer and more secure future for everyone.

Will the Minister address my questions to him today? Will he provide a timeline for when the warm homes plan will be published? Does he have an update on the midland main line upgrade, and on when Sheffield can expect that critical investment to resume? Will he expand on how his Department will build resilience into clean energy supply chains, create jobs and investment in Sheffield, and ensure that energy sourced locally can be bought locally? Will he confirm what support is being offered to small businesses struggling with higher energy bills? Will he outline the Government’s commitment to boost the green economy and fund research at Sheffield’s world-leading institutions? Finally, will he commit to ending Britain’s reliance on fossil fuel giants, and ensure that they pay their fair share in tackling the climate crisis?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Abtisam Mohamed]

Thank you for your stewardship in the debate, Sir John; I will do my best to be as brief as possible. I thank all Members for their contributions and interventions. On the whole, they have been extremely positive, and they have wanted our Ministers to be as positive and ambitious as possible in tackling the climate crisis, not just for our constituents but for the Government as a whole.

A key point raised by the Minister was the Government’s focus on multilateralism; I welcome that approach, and our Government should take their rightful place as a strong leader on our climate obligations. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the shadow Minister has decided to ignore the facts and expert opinions. Instead, the Opposition’s ideological position is just to pretend that the climate crisis is not something real that we are living through.

I thank you again, Sir John, and everyone else for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered progress on the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Abtisam Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting high street businesses.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting high street businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

Revitalising our high streets is a priority for this Government, and I and the Secretary of State have spoken to colleagues across Whitehall to ensure that we are working together to create better conditions over the long term for high street businesses to thrive. That means addressing antisocial behaviour and crime, rolling out banking hubs, stamping out late payments, empowering communities to make the most of vacant properties, strengthening the post office network, reforming the apprenticeship levy and, as the Chancellor confirmed yesterday, reforming business rates.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

There are just short of 5,500 businesses in Sheffield Central, and more than 80% of them are micro-businesses employing fewer than 10 employees. These are the engines of local economic growth in our area, and they provide vital services in our community. Many businesses in my constituency welcome yesterday’s announcement of permanently lower business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure properties from 2026-27. Will the Minister outline what further steps he is taking with the Chancellor to create a fairer business rates system, so we can ensure that our high streets thrive permanently?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I think this is the first time I have had the chance to congratulate her on her election to this House. She is absolutely right that if we are to see our high streets thrive, we need to ensure there is a genuinely level playing field for businesses online and those on the high street. As the Chancellor announced yesterday, to deliver that pledge we intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. To fund that, we intend to introduce a large business multiplier from 2026-27, which will apply a higher rate on the most valuable properties. That will capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by the online giants. However, we want to go further, so the Chancellor published a discussion paper yesterday asking businesses for further ideas on the reform of business rates.