Israel and Palestine

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Palestine. I do so as a proud British Jew, someone with the deepest gratitude to the state of Israel for giving a home to my grandmother after she lost her husband, my grandfather, and 60 other family members at the hands of the Nazis. I remember visiting her in the 1970s in Tel Aviv and seeing the life and sanctuary Israel had provided. Indeed, some of my most joyful childhood memories are of picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived.

My personal story and that of thousands of British Jews is one of the many reasons why I say to anyone here or around the world who questions Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people: you are wrong, and we will call you out whenever you engage in that attempt at the erasure of Israel.

I know what the trauma of Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October meant and still means to people across Israel and to Jews across the world. It was a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population. The events of 7 October make plain the grave threats that Israel faces, and it has every right to defend itself. We should not only condemn those threats but act against those who carry them out.

Iran continues to threaten Israel and Jews across the world. We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will do more on Iran’s proxy groups. Today I can announce that we are sanctioning Lebanese Hezbollah’s financing arm, Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States. Tackling those threats is just one of the important shared national security interests we have with Israel, on which we will continue to co-operate.

I know, too, that so many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism, including here in the UK. Last week we commemorated the anniversary of the Heaton Park attack, when Jews were murdered at their place of worship simply for their religion—an outrage that was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. The everyday life of Jews in Britain is deeply affected by the climate that such hate creates. When I went to school in the 1980s, I did so without fear. Today we need to face the truth: that is not the case for thousands of Jewish children across the UK—children who have to go to a school with security guards outside it. No child should have to go to school facing that, and no teacher should face antisemitism either.

Whether it happens in our schools, universities or workplaces, online or on our streets, antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We are rightly putting in place an additional investment of £250 million for community security, but we all have a responsibility to do more. As part of this, I will in October host representatives of the J7—the countries across the world with the largest Jewish populations. We will meet in the UK to discuss the different ways we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism, including tackling online hate.

I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the state of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between that and my support for the state of Palestine—indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful co-existence, with freedom, security and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the north star of this Government’s policy and, indeed, of successive British Governments over decades.

It is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. In Gaza, we have seen the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years—death, destruction and dehumanisation on an appalling scale; a stain on the conscience of the world and of this country too. And in the west bank, we have seen the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich,

“bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

There is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two-state solution and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the west bank. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their tireless efforts on this issue, as well as to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer).

We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine, but the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour Government have not done enough in the face of what is happening, so today marks the beginning of a new approach—an approach that not only calls out injustice and suffering, but acts. In taking this stance, I make a very clear distinction that is crucial for us all in this debate: our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the UK has unshakeable bonds; our argument is with the conduct of its Government. I also want to say emphatically to people in Britain and across the world: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.

What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians: the two-state solution. Let me start with the situation in the west bank. At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what that has meant for Palestinian communities: houses bulldozed; roads and public infrastructure destroyed; families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Sixty-five Palestinian communities have been completely expelled since 2023—a total of over 4,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions.

In August, we saw the crossing of a long-standing red line: the issuing of E1 tenders for over 1,200 homes. I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedouin communities I met in Khan al-Ahmar had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the west bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. Let us be absolutely clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable.

On top of official state policy, settler terrorism is rampant. The UN reports an average of six violent settler attacks against Palestinians per day this year—the highest on record. Let us take one example: in al-Mughayyir, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, settlers have encircled the village and mounted a campaign of intimidation, largely under the protection of the Israeli military. Families in the village are increasingly cut off from accessing their land, squeezed into ever smaller areas, and have olive trees uprooted and livestock stolen. In the same community, just last week, two teenagers were shot when settlers entered the village under police and military escort. Both died before reaching hospital. Five teenagers from their school have now been killed this year.

Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, has described what is happening as

“A violent and criminal effort…to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.”

The former Minister of Health and retired brigadier general from the Israel Defence Forces, Ephraim Sneh, has said:

“This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply.”

Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as

“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

The British Government agree that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the west bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often, the Israeli Government have turned a blind eye to that—and, worse, members of that Government have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians. I recognise the gravity of saying this, but the truth is that it is the least the people who face such suffering deserve, and it should be the prelude to justice.

For a long time, the British Government have rightly said that settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements.

Our position is not just an overdue statement of reality; the Government believe that the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories. I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets, so I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime, working with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. As part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. To those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: you will face the full force of UK sanctions.

Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country. Earlier this year, shamefully, just a few miles from here, we saw an expo advertising illegal settlement land. We must and we will ensure that that never happens again, so we will ban the advertising in the UK of illegal settlements.

The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the BDS—boycott, divestment, sanctions—campaign.

The legislation I have announced today will be in place within six to nine months, and we will also take more immediate steps. Today, we are sanctioning a further set of extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities. I can also announce that we are extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including—crucially—seeking to prevent the development of E1.

I also want to address the question of arms sales. We have already suspended over 30 arms licences used by the IDF in Gaza. That suspension remains fully in place. We will now also refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation—in effect, a double lock against arms sales. That means the ban on such exports will now remain in place for as long as the occupation persists.

To advance the two-state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance, so I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform, and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues, which is frankly financially crippling the provision of essential services in the west bank. The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the Government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the occupied territories and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution.

I turn now to Gaza. The horror of 7 October appalled the world and had terrible echoes of the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people: men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated and tortured by Hamas terrorists; people murdered while seeking to protect their families; young people massacred at a music festival; and people abducted from their homes. As the 20-point peace plan for Gaza sets out, that is one of many reasons why Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. They must decommission their weapons and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure.

Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000. The vast majority of the population is displaced—nearly 2 million people—and they are now penned into just one third of the territory. Lifesaving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins.

International humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and intentional violations of that law, if proven, amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, has been examined in depth by a number of organisations, including the UN independent international commission of inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine that.

On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. That has been the case for all of the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention: Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right that this issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.

Accountability for what has happened in Gaza matters, but even more urgent is action to address the ongoing crisis, because today in Gaza the death and suffering continue. Nearly a year ago, a ceasefire was declared, yet over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since, and the people of Gaza are experiencing a totally avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that I am afraid is driven by the decisions of the Israeli Government.

Last week, I talked to courageous doctors and humanitarian aid workers who have served in Gaza. It was a heartbreaking conversation. They recounted children dying waiting for medical treatment, people forced to live next to open sewage and without shelter, and food insecurity rampant. I am sure the whole House agrees that that is unconscionable, so I pledge that we will continue to do everything we can to provide all the humanitarian support possible to help the people of Gaza.

UK-supported hospitals in Gaza will enable around 800,000 medical consultations this year and essential health services for patients. UK expertise will deliver care to over 1,000 child amputees. We recently welcomed another wave of students from Gaza coming to study in Britain, and we will welcome more. But in truth, unless Israel changes course, the situation will remain dire, so we are taking further steps both by ourselves and with others.

Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine the clearest and harshest spotlight on what is happening and what must change. With Jordan, we will convene countries across the world to lead a call for action on health and humanitarian access. We will also lend the UK’s voice to the growing global alliance of countries, led by Arab partners in the region, calling for the full implementation of the US-led 20-point plan, the rejection of extremism and a lasting end to the cycles of violence. As we implement the policy measures I have announced today, we will continue to assess the Government of Israel by their actions. We want to see a new approach in both Gaza and the west bank.

Today we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. We call out what is unlawful. We act on the import of goods from illegal settlements. We ban advertising of illegal settlements. We act on services to prevent new settlement expansion. We act on settler violence. We support accountability for what has happened in Gaza, and we pledge to galvanise the international community to confront the ongoing and urgent humanitarian crisis. Above all, we say: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor is it powerless.

