Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the vital contribution that unpaid carers make to their loved ones and their communities, and the experiences of families in his constituency reflect the challenges faced by unpaid carers across the country. We want to ensure that carers can remain in work and fulfil their potential. Through our review, we will ensure that we are backing our unpaid carers to balance work and care, as well as the employers who support them in the workplace.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member’s contribution in the recent Westminster Hall debate on seasonal hospitality businesses, including those in his constituency. We are delivering permanently lower business rate multipliers for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is backed by a £4.3 billion support package over three years, which includes transitional relief to protect businesses from large bill increases following the re-evaluation. We have increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million over three years, building on the previous scheme, to support larger, longer-term projects. I am committed to working in partnership with industry and across Government to support growth and resilience, including through targeted support measures and engagement, such as with the Hospitality Sector Council.

[Andrew George]

As welcome as that is, and I am not crying wolf, the hospitality sector faces a very high risk of substantial business failure in the next 12 months as a result of the tax burdens that it has to face simply for attempting to survive, rather than a tax burden to help it succeed—in other words, shifting from VAT and business rates to corporation tax. Will the Minister look again at this issue before real catastrophe comes to the sector? Will she talk to Treasury Ministers and find a way out of this extremely serious situation?

[Kate Dearden]

Unfortunately, we inherited an absolutely dire situation from the Conservatives when they left office. They left deep scars on our economy from a decade of stagnant growth. We know that hospitality thrives when our economy grows, wages rise and people have money to spend, which is why we are absolutely committed to supporting businesses and working closely with them. The hon. Member will know that the Government need to consider a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, such as whether they support wider Government objectives. He will also know that the Government keep all taxes under review as part of the policymaking process, and the Chancellor will announce any changes to the tax system at fiscal events in the usual way.

Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will join him in that call. Indeed, he has dealt with an element of my speech nice and early, so I thank him for doing so.

According to UKHospitality, the sector accounts for around 10% of all UK jobs nationally. In tourism-led coastal communities it provides as much as 50% of local employment. On the Isle of Wight, tourism accounts for 38% of economic activity and is the biggest employment sector locally. When the sector suffers, coastal communities suffer in a way that is greater than elsewhere.

Coastal areas have faced challenges for decades, with cheap competition from holidays abroad, changing holiday preferences, an increase in the relative cost of travel, older population demographics, fewer job opportunities, and a lack of investment in infrastructure. High streets have suffered from dereliction and neglect, with all the societal challenges that follow.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point and an excellent speech. In west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, the situation is just as troubling. Indeed, it is an existential crisis. Does he agree that unless we address the current rate of VAT and/or the business rates that burden our hospitality businesses, many of them, including in my constituency, will not see the end of this year?

[Joe Robertson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is ahead of me: I will address the issue of business rates and VAT presently.

There are plenty of green shoots, however, in many of the communities, and brilliant local leaders trying to drive change, such as Lawrence Bates at the Wildheart Animal Sanctuary in Sandown, and Ian Boyd, founder of the Common Space. Start-ups and small businesses in hospitality are a major driver of regeneration and innovation, for example the Point in Bembridge, Braai in Brading, and the Sandown Boulevard street food market. But the Government have a role in creating an environment for hospitality to thrive.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I will certainly raise my hon. Friend’s concerns about important medical post with Ofcom. Royal Mail is part of the critical national infrastructure and can reach every part of the country, and its ability to deliver such things is a business opportunity, and it needs to get that right.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On Monday, it was my privilege to visit the Helston sorting office, where I discovered staff burdened with remote, counterproductive micromanagement of their work and inadequate plans to deal with the inevitability of staff absences. I was distressed to hear them describe that they had been abused and threatened when undertaking their work on the frontline. Does the Minister agree that frontline workers should be praised and have management systems that empower them to resolve matters locally?

[Blair McDougall]

I think the hon. Gentleman can tell from the comments around the House how much respect and affection there is for posties around the country, and I am disturbed by what he describes. Ultimately, the only sustainable future for Royal Mail is in bringing together a workforce who are really passionate about what they do and a management who are seeking to get the company into a financially sustainable position. That is why we are prioritising the talks going on at the moment.

