Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

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.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

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.

[Mr Hussain]

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?

[Naz Shah]

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.

Seasonal Work

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Evans]

I will take an intervention on that point, if any Labour Member would like to make one. More importantly, my hon. Friend correctly makes the point that it is the Government’s job to set the framework. There is no such thing as Government money: it is taxpayers’ money, earned by those who create the wealth. It is businesses and the associated workforce that provide the public sector with the money it needs to do its job—it is that simple.

In my trade as a doctor, we talk about A-B-C-D-E when it comes to a patient. There is no use dealing with the circulation—the heart—if the person does not have a clear airway. The same applies here: we need to have an economy that is growing and thriving to be able to give the foundation to the funding for the likes of the NHS or education. This is where the Government might be slightly wrong and where they have got the balance wrong, about which we heard from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger). If the system is tilted too far and made too tight for people ever to take a risk, we are not going to have the tax inflow in the first place. Worse still, we have seen 16,000 millionaires and counting leave the country.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I had the pleasure of meeting two risk-takers in my constituency this weekend: Habbak Watches and AutoLab. They are run by people who are simply wanting to grow their businesses and offer chances and opportunities to young people in my town. I have also met many micro and small businesses, all of whom felt neglected and that they were not being offered the support that they deserve. I support the Employment Rights Bill and I support the rights of employees, but I am beginning wonder and worry: are we pitting employers against employees, and vice versa?

[Dr Evans]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. There is a risk of doing that, but we have to remember that it does not need to be like that. There are many good employees and many good employers, far more than hon. Members like to talk about. Our job is to protect those margins. If we make the margins too tight, we hinder the very people who are doing a good job, which I think is his inference and what I hear in my constituency. That is why I am asking the Government to rethink this balance and to reconsider the toxic concoction of legislation, red tape and taxation all at once causing such a big problem. At the end of the day, we can have as many employment rights as we want, but if we do not have businesses driving growth and providing jobs, they will not apply—it is as simple as that.

In conclusion, at the end of “Blackadder Goes Forth”, Blackadder resigns himself to going over the top, but Baldrick taps him on the shoulder and says, “Sir, I have a cunning plan.” I hope that the Chancellor has a cunning plan to deal with this situation, but I will not wait with bated breath.