Today we act in concert with others in a broad international coalition. I can tell the House that today, France and Canada are announcing, alongside Britain, that they will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements, joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—are pledging today that they will support further action. That is what Britain can achieve, leading with others, and it is in our fundamental national interest, because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world.

My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees, and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

As we meet today, let me start with what we agree on. We agree that illegal settlements are wrong. We all agree that groups of settlers have been guilty of outrageous abuses of ordinary Palestinians and crimes against innocent civilians. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have indulged in hateful propaganda and incitement. We agree that the current path is leading Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker, more dangerous future. We agree that Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October left many Jews in Israel and around the world afraid and vulnerable. We agree that the suffering in Gaza is horrific. But we also agree that those who praise Hamas and other terror groups or see them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are wrong, that payments to those who are killed while attacking Israeli civilians are wrong, and that those who call for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and the murder of its citizens with cries of, “From the river to the sea,” are wrong. Ignoring the victims on all sides and putting at risk the viability of the two-state solution is wrong.

This is not about Israel alone, and it certainly is not about reducing the complexity of the region to a single sentence. Sadly, the Government are in the process of doing just that. When they recognised the state of Palestine, only recently, they did so against the laws we ourselves have defended since 1933, in contravention of the Montevideo convention and of the principles we have set out. When they sanctioned Israeli Ministers, they failed to make the case to many others, including the European Union, and today they are enacting a policy that the Foreign Office knows will not work.

The Government also know that this policy will harm innocents. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers of this Government—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), rejecting this very policy as the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected—innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. Still this Government are pressing on in haste, despite warnings from the Labour Benches from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and from the Government’s own reviewer of terrorism legislation that turning Israel into a pariah risks sectarian division in our own country and a further rise in antisemitic violence on our streets.

As the Foreign Secretary knows, others are waiting. The Israeli election is in just seven weeks, and many have correctly argued that this action will help the extreme candidates’ campaigns, not those who are making the moderate argument for a united Israel. In the week before Rosh Hashanah and the high holy days, the Government are acting without prudence, introducing sanctions that are both light and serious. They are light because they will not actually target settlers—as the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations has said—but will be stretched to include all Israeli and Palestinian businesses, leaving many without opportunity, including those who make the pharmaceuticals that keep many British patients alive. They are serious because they risk what the Foreign Secretary has himself condemned: encouraging sectarianism and antisemitism at home, and discouraging co-operation abroad.

As such, I have six questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, on the coherence of the policy, can he confirm that the advice from his Department on the practicality of sanctions has changed so dramatically that these sanctions will in reality be targeted, not area as previously stated? Secondly, what conversations has he had with wider partners and allies to co-ordinate a full international action that might actually work, and why will he not wait for the result? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the impact on domestic security and community cohesion in the United Kingdom, barely a year since the first antisemitic murder in our country in generations? Fourthly, what assessment has he made of the impact on our security partnerships with both Israel and the United States, which have kept Iranian regime-backed murderers off our streets for the past few years? Fifthly, what instructions has he given to the enforcement bodies to ensure that Parkinson’s, myeloma and multiple sclerosis patients will still get the drugs that keep them alive? Finally, will he let us know now what instructions he has given to the Foreign Office for the accreditation of diplomats to the Palestinian embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their own envoys here under diplomatic immunity?

We have seen growing antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and we have seen increasing violence against Jewish targets. The Conservative party will always reject the hate-filled sectarianism that we have seen on our streets. We can—and where appropriate, should—criticise the Israeli Government, and still defend the right of the Jewish people to a home. I place on record my and my party’s deep sadness at the violence we have seen in recent months and years, our commitment to the right of Palestinians and Israelis to live in dignity and peace, and our recognition of those who have been victims over generations. None of us here rejects the Government’s stated aim that we must do everything we can to end the cycle of violence, and we welcome the sanctions against Al-Qard Al-Hassan and the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, I am sorry to say that this Government are wrong. As the Foreign Office has previously stated, this policy will damage the interests of innocent Palestinians, Israelis who condemn settlements, and the British people. What we reject is not the intent, but the performative politics and acting without wide support that leaves our envoys weaker and their voices irrelevant. We know, from our own history, that we do not make peace from just one side, and nor do we make it alone.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House. However, I profoundly disagree with his conclusions. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned a number of things that we agree on, and it is important to highlight those. I will answer his specific questions in a moment, but the underlying problem of his position is this. He supports the two-state solution with great vigour; he believes in the two-state solution; he sees the two-state solution being destroyed before our eyes; and I am afraid his prescription is to do nothing about it. There is a choice that we face in this. Do we stand by? Are we bystanders to the end of a long-established Government policy, and indeed the only hope for security and stability in the middle east, or do we act? We have chosen to act, and I think that the country—most of the country—will be with us, because we cannot simply stand by.

Let me now deal with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I say this with the greatest respect to him, but the voices that I listen to more than his on the Palestinian people are those of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine’s ambassador to the UK. Both of them have been urging us to act, and have been urging us to act for a long time. I think that this is a profound point: their voices are incredibly important in this debate.

I utterly reject the idea that we want to make Israel a pariah state. I could not have been clearer in my statement about our friendship with the Israeli people, and indeed our wish to have trade with Green Line Israel, but, in a sense, we have to take a view about the occupation. If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no. The right hon. Gentleman apparently says yes, which I think is a mistake.

Is this a coherent policy? Absolutely. As I said, it will take six to nine months to come into place, and we will have discussions with Members of the House and others, but it is a SAMLA—Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—based sanctions regime. There are sanctions regimes involving a number of other countries. Will it be geographic? It will be in relation to the import ban. It will be focused on the settlements in the occupied territories, and we will absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel.

The right hon. Gentleman says that we should act with others. We have assembled a very wide international coalition precisely to act with others. As for community cohesion, it is incredibly important, but the point—the absolute core—is that surely we must all accept what I said in my statement. We can disagree with the Government of Israel. We can take action with the Government of Israel, and at the same time be absolutely steadfast in protecting Jews across Britain and across the world. We cannot let these debates be confused. I am confident about our intelligence and security partnerships, which I talked about in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about medical supplies, and so on; they will absolutely be protected.

Let me finally say—to all Members—that one fact that has been most apparent to me in my seven weeks or so in this job is that Britain is a highly respected partner across the world. Britain has influence. Britain has reach. We cannot take the view of Britain that we are powerless in the face of injustice, and today we say that we are not powerless; we can act.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

At last! I am so very happy to see a British Government—a Labour British Government—finally doing the right thing and taking a strong stance against the illegal building of settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine, no longer a bystander wringing their hands. The Foreign Affairs Committee called for this unanimously over a year ago. As I look around the Chamber, I see so many people who have spent years campaigning, and there are many more outside the House. We are all smiling today. Britain has an absolute obligation to take a strong, clear stance on this issue, as a country that played such a pivotal role in the establishment of Israel during our mandate but has frankly failed in the protection of the interests of the Palestinians.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on taking such a brave stance, and on his powerful and moving statement. I am so proud that this has finally happened; but could Ministers and officials meet my Committee and me, and some of our officials, to discuss whether we can implement these sanctions as quickly as possible?

[Ed Miliband]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words, and I pay tribute to her. Let me also do what I should have done in my statement, and pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House who have been advocates of this issue—I see them behind me, and opposite me as well—and to the people outside the House whose voices have been heard in this debate. My right hon. Friend and I have had good discussions about these questions, and I look forward to working with her and her Committee on matters including the speedy implementation of the plans that I have announced.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency.

Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community.

The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences.

The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended?

Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur?

This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures we are announcing today, and I recognise his advocacy on this issue over a sustained period. Let me deal with his questions in turn.