Post Office Green Paper

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I am very happy to reassure Mohammed and his sons about that, and to thank them for the work that they do for the community. My hon. Friend mentions the post office staying open for longer; that is typical of postmasters, who are not just running a business, but have a really clear sense that they are serving their community. That is why getting this right, and succeeding with the vision that we have set out in this Green Paper, is so important.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and I welcomed the opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss these issues. A lot of people are talking about either reopening post offices—indeed, the Post Office want to see them reopen—or avoiding closure, and he knows that it all comes down to remuneration. As he will have heard, a post office operator needs to sell at least 450 stamps every hour just to achieve the national minimum wage level of remuneration. That clearly is the reason why in Porthleven and Newlyn, where the Post Office want to reopen post offices, no one is interested in taking on those services. What can the Government do to ensure that the remuneration is sufficient to ensure that the network targets he has outlined can be achieved?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Member for taking the time to meet me to make the case for post offices in his area, which he did with some passion. From conversations not just with him and other hon. Members, but with postmasters, I am left in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the Post Office improves renumeration for post offices, because that is how we will ensure that the network thrives and survives. We are putting half a billion pounds into network transformation, so that all the businesses, including those in hon. Members’ constituencies, are sustainable.

Fairtrade Certification

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on the way he is articulating the case for Fairtrade. It is important that it is robust and traceable and has strong integrity, but if we are to scale up, should we not also integrate international Fairtrade standards into the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is part of UK legislation? After all, the GCA is looking only at the final supplier to the large supermarkets in this country. If we can establish a strong relationship between international Fairtrade and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is currently under review, would that not be another step forward?

[Martin Rhodes]

The hon. Member’s highlights that certification schemes, important though they are, are not the only answer; we need to look at legislation and statutory guidance that will drive change in the system overall. I will speak later about what we can do in legislative terms to ensure that all the supply chains involved in goods and services sold in the UK are properly regulated and that we have a system in place to look at standards in the UK and elsewhere in those supply chains.

A recent example of the advocacy work of the Fairtrade Foundation is its “Brew it Fair” campaign, which called for greater accountability and responsibility in the tea sector. Some 13 million people source employment from the tea industry, and 60% of the world’s tea is produced by smallholder farmers. Regrettably, this market is made up of a high number of farmers and workers with low incomes and wages, working in the context of increasingly difficult conditions for farming due to climate change. This campaign called on the Government to do more to collaborate with the industry to deliver living wages and incomes for those in the tea sector and to be bolder in how we approach supply chain due diligence, and called for the UK to continue to honour its international climate finance commitments. During Fairtrade fortnight, at the end of September, around 117,000 people across the UK engaged with more than 1,000 local grassroots activities in support of the “Brew it Fair” campaign. Many of them were Fairtrade communities, a network of local campaign groups across the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) wished to speak today but is unable to do so due to prior commitments. However, she told me she wants on the record her recognition of the hard work of the Garstang Fairtrade community—passionate campaigners on these issues in the world’s first Fairtrade town.

Support for Fairtrade cuts across communities and generations, from faith communities who see it as an important part of their social mission, to student activists inspired by its empowering impact, to rural communities who know through lived experience where power lies in agricultural supply chains. When Fairtrade hosted tea farmers from Kenya and India to speak directly to politicians and policy makers, that demonstrated exactly why advocacy is so important: it closes the vast proximity gap, often spanning cultures and oceans, between those who make decisions in this place and in boardrooms and those working at the very beginning of supply chains to deliver so many of the goods we enjoy.

Yesterday, Fairtrade’s “Brew it Fair” campaign culminated in a cross-party group of MPs, activists, and representatives from business and the Fairtrade Foundation handing a petition in to Downing Street, signed by over 21,000 people, containing the main asks of the campaign. The petition calls on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence to oblige the public sector and businesses to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harms across their supply chains. I look forward to the Minister reflecting on the asks of the campaign in his response. In particular, I ask that he updates us on the Government’s position on human rights and environmental due diligence. The petition’s ask is the most important of the campaign, and the clearest ask of this debate.