We fully support the work of the ICJ, including in the so-called South Africa case. We have previously submitted to the Court on the question of Myanmar, which I think will help inform some of its deliberations, and we look forward to the ICJ continuing its work.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the ruling of unlawfulness. That is where we have taken a view as a Government that the occupation is unlawful. We concur with the conclusions of the ICJ. It is a matter of principle what we then do across our economic relationships, and today I have announced the measures that we are taking.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary. The only provision we make now is indirectly to the global supply programme. I am afraid that those who say we should stop supplying parts to the global supply chain are actually advocating the downing of the whole programme, which is crucial to our NATO and other allies. I want to be clear about that.

Obviously, our ruling on legality is an important one. We will continue to keep all our responsibilities under review, including in relation to the F-35 programme, but I wanted to set that out for the hon. Gentleman.

We are extending the global human rights regime to international law. We think this will be another important tool that we have to take action, because the sanctions regime did not previously apply to breaches of international humanitarian law. As we set about our sanctions regime for settlements in the occupied territories, this will give us a faster tool to act, and I am very happy for us have discussions about that.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must provide support for reform of the Palestinian Authority, that Hamas must disarm and cannot be part of a future Government in Gaza as part of the 20-point plan and, let us be frank, that we need to accelerate the implementation of the 20-point plan. There was some hope when the 20-point plan was produced but, frankly, the situation in Gaza is unspeakable, and the plan is not being implemented as it should be.

I end by saying to the hon. Gentleman and Members of all parties that I want to work with people across the House who have worked on this issue over a long period, so that we get the legislation right and get our action right. As much as is possible, I think we can be united on this.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome this well-rounded statement from the Foreign Secretary, and put on record my thanks to the new Prime Minister for the hard yards that I know he has put in over recent days and weeks.

It is not enough to recognise the state of Palestine and then stand idly by while illegal settlers destroy the Palestinian state and the Palestinian economy. I have to correct the shadow Foreign Secretary: he did not give an accurate representation of the correspondence between Ministers and my Committee. But when Ministers came before us on 15 July, they did tell us that they lacked the legal power to fully implement the proposals that the Foreign Secretary has made today. Can he confirm to the House that he is taking on new legal powers in order to implement the full ban that he is proposing on goods, services and investment? That is what is needed to give the measures full effect, full force and real teeth, and we know that nothing less will do.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his great advocacy and for our conversations on this issue. I can confirm that there will be a new sanctions regime that covers settlements in the occupied territories, under the SAMLA regime. That is what will give us the powers to take action on both goods and services, and he is right to say that action on both is necessary if we are to have an effect. I come back to the point that this is partly about what goods we should accept in this country, but truthfully, our trade with the settlements in the occupied territories is relatively small when it comes to goods. I believe that we can make a real difference to settlement expansion through the action on services, and we will be working to make sure that happens.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious. It is worse than stopping the two-state solution; it is ethnic cleansing.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Israeli Government could quite easily differentiate between general trade and trade to these illegal settlements? Does he agree that there is no reason, when our country fully supports the right of Israel to defend itself, why this should affect our intelligence relationship? As the longest serving member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I am proud to say that I absolutely and fully support what he is doing today, because it is about standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the Father of the House for his words. I read his extremely eloquent contribution to the Back-Bench debate on these questions that took place in July, and I was incredibly moved by his words in that debate. He is absolutely right in the way that he talks about these issues. He is absolutely right to say that he and I consider ourselves deep friends of Israel. That is absolutely consistent with and, I would argue, necessary for what we are doing today, because there can be no security for the people of Israel without a two-state solution. The actions of its Government over the past few years has not made Israel more secure; they have made it less secure, and that should trouble all friends of Israel across this country and across the world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the entirety of this statement, particularly the acceptance of the ICJ advisory recommendation that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The ICJ recommendation is broad and damning. It is not just about settlements; it is about taking Palestinian natural resources, forced transfer, taking Palestinian land, taking their goods and taking their businesses. It is also about stopping Palestinian trade and the free movement of people, and about imposing Israeli laws on the Palestinian people.

Has the Foreign Secretary given any consideration to moving a motion at the UN Security Council to protect Palestinian rights? Is he doing anything to support the Palestinian Authority to be able to govern effectively? Is he doing more to urge Israeli politicians and the Israeli Government to enable journalists and politicians to enter Gaza, so that we can see for ourselves exactly what is going on?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend has played an incredibly important role in the advocacy on these issues, including through the International Development Committee, and I take all her points on board. One of the things that we will seek to do through events that will take place at the United Nations—not just the conference we are holding with Jordan, but other events that we will be announcing shortly—is precisely to try to get at these issues. The situation in Gaza is so urgent and so desperate that we must do everything we can to act.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this action is unlikely to affect the policy of the Netanyahu Government? As I hardly need to remind him, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Has he reason to believe that this action might affect the policy of the Israeli Opposition, and did he have any contact with the Israeli Opposition parties before coming to that conclusion?

[Ed Miliband]

Absolutely; we talk with all partners in Israel. I do not want to in any sense interfere in that election. The election is for the Israeli people to make their own decisions about their future. I have set out the policy of the British Government, and I have made it clear that our quarrel is not with the Israeli people, but with the policies of the Netanyahu Government. I said something in my statement that I would just highlight to the right hon. Member, which is that we will assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future whether on Gaza or the west bank.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I place on record my support for the Foreign Secretary for taking this strong stance today. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, “At last!” Finally, we can breathe, but we still cannot breathe like the Palestinians deserve to be able to breathe while they are still being occupied, and it is so welcome that our Government have taken this position. The situation needed Britain to lead, and today Britain has led. I am equally proud of our Government for taking this stance. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain needs to continue to show this leadership to ensure that the two-state solution happens and that the Palestinians are free of occupation?

[Ed Miliband]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I again praise her for her work on this issue. I am grateful for the kind words about my statement, but I feel a deep sense of humility when compared, for example, with people I have met such as the doctor—a British paediatrician—who was going to Gaza to try to help children and people who are sick. There are so many people in our country who have not only campaigned on this issue, but actually gone there and tried to make a difference, and I think we should recognise them today.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Many of my Jewish constituents have very grave concerns about the conduct of the current Israeli Government. However, Israel is the Jewish homeland, and I think many of them are concerned about the content of the statement, the highly political tone of the briefing around it and its timing before Israelis themselves can decide in an election—a democratic election. In all of that, the message they are getting is that the current Government no longer regard Israel as a friend, and that heaps pressure on an already beleaguered Jewish population. What does the Foreign Secretary say to my constituents, many of whom are simply giving up on this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

I do not agree with the right hon. Member. I respect his point of view. I think we have to distinguish in this debate, as I have said, between Jews in Britain and indeed across the world and the Israeli Government, but we also have to distinguish between the Israeli people and the Israeli Government. There is a whole diversity of opinion in Israel on these questions.

I just want to say on the election, because it was raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary as well, that I obviously listened to those people who said, “Let’s wait. Let’s wait even longer.” I do not believe we can wait. I believe the situation is too urgent. Look at E1, where the tender finishes before the election. If I can put it this way—I do this carefully—we cannot outsource our political and moral responsibilities to the Israeli Opposition. It is our responsibility to decide what we accept, what we consider legal and what we do.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I am supportive of further measures on sanctions against the current extremist regime in Israel, in concert with our international allies. As we approach the Jewish high holy days, however—and to protect the religious freedom of British Jews, who bear no responsibility for the actions of the Israeli Government—I would like some assurances from him that there is sufficient clarity on imports, particularly agricultural products such as etrogim, which are a feature of the festival of Sukkot, so that there are not unintended consequences of the implementation of today’s announcements as they take effect.

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question—I am glad she did—and I said in my statement that there will be suitable religious exemptions from the import ban. Some hon. Members may wonder why it takes six to nine months to bring this in. It is precisely because we want to get it right, and getting it right means a proper dialogue with the Jewish community.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I have to say that I shed a tear—not necessarily at the sanctions part of the statement, but the part where the Government said that the occupation is illegal. Ever since my election as the first British-Palestinian MP, I have stood up to ask that question in statements such as this—I do not speak for the people of Palestine; I speak here for the people of Oxford West and Abingdon, but I could only ever speak for myself—and, frankly, I felt gaslit every single time I could not get a straight answer, so for that I say thank you.

Now that Britain is standing tall on the world stage again—the United Nations was founded in Westminster in 1946, and we are applying international law without fear or favour again—how does the Foreign Secretary intend to work with Members across this House so that we can all play our part in ensuring that that institution and ours stand tall forever more?

[Ed Miliband]

If I may say so, I find the question the hon. Member asked and what she said incredibly moving, and I am very glad she asks that question. Let me say to her and Members across this House that I undertake to work together on these questions. I know that a lot of work has been going on before I became Foreign Secretary, including with Ministers, but I think there now is a real opportunity to work together across parties, and I say from this Dispatch Box that I will make sure that happens.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I know has the support of British Jewish organisations such as Yachad and Progressive Judaism. I was with the Father of the House when, in an incident he has talked about, gun-wielding settlers came to visit us while we were in the west bank, and they had British accents, which is distressing. The Secretary of State said in his statement that this is a “prelude to justice”. Will the Government consider looking at universal jurisdiction so that British citizens who are supporting the illegal occupation will face the full force of the law?

[Ed Miliband]

I think we have sent a clear message today about those involved—businesses and individuals—in settlement activity. I will look at the point my hon. Friend has raised and write to him.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

This is a sad day for the UK-Israel relationship, given the risks of what the Foreign Secretary is doing. Affecting the Israeli elections by making even moderate politicians even more hawkish is a huge risk. Equally, this is strengthening the Arabs’ view that suddenly they can actually destroy the state of Israel, and indeed giving a victory to the BDS movement, which will look at full sanctions. He will know that it is very difficult to differentiate between products and services on either side of the green line, and this runs the risk of a full boycott of Israeli goods. What assessment has he made of the impact of his proposal, and what discussions has he had with his opposite number in Israel?

[Ed Miliband]

There were a lot of questions there, but I really do utterly reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question, which is that this is somehow about the destruction of the state of Israel. Actually, my real fear is that the path the Israeli Government have embarked upon is undermining Israel’s security. I say to him very gently that it must be possible for us as a House, at the level of principle, to understand the difference between green-line Israel—within the 1967 borders—and the occupied territories. If we conclude that the settlements and the occupation are illegal, the right thing to do is to act.

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

On behalf of all communities in Glasgow South West, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their global leadership. That leadership means we call the atrocities in the west bank terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and that we continue to support the Gazans—with full fervour—with anything they require. On Gaza, he knows that many of my NHS colleagues have worked and served there, so may I ask him to continue to support them, and to provide medical aid not only by bringing children here, but by making sure there is better infrastructure closer to home?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations we had in the run-up to this statement. I make this open offer to people across the House: the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I will work with Members in the run-up to the work we will do at the UN General Assembly. We have an important opportunity at UNGA to try to make a difference with the situation in Gaza. I look forward to working with him and others across the House on that question.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his words? They were overdue, but they are welcome. More than 1.4 million people in Gaza are acutely food-insecure, yet the flow of essential goods faces significant restrictions, and Gaza is systematically denied the essential items it needs for long-term sustainability. People can buy an egg, but not a fertilised egg. They can bring in a potato, but not a potato tuber. What assessment have the Government made of whether the current interpretation of dual-use restrictions in Gaza is compatible with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises such an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East was at the Al-Arish checkpoint, where he saw supposedly dual-use goods being blocked from going in. My answer is that the way that dual-use goods are being blocked is appalling. One’s only conclusion is that it is a strategy. It is deeply disturbing. I call on the Government of Israel to stop blocking the many entirely innocent dual-use goods that could make a difference to the people of Gaza.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for lifting the mood of the whole House. We are no longer bystanders wringing our hands; we are doing something active, and I thank him for that. I met Dr Nick Maynard this week. He is a surgeon in Gaza, and it is clear that the health professions have been deliberately targeted, with more than 2,000 killed. There is even a new word for it: healthicide. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and some doctors to discuss how we can prevent this happening?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that the number of aid workers and health workers killed in Gaza is appalling and dreadful. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and I are happy to meet him and others—particularly in the run up to UNGA, but also beyond—because we need to try to make a difference.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I, too, applaud the Foreign Secretary for finally taking some assertive, confident steps to deter Israeli ambitions in the west bank, but I am perplexed as to why he is waiting nine months. The diggers may well have started in E1 by then. So, first, can he just explain in a little more detail why he is waiting so long? He has got a majority; let us get on with it.

Secondly, has the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the Israeli Government that if this deterrent does not work, he is willing to take further steps and this is not the end of the story?

Thirdly, I welcome his embrace, finally, of the strength of international law. Does he recognise that the security of Israel, Palestine and the United Kingdom stands in the impartial application of international law across the world? Will we see a pushback against American attacks upon the institutions that underpin international law?

Finally, as part of the accountability that he has talked about, can we please have a UK-led investigation into the murder of our own citizens who worked for the World Central Kitchen? The Israeli Government have declined to conduct a criminal investigation, and officers of the IDF who were involved in that operation have been out in the media boasting that they would do it again.

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down. When one hears what happened in that incident, it makes one’s blood run cold, frankly. In the end, it amounted to a cold-blooded killing, in my view.

On international law in general, we need to uphold international law, and we say that to all our partners. On timing, let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I want to do this as quickly as possible. We have to get it right for some of the reasons that have been discussed in this House—whether that is religious exemptions or making sure that we do not hit green-line Israel—but we want to do it as quickly as possible. If we can do it quicker, we will. I look forward to cross-party discussions on these questions. The other thing I would say to him is that our extension of the global human rights sanctions for international humanitarian law breaches will allow us to act more quickly, including on some of the things that could be captured in goods and services action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister have shown leadership and moral courage by introducing these sanctions. I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the International Criminal Court’s case on genocide in Gaza. What discussions will he have with allies to encourage more countries to support the ICJ’s judicial process to bring about justice for Palestine?

[Ed Miliband]

We are strong supporters of the ICJ and the work it does on this question and a whole range of others. To bring together his question and the question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is very important that we uphold the work of these courts.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

We genuinely welcome this statement. The Foreign Secretary has hinted at this, but let me be clear: it is somewhere between heartbreaking and criminal that it has taken three years and 70,000 Palestinian deaths for the UK Government to finally arrive at this position. Already, however, we are hearing that elements within the FCDO are briefing that these sanctions are largely symbolic. Will the Foreign Secretary utterly refute that? Will he confirm that these sanctions are not fixed and that there can and will be further action, should Israel press ahead with this illegal expansion programme?