[Andrew George]

I am dreadfully sorry to ask, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who are campaigning for Fairtrade believe that it can succeed properly only if this Government lead the way with their official development assistance budget, which has been severely cut? Does he agree that to achieve the aims that we all want to achieve, the Government need to look at their ODA budget? I cannot see how we can help countries enough if do it purely through trade.

[Martin Rhodes]

Trading relations become more important in the context of cuts to aid budgets, not just here but elsewhere in the world. Trade and business become more important as means of supporting and helping countries, and of narrowing gaps of inequality globally. There is a separate debate, which we might have at another time, about the levels of aid from the UK and elsewhere, but in the current context, trade becomes more important, not less.

In recent correspondence I had with the University of the Arts London, it highlighted structural challenges that are particularly clear in the fashion and textile sector. The debate so far has concentrated on food, but the university’s analysis shows that, despite strong consumer demand for ethical clothing, uptake of standards such as Fairtrade remains limited because of the lack of regulatory pressure, opaque multi-tiered supply chains and the competitive disadvantage faced by responsible brands. Its research underlines exactly why certification alone cannot fix a market that rewards the cheapest, rather than the fairest, production. We need human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to create that system change.

Some may worry that such legislation is a recipe for more red tape that will hamper growth, but that need not be the case. Many UK businesses already have to follow EU directives because that is where a large part of their market is. We risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while our own British companies, following best practice in order to trade with our closest and largest neighbours, are undercut. Some 50 global businesses have already signed statements calling for human rights due diligence legislation, including UK brands such as Tesco, Twinings and John Lewis. Organisations such as the Corporate Justice Coalition are working hard to advocate on the issue by proposing a business, human rights and environment Act.

Current legislation on supply chain transparency lacks effectiveness. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies only to report on their operations, but not necessarily to take responsible actions to address and prevent the problems. Having met the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I am aware that they are pushing for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in the UK. I would appreciate the Minister making reference to the commissioner’s work in his response.



Fairtrade shows that ethical trade can deliver; human rights and environmental due diligence would take it from optional to systemic. That said, the lessons of this debate for the Government are not just about the Fairtrade mark, a more ethical tea industry, or even important changes in due diligence laws. As we face a world of pressures and reductions in aid budgets, including our own, it places on us a greater and more urgent responsibility to use progressive approaches to trade and business and to promote progress on human rights, the environment and economic growth concurrently.

I shall conclude on that wider context. With the reductions in UK official development assistance, we should be viewing ethical trade and responsible business as cost-effective ways to put our principles into practice. Principles such as poverty reduction, gender equality and environmental sustainability can all be advanced through strong due diligence laws, and by growing our trade with allies that share the same high standards. But we are also required to take proactive action against regressive trade policies—most notably the use of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which are mechanisms to allow overseas investors to sue Governments for taking legitimate regulatory decisions in the public interest.

The Government’s recent trade strategy contains very welcome and strong commitments to embedding human rights and environmental practices into our trade policy. I similarly welcome the Government’s responsible business conduct review, which shows their commitment to tackle the issues we are addressing in this debate. Such Government engagement, led by the Minister, is welcome.

The Labour Government was elected on an ambitious programme for workers’ rights and environmental sustainability. This is now an important opportunity for us to put those priorities into practice, not just here in the UK but in our global supply chains. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the rest of the debate.