[Ed Miliband]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Prime Minister this Government recognised the state of Palestine. That was a major thing that we did. I praise my predecessors for that, and we also took action on arms licences. I do not completely accept the picture he gives. I do agree though, and the Prime Minister has said this, that we need to do more. That is what we have done today. I think the sanctions regime will make a substantive difference, and that is absolutely our intention. He is right that once we bring in the sanctions regime, we will, as always, keep its scope under review.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In July I led a debate on settlement expansion. I argued for international law to be respected and for the status quo to end. For far too long, we were told that a trade ban was too difficult—even impossible. For far too long, Palestinian lives have not carried the same weight as Israeli lives in British foreign policy. Palestinians deserve to have the exact same freedoms as Israelis. They deserve to live free from checkpoints, free from settler violence, free from occupation, and free from oppression. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words, his action and, more importantly, the change of direction, and for showing that Britain can lead with a clear moral compass once again. Today is one of those rare moments when foreign policy can genuinely make a difference. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that international law can and must mean something once again? Will he confirm that the ICC arrest warrants still stand and that Britain will respect that policy?

[Ed Miliband]

I praise my hon. Friend for her work on this issue and for leading that debate. She is right that we are big supporters of the work of the ICC. More widely, she makes such an important point about upholding international law. It undermines our reputation globally when we fail to uphold international law. If we want to build strong alliances, we need to be consistent in our approach.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Can I welcome the moral, legal and ethical thread running through the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child? He is right to talk about consensus on the two-state solution. Where there is not consensus is on the timing of recognition of a Palestinian state. He will know that eight Members on the Opposition Benches joined the Saudis, the French and the British Government in recognising a Palestinian state last September. I am glad there is also consensus, including from our Front Bench today, that we want to protect the viability of a future two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is action that is now required to reconcile those two positions, so that we have a viable state in the future?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the conversation we had on this issue the other night when we ran into each other, which I found incredibly useful and important. He is absolutely right. We cannot stand by; we have to act. This is partly about our psychology as a country. We are not powerless—particularly when we work with others.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I stood in a farm in the west bank and saw all the olive trees burnt and all the families in the village turfed out at knifepoint, so I really welcome this statement and the step-up of action on the settlements. I welcome the action on the sanctions, on arms sales and on justice. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate a bit more on the crucial demand that Israel releases the revenues—the tax paid by Palestinian people to Israel—that are being withheld and cannot be spent on schools, hospitals and rebuilding? Can he say a bit more about what he will be doing on that?

[Ed Miliband]

Absolutely. These are issues that we raise with our Israeli counterparts. There are so many crises in Palestine, but this is a terrible crisis, which perhaps does not get the attention it deserves. The withholding of money, in its own way, is threatening the viability of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian state. Yes, they need to keep reforming, but Israel needs to release the funds.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. When I visited the west bank in 2022 with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), we met Palestinians whose homes and schools had been demolished to make way for settlements. It was utterly heartbreaking. The measures announced today are very welcome, albeit overdue. Will he tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies such as JCB, which facilitate that destruction—

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies that facilitate this destruction, given that we were told by a Trade Minister this time last year that there was guidance on gov.uk—that is all there was—and that such companies should be aware of the reputational risk?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I think she will know that as we design a sanctions regime, we do not comment on individual companies in advance, but I think my statement was very clear: we do not want to see the construction, financing and so on of settlement expansion. That is the way we will think about our sanctions regime.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the substance and the moral clarity of his statement today? Last weekend, Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, condemned Israeli settler violence as terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the widespread concern that the IDF, rather than taking action to arrest these terrorists, is all too often to be seen watching—or even facilitating, as has been widely reported—while Palestinians’ homes are attacked and their properties seized?

[Ed Miliband]

My right hon. Friend speaks with enormous distinction on these and many other issues, and I thank him for his contribution. He is right. I urge Members in all parts of the House to read the accounts of what is happening in the west bank and what is happening in relation to the settlers. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that members of the IDF are anything other than complicit in what is happening—episode after episode that has been documented of what is actually happening on the ground.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I join that long list of UK Ministers who have raised, at the very highest level in Israel, the most egregious practices in the west bank, designed specifically to prevent a two-state solution, only for Israeli policy to double down. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. His experience speaks to the frustration of Ministers on both sides of this House who have repeatedly tried to make a difference, pleading with Israeli Ministers to see what was going on and to act on it, and who have been rebuffed. That is what has led to today’s announcement.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I hope the whole House will join me in condemning the personal attacks and smears that the Foreign Secretary faced over the weekend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for the strong stance they have taken. Does he agree that the acts of violence perpetrated by the settlers in the west bank must be called out for what they are: settler terrorism designed to forcibly remove Palestinian communities?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world’s eyes have rightly been on the crisis in Gaza. The world’s eyes have to be on that crisis and also on the appalling settler terrorism we are seeing in the west bank. I talked about it in my statement, but the fact that a former Israeli Prime Minister described it as ethnic cleansing should give people—not just in this House, but in Israel—proper pause about what is actually happening.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is welcome that the UK is finally banning trade with illegal settlements in Palestine and it is right that we no longer condone economic tolerance for these settlements, which fly in the face of international law and the sovereignty of Palestine. But if the sanctions are to be truly more than symbolic, can the Secretary of State tell us how the ban will be enforced and how we will ensure that goods from illegal settlements are not simply re-labelled, or services concealed within contractual sleight of hand, to get round his proposals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

Like all our sanctions regimes, fines and action will be taken against companies that breach them. We are widely known across the world for the strength of our sanctions regime. It is really important to underline the point that, by using the SAMLA powers, these will be tough sanctions, and it will be absolutely clear that there will be penalties for breaching them.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Government’s new sanctions, which are the right and moral approach to the crimes we have been seeing and continue to see in the west bank. The Foreign Secretary will have seen the comments from Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir that, in response to the sanctions, Israel should recognise Argentina’s claims on the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary now make it clear that such threats will not stop the UK upholding international law and the right of people to self-determination, whether that is in the Falkland Islands or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

[Ed Miliband]

Obviously, those comments are absurd and wrong. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is what the islanders want. Those comments show a complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the injustice and unlawfulness that is going on in relation to the occupied territories, because it is an occupation against the will of the people there. The Falkland Islands are British, as I say, because that is what the Falkland Islanders want.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?

[Ed Miliband]

That will be the responsibility of British businesses and other businesses that want to import into this country. I want to underline this point. That is the point of the sanctions regime we are bringing in. Just to develop the point a bit more, it is likely to be based on the postcodes of where the settlements are. Companies will have to say that the goods they are bringing in do not come from those areas.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I support the Government’s complete opposition to the expansion of E1, and their opposition to the violent settlers who put the two-state solution genuinely at risk. I just want to press the Foreign Secretary further on his comments about BDS. What further specific details can he give this House that these measures will not be interpreted as support for that movement, or indeed—following on from questions from others—spill over into a de facto ban on other Israeli goods? We know that the BDS movement is supported by people who think that the Jewish people and the Jewish people alone have no right to self-determination.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I also thank him for the conversations we have had in the run-up to the statement; they have been important. I will say a couple of things. We absolutely oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel. This is about settlements in the occupied territories. In answer to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on why this will take six to nine months, it is precisely to get the regime right so that it does not affect or impinge on green-line Israel.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. On behalf of my constituents, I am asking him not to overlook the Palestinian healthcare workers, including Dr Abu Safiya, who are being held in Israeli prisons, and for him to work to secure their release.

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises a very, very important case, and I am glad that she has done. I am happy to look at it and will endeavour to do everything I can to make a difference.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his incredibly moving and courageous statement. He has been a friend of Israelis and Palestinians. When he was Leader of the Opposition, he and the Labour party recognised Palestinian statehood, and I am proud of the fact that this Labour Government have recognised Palestinian statehood. We know that at least 17 companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements were found to hold 125 UK public sector contracts worth £2.1 billion, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that without sanctions, we will not be able to take the necessary action to protect a viable two-state solution and ensure that we see the day when we have a Palestinian state?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend has been an incredibly powerful advocate on the issue for a long period of time, and I welcome her words. She is absolutely right: I am afraid that inaction is simply abdicating our responsibilities for what we see happening before our eyes, and what has been eloquently described by Members on both sides of this House. That is why we have taken this action, which is designed to make a difference and help to save the two-state solution.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The middle east and north Africa contain multiple wars, protracted civil conflicts and severe humanitarian crises. Of the 193 UN member states, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary think explains the relentless focus—morning, noon and night—on the one Jewish state, a country covering just 0.01% of the world’s surface? Does he really think that all the antisemitic, Corbynista, activist crowd, and unintegrated, sectarian, immigrant groups, will again vote for his party if he panders to their unhealthy obsession?

[Ed Miliband]

I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, honestly. He needs to take a sober look at what has happened in relation to Israel and Palestine, and what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. From Members on his own side, as well as across the House, he has heard the huge injustices eloquently described. My view is that we need to be tackling injustice across the world, but we cannot ignore the centrality of Israel and Palestine—both our historic relationship with Israel and our responsibilities, and the suffering of the Palestinian people. Frankly, in terms of our geopolitical interests, we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. For all those reasons, it is right that we act.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This session has been conducted with good tone and temperament, and that is how it should continue.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

All of us want to see an end to violence in the west bank. The Government should challenge the Israeli Government, but also the Palestinian Authority. I find myself asking, “Will these sanctions bring peace any closer and how will they impact Britain?” Given that other anti-Israel measures have failed to have the impact that the Government seek, what difference does the Secretary of State think this new round will make? Given our deep trade relationships in areas like defence and health, as well as warnings about possible conflict with US policy, is there not a risk that British interests could be harmed as a result of this announcement?

[Ed Miliband]

I think the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no. I want to correct him on one thing: these are not anti-Israel policies. This is about the occupied territories, which we as a Government, along with the ICJ, have found were unlawfully occupied—it is really important to say that. Once we decide that it is an unlawful occupation, I do believe that, as a matter of principle and morality, then other things follow about the economic relationships that we choose to have.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I warmly welcome the statement and thank the Foreign Secretary for taking this step. Yes, it has been far too long coming, and, yes, there is much more to do, but this is a significant statement, both in terms of recognition—the reality of the unlawfulness of the occupation—and in following through, with a promise to take action to ban trade with settlements. However, does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that, in the context of now years of genocide in Gaza—ever-accelerating ethnic cleansing in the west bank, as he has pointed out himself—waiting another six to nine months to implement these sanctions is still too long? We must speed up.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Member for her kind words, and for her kind words behind the Chamber as we were coming in; they meant a lot to me. I want to do this as quickly as possible. Six to nine months is what I said in the statement, but if we can do it quicker, we will. We want to get this step right, because it is important that it actually makes a difference. It is also important to say—because it is, in a sense, the thing that will have got less attention today—that our extension of the global human rights regime to international humanitarian law violations will also help us to take action even more swiftly.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, and also for the light he has continued to shine on Gaza. He talked about the students we have brought across, many of whom I have met—they are bright and intelligent, and any country would be proud to have them as part of its future. For there to be a future, children need to have a future. The Foreign Secretary talked about the appalling death toll of children, but there are also tens of thousands of unaccompanied children in Gaza in desperate need, particularly since the collapse of the medical system. Will he tell us what more we can do to give those children protection and medical aid, so that they have the future they deserve?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for the conversation we had earlier. He raises such an important issue about the healthcare crisis in Gaza. The answer is that we want to do as much as we can as a country, and as much as we can working with others. I spoke to the Jordanian Foreign Minister on Sunday about an event that we are going to hold at the UN General Assembly, and one of the things that we both agreed on was that we want to move things forward and make a difference. I absolutely promise my hon. Friend that that is what we will endeavour to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

Will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the hundreds of thousands of us who have marched and met in support of the Palestinian people, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, have done so out of a motivation to bring about justice and peace for the people of Palestine? Will he specifically call on Israel to withdraw in totality from Gaza—not just the 70% it occupies now, but the remaining part that it is bombarding? If military sanctions are to mean anything, surely that must include an end to the sharing of surveillance information by the RAF overflying Gaza, the use of RAF Akrotiri and Israel’s ability to manufacture weapons at Elbit Systems factories in this country. If we are serious about ending a military occupation, then we have to play a full part in achieving it.

[Ed Miliband]

I want to see Israel withdraw from Gaza and I want to see Hamas disarm. That is the whole point of the 20-point plan—I agree with the right hon. Member on that. Campaigners on the issue have played an important role. The way in which young people and people across the country—not just in Britain but across the world—have been mobilised on this issue should tell all of us in this House something about the deep sense of injustice that people feel about what has unfolded. On the right hon. Member’s point about intelligence—I want to be careful on this—we are not, in any sense, helping with the occupation, but we have important and valued intelligence and security relationships with Israel.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I oppose the E1 settlement plan and welcome this Government’s action against extremist settler violence. My constituent Ruth Jacobs and others have raised with me that, with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur approaching, British Jews are facing an elevated threat, so what steps have the Government taken to ensure that these measures do not contribute to further antisemitism or undermine the security and confidence of Jewish communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and across the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I talked about in my statement, through investment we have made a difference to the security of Jewish people across Britain. In a sense, we all have a responsibility on this issue, not just as politicians but as a society. I re-emphasise what I said in my statement, because it is so important: no British Jew should be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government. All of us—I really urge this of all Members—have a responsibility to transmit that message to the public, because whether through a combination of prejudice or ignorance, I am afraid that people often do not understand that lesson, and it leads to terrible antisemitism.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I also welcome not just the substance of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks today, but the tone, responsibility and commitment to a two-state solution. I know that that welcome will be reflected in my constituency among people of all faiths and none who have been profoundly affected both by what they have seen in the middle east over the past few years and by the tension they have felt rising in this country, which we have to address. What steps will the Foreign Secretary take to allow UK banks and corporate institutions to audit their own customer base to ensure that the supply chains are being dealt with properly?

[Ed Miliband]

We will look at all these issues as part of our sanctions regime. It is important to protect trade with green-line Israel and financial services within it as well, and that is why we want to be careful with this sanctions regime.

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s remarks, I thank her for what she said. I do feel a sense of humility. If I could just add this, Madam Deputy Speaker: as some in this House will know, my late mother, who died a few months ago, was a big campaigner on these issues, and I have thought quite a lot in this process about what she might be saying on these issues.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

May I say how proud I am to sit behind a Foreign Secretary with the courage to take this action? I thank the Prime Minister for showing leadership on this matter as well. Let us be clear what this is about: Israel’s occupation of the west bank and Gaza is illegal under international law. Israel has moved more than 700,000 settlers on to Palestinian land and forced half a million Palestinians from their homes, while the new planned E1 settlement will, according to Israel’s own Ministers, “bury” a two-state solution. These sanctions target trade from illegal settlements, not Israel and not Jewish people, and anyone who says otherwise is being deliberately misleading. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no amount of pressure from Washington or Tel Aviv would cause the Government to retreat from doing this?

[Ed Miliband]

I have set out our plans today; this is what we are going to do. My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these questions. We have to decide what is in our national interest and what is the right thing for Britain, based on our values.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We all deplore settler violence, but the simple reality is that these sanctions are a grave mistake. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that so many people are concerned that all they will do is embolden the scourge of antisemitism against British Jews on British streets, endanger our relationship with the United States and our security, and lead to tit-for-tat sanctions from the Israeli Government?