Business and Trade Committee

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on the report. As I am sure he knows, I responded to his request for comment. My question is about the security of financial services. He says that diversification is one of the solutions to the risk of cyber- attack. My worry is that, if we put all our eggs into the basket of an increasingly electronic-based financial services market where high street banks retreat behind electronic walls, that does not just result in vulnerable and digitally-excluded customers struggling to access financial services, but creates a big national risk. It is a problem for our communities where banks are retreating—in Cornwall, there will be only one Lloyds bank left next year—and for the security of the nation as well.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. This is just a reminder that the debate must end at 10 minutes to 2.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as part of the ministerial team in the Department for Business and Trade prior to my appointment. On stockpiling, it is the Government’s view that we will work with the Ministry of Defence and with industry and, while not mandating stockpiling, use procurement to ensure that we can stockpile appropriately. I certainly think that the precise quantity and breadth of the minerals to be stockpiled is something the Ministry of Defence will want to look at much more carefully. I know that my hon. Friend has also been a great champion for Less Common Metals, a great British champion in this space in his constituency. I spoke to the chief executive of that business just last week, and it has been central to forming the strategy.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Minister’s side of the House and endorse everything that they have said on this issue.

As the Minister will be aware, Cornwall has its own industrial strategy, which harmonises with the Government’s ambition and includes the space sector, green energy and geothermal. Will he ensure that the Government back the Cornish industrial strategy so that we can crack on with delivering the critical minerals strategy, and indeed all other aspects of the Cornish industrial strategy?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member makes a good point in that, ultimately, the delivery of any modern industrial strategy is fully dependent on critical minerals. The sectors he mentioned, such as space, are entirely dependent on critical minerals. I doubt that there has ever been a strategy presented in this House that has more fulsome backing of Cornwall than this one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was dismayed this morning to wake up and hear the Reform party actively arguing for less investment in Britain and telling businesses they should not invest in the UK. I find that absolutely absurd. There are a whole range of tools for local areas to shape their economies in the industrial strategy. Some relate to mayors, but many do not. It has the mix of tools that is required to unleash the potential of every part of the country, including his own.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to that very encouraging response from the Secretary of State, does he acknowledge that Cornwall is the poorest region in the United Kingdom? It has great opportunities, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) pointed out, but it has been hampered since losing the highest level of EU structural aid. If we are going to take the opportunities and overcome the challenges that Cornwall faces, would the Secretary of State be prepared to meet the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, me and other Cornish Members to establish a bespoke strategy for Cornwall to drive the private and public investment needed?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

First, let me say that, as someone who used to spend their family holidays in Cornwall, I must protest: I have had two questions from Cornish colleagues and not a single invite to visit Cornwall over the summer holidays. I really think that is unacceptable.

The economic history of Cornwall is particularly interesting—I have had this discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—and I recognise some of the specific issues that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has identified there. Of course, I am always willing to meet him, either in Cornwall or here in Parliament, to have that discussion. I believe there are key parts of the industrial strategy that will deliver the opportunities and the tools required to unleash what both colleagues are trying to achieve.

Future of the Post Office

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

In principle, I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issues with post offices in his constituency. He gives me the opportunity to put on the record my appreciation for the work that all our postmasters do. They are hugely important servants of all our communities, and they play a crucial role for our constituents—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that opportunity. The Green Paper is an opportunity for people in rural areas as well as urban areas to come forward with their views about the future of the Post Office. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their constituents to think about taking that opportunity, and take a moment to send in their comments.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister has announced that the overall size and shape of the network will remain the same, and he has also indicated that remuneration must be part of the consultation. As he will know—I have corresponded with him on this matter—the towns of Porthleven and Newlyn in my constituency have been without post offices for a number of years, because no one is prepared to take them on at the remuneration levels that are available. Is the Minister prepared to consider whether he sees those post offices more as Government offices, and to expand their role in terms of information, connectivity, and feedback across a number of Government Departments, to build up the services available in post offices? If he is meeting people, will he meet me to discuss how we can resolve the situation in my constituency?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make the task of running a post office more attractive. That is why improving both the culture, so that postmasters feel listened to, and the remuneration are hugely important immediate tasks. The best commercial opportunities for post offices lie in the provision of banking services, rather than Government services. I hope that the banks and the financial services industry will have heard the message from Members from all parts of the House: we want them to do more to work with Government to take advantage of the potential opportunities. As I have committed to meeting other hon. Members to discuss local issues, I had better do the same for the hon. Gentleman.