[Ed Miliband]

If I may say so, I do not think that is a very responsible way of talking about these issues. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to disagree with our actions, as I think the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) did, but I do not think he should be talking in this way. I could not have been clearer in my statement that no British Jew is responsible for the policies of the Israeli Government, and it behoves us all, whichever side of this debate we are on, to ensure that there can be no confusion about that question. I am afraid his question fell afoul of that.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on not just the content, but the tone of his delivery. He has elevated the status of not just this Parliament and this Government, but this country, by ensuring that everybody—all states and all individuals—are seen as equal before the law and in terms of human rights. I specifically agree with him that we must all play our part to protect our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours and ensure that they do not see this as collective punishment. Could he give details of the next steps around the SAMLA statutory instrument?

[Ed Miliband]

I will answer briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will get on with the process now of making the statutory instrument happen.

I just want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s earlier point. On the day the new Prime Minister was sworn in, I happened to meet a young man—he was 17 or so—who had been at school in the UK, and he spoke to me about the antisemitism he had faced since the age of 11 at his secondary school. All of us in this House need to take so seriously the everyday experiences of British Jews, which sees antisemitism not just in schools but elsewhere. We all have a responsibility to tackle that.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench—in spite of the change of guard there—and the latecomer on the Bench behind me, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), the vast majority of people in this Chamber strongly support the Foreign Secretary in this statement today. Indeed, I warmly welcome his remarks about the need for a proper investigation into what he described as the appalling and unlawful killing of those serving in the World Central Kitchen, including Cornishman Jim Henderson. Could he say more about what sanctions he will impose on British banks and citizens who are complicit in what is going on in the west bank?

[Ed Miliband]

As I said earlier, when we impose sanctions on specific companies or entities, we do not say who they are in advance. However, I do not think I could have been clearer about the intent here; as I said in my statement, we do not want British companies being involved in the financing, construction or infrastructure of settlement expansion. That will be the purpose of the regime when it comes to services, and that is what we will make happen.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

While I recognise this was not the main part of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I thank him for raising the plight of British Jewish children who are fearful going to school. As he will know, a lot of British Jewish children live in my constituency, and their safety is my main priority.

On the subject of children, a recent report showed that 40% of displaced children in Palestine lose complete access to education. The Foreign Secretary has outlined a host of policies and legislation in his statement today; has he given any thought to how he would help these displaced children to ensure that they do not lose access to schooling?

Finally, if you would indulge me for one second, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that my right hon. Friend’s mother, Marion, who lobbied me endlessly when I was a local councillor, would be very proud of him.

[Ed Miliband]

Well, that was worth my hon. Friend getting some extra time—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend raises a really important issue around education, and an important issue around the safety of Jewish children going to school in the UK. We will take forward both of those issues.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)]

This Government still describe Israel, an apartheid state committing genocide in Gaza, as a strategically important partner. They announce a partial arms sales ban while continuing to provide intelligence and F-35 fighter jet components via the international pool. Whether directly or indirectly, arming a genocide is still arming a genocide. They announce a settlement ban as a dead cat, hoping to distract us from wider UK complicity. The Foreign Secretary could impose full economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel, but he refuses. He could end all arms sales and intelligence co-operation, but he refuses. He could call this what it is—a genocide—but he refuses. I will ask him directly: how many more Palestinian men, women and children must be killed by Union Jack weapons before this Government finally stop arming Israel completely?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady’s statement is a complete travesty. This Government are taking action. We are taking action on goods and on services, and we have banned arms licences for the IDF in Gaza. We have taken action across the board. We have declared the occupation unlawful. Her statement might have been designed for TikTok, but it really does not become her.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine. I also thank him for his clarity that international law matters and on who it is who is putting the two-state solution at risk: the current Israeli Government.

It is good to see the Foreign Secretary working across the world on this. We can see that we have partners in this mission, but we know that there are also those who would oppose what he is seeking to do. Sadly, we have already heard talk that there will be retaliation, particularly from Israel and America, if the ban goes ahead. Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these issues, and she is absolutely right. We are going to act in our national interest on the basis of our values. That is not just our right but our duty as a country.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I join the thanks to the Government for these actions, but am deeply concerned about the fear that the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments may have caused. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that this is action against the settlements; he confirmed the continued trade within green-line Israel. Will he assure our constituents that life-saving drugs made in Israel—mainly around the Tel Aviv central area and not in illegal settlements—are not at threat, and that the supply chains for medications will not be affected by this very welcome action?

[Ed Miliband]

I am glad that the hon. Lady asked that question. She is absolutely right, and I can answer with an emphatic yes.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

Two months ago, our new Prime Minister admitted that the UK needed to do better. Today, the Foreign Secretary has shown us how things get done, by working together with our allies to declare a ban on trade with illegal settlements and declaring the occupation unlawful. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and I were denied entry to the west bank for our advocacy in this House. The Foreign Secretary has already withstood threats and intimidation as a result of his bold, principled stand. Will he continue to do so with the moral courage he has shown us?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right about the question of access. Across the board, politicians and others are being denied access to see what is going on for themselves. That should make one extremely sceptical and fearful, frankly, of what is happening on the ground.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has said that his concern is for the behaviour of some settlers on the west bank, and I think we all share that, but does he accept that the fear of losing votes to the Green party and the independent Members on the Bench behind me is also a major reason why he is politically and economically punishing one of our allies, which supplies us with important intelligence information? Does he also accept that this will punish Palestinians, eventually lead to a total boycott in order to be effective, and lead to economically damaging retaliation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will have to cut people off if they continue asking long questions, and that will ruin their social media shots if that is what they are here for. There are far too many people still wishing to contribute. You are only going to disappoint your own colleagues. Keep your questions short. I call the Foreign Secretary.

[Ed Miliband]

I do not accept any of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have known him a long time, so I say this to him: how dare he try to speak for the Palestinian people instead of the Palestinian Prime Minister or the Palestinian ambassador in the UK? Why does he not meet the Palestinian ambassador in the UK and hear from him?

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary started by talking about our shared history of visiting our grandmothers in Israel. It gives him a clarity and authority on these matters that few else in the Chamber have. We would not accept goods from Russian-occupied Ukraine or Chinese-occupied Tibet, so why would we accept goods from Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory? I still have many Gazan students wishing to come to Leeds University, as do other colleagues to other universities, and not being able to get their visas. Can we look at a visa-lite or visa-free regime for those Gazan students?

[Ed Miliband]

We will keep looking at what we can do for students and others from Gaza. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. He makes a fundamental point: the ICJ has made its statement on legality, and we have taken a view on legality. People can accept that or not, but if we accept it, how can we possibly defend a continued and unchanged economic relationships with the occupied territories?

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his eloquent and moving statement giving his perspective as a British Jew in this awful situation. Settlers have been deliberately killing Palestinian men, women and children. They have also been killing and stealing their livestock and preventing them from grazing in pastoral areas. For pastoral communities, this is absolutely devastating, and it is simply another mechanism of forced displacement. Will the Foreign Secretary consider sanctioning the Israeli Ministers who are encouraging and endorsing such violence?

[Ed Miliband]

We have already sanctioned two Israeli Ministers who did that, but we always keep our sanctions regime under review. The hon. Gentleman makes a profoundly important point about the everyday intimidation that Palestinians on the west bank face—not just this year or under this Government but under previous Governments. It has been an endless amount of intimidation, and I saw it and heard from people about it in 2014 when I was there. Frankly, it is totally indefensible.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, both its content and its tone. I would like to ask about his discussions with our colleagues and allies in other countries who are looking to implement similar sanctions. The Netherlands Government announced their intention to reimpose sanctions in July and will implement them on 22 September. Will my right hon. Friend ask them why that has only taken them two months, when we are going to take eight to nine months?

[Ed Miliband]

I think they have a slightly different regime, but I am in touch with my Dutch colleague and will definitely ask him if we can do it more quickly.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

The Egyptian-American author Omar El Akkad said:

“One day, when it is safe, when there is no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it is too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.”

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and many of my constituents will thank him. It is late—70,000 Gazans dead, late—but it is not too late to hold those perpetrating war crimes to account. What will he do to hold the war criminals to account?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I believe in accountability for war crimes. That is what the international courts are for.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

These sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation are incredibly welcome as a step towards meeting our moral and legal obligations. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to resist pressure from those who say that he should not make international law apply to Israel? May I urge him to push forward and demand the full implementation of the ICJ ruling so that the Palestinian people can have justice?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend has campaigned on these issues for a long time. He is absolutely right about the importance of both accountability and international law. We will be guided by it.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Before the recess, a group of schoolchildren from my constituency handed in a petition to No. 10 as part of their “Courageous Advocacy” project. They wanted children in Palestine to have the same right to education as they do. Will the Foreign Secretary respond to their petition now and say what steps he is taking to ensure that their words are heard?

[Ed Miliband]

We want to do everything we can to help Palestinian children in Gaza and the west bank. The best thing we can do is get a two-state solution without the intimidation, threats, death and destruction that so many Palestinian children have faced. I take this opportunity to congratulate the children at the school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on being moved by this issue and advocating on it.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the long-awaited announcement, but may I press him on the UK’s existing intelligence and security partnership with Israel? Given that experts have said that RAF spy planes over Gaza and Lebanon this year have provided visuals and intelligence to the Israeli military shortly before massive air strikes, can he confirm whether the UK Government are assessing the UK’s legal position regarding the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement? I have asked his Department many times and have not had an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

We do not comment on intelligence and security matters, but I can honestly assure my hon. Friend that we are not involved in the occupation or actions in Gaza and the west bank. That is not the nature of our intelligence and security co-operation with Israel.

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

May I join many hon. Members across the House in thanking the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for the statement and this vital change in Government policy? However, many will ask why this action has taken so long, since the ICJ advisory opinion was issued in July 2024 and ethnic cleansing and genocide have continued both in the west bank and Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why it has taken the Labour Government so long to act? Will they now fully comply with their obligations under the ICJ advisory opinion? Will they conduct a review of British policy of non-compliance with international law in Israel?

[Ed Miliband]

I say bluntly to the hon. Member that we should have acted earlier. It has taken the new Prime Minister to come in and recognise the gravity of the situation and the degree of public concern on these questions. We concur with the ICJ’s conclusions on the unlawfulness of the occupation and we will ensure that we abide by what that implies.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement and extend to him the gratitude of my constituents who have already been in touch with me. I have spoken before in this place about the villagers of Jayyous in the west bank who have been living under constant intimidation and fear, with farmers unable to harvest their crops and children unable to get to school. Does he agree that the statement sends an important message to the people of Jayyous and those across Palestine that they are not alone and that their calls for solidarity and the rule of law to be upheld have been heard?

[Ed Miliband]

I feel moved by what my hon. Friend has asked. I really thank her for the work that she has been doing. As I thought long and hard about the statement and some of the words I used—one has to weigh one’s words carefully—I thought precisely that those people who are under, for example, settler terrorism and the attempts at ethnic cleansing deserve at least the truth to be told about what they are facing. So, absolutely, this is in part an expression of solidarity with the people my hon. Friend talks about.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and its tone, and especially the fact that he referred clearly to ethnic cleansing and an illegal occupation. We have to stop the E1 settlement, which is a red line for the two-state solution, so I welcome these sanctions. Although we had been told for a long time that they were not possible, it is really good to see them today.

On the sanctions, there will be Israeli companies exporting from the green-line area and occupied territories; we will be relying on their honesty to declare that. Likewise, military hardware made in the UK might go to green-line Israel, but it might be deployed in the occupied territories. Will he explain how he can guarantee that the sanctions will work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

Let me deal with those two issues. First, one thing that I said in my statement was that the declaration on the occupation means we will now look at all arms licences to see whether they materially contribute to the occupation; if they do, they will not be allowed. Secondly, part of the point of a sanctions regime is proper enforcement, and we will do that.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My father served in Gaza from 1945 to 1947, and the position was the same then: this country had failed to discharge its responsibilities to the people of Palestine. But I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the courage and clarity of both him and the Prime Minister in making it. It is broadly welcomed, and massively welcomed by the Palestinian people and those who stand up for them. May I ask him to move with all pace on the regulations that he will introduce? Since the Government now acknowledge that the occupation is illegal, surely the already granted licences for arms used in the occupation should be suspended.

[Ed Miliband]

I can assure my hon. Friend on his last point: all licences that materially contribute to the occupation will not be allowed. That is why we now have a double lock in relation not only to Gaza but to the occupation. On the speed of action, we want to move as speedily as we can with these measures.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I was elected to the House not just because people saw injustice or hypocrisy from the previous Labour leadership but because this topic became a litmus test of credibility, integrity and morality for the British people, who could see what was taking place in Gaza and in the west bank. I saw the attacks on the Foreign Secretary, who was referred to as a “Jew hater” when he came out with this proposal, and the disgusting comments by the American ambassador, labelling him often as antisemitic for talking about justice and the rights of Palestinians. Will he work with colleagues on this side of the House so that we can forge stronger relationships between British Muslims and British Jews, preventing those actors and agitators—even in this House—who want to sow division in our communities?

[Ed Miliband]

I undertake to work with Members across the House on these questions; more unites us than divides us on them, and we do need to act. I say to the hon. Member and others in the House that part of acting is upholding Israel’s right to exist and its security, which includes opposing BDS, because part of being faithful to a two-state solution is upholding the rights of the Palestinian people and the Israeli people.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement condemning the E1 settlement project in the west bank and the sanctions. With that in mind, we must think of the Palestinians who are directly impacted and prevented from accessing basic health care; ambulances are being stopped from taking acutely unwell patients to hospital and 20,000 children have died. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with international partners to ensure that the aggressive Israeli settlements do not prevent Palestinians from accessing healthcare?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right: this is a heartbreaking emergency both in the west bank and in Gaza. Part of the advocacy and the work we now want to do, including at UNGA, is about moving forward on those questions and making a difference both in Gaza and in the west bank.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the general shift in mood in the House. However, given that Israel as a whole—not just the illegal settlements—is on trial for genocide, should the Government not be taking all measures in their power to prevent complicity in genocide, including an immediate and comprehensive suspension of all arms transfers to Israel, an end to the sharing of all military intelligence, an end to all trade that materially supports the Israeli state or its war efforts, a reassessment of diplomatic ties and full compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law, including those as a state signatory to the genocide convention?

[Ed Miliband]

I will not answer every point that the hon. Member made. We have announced a comprehensive set of measures today. I say to him—I want to be careful in what I say—that it is very important that, as I said in my statement, our action against the occupied territories cannot be about the erasure of Israel. It is important that all of us in the House respect the role of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and protect its security as part of our commitment to a two-state solution.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome these measures. We must see the Palestinian people protected and clear progress towards a two-state solution. I am proud of the Government’s stance. However, I must speak on behalf of my Jewish constituents, who have continually talked to me about the rise in antisemitism. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that the Government will continue to work towards greater community cohesion in this country and ensure that all British Jews and all British Muslims are protected?

[Ed Miliband]

Absolutely; this must be a campaign for us all. It is about government, but truthfully it is also about us as a society—in fact, it is even more about us as a society, because the Government can do their bit, but it is about what each of us as individuals do to counter antisemitism.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his action today, demonstrating British leadership on a global stage; I hope he agrees that it is long overdue. Settlement expansion is a project driven by the Israeli state. Will he consider further action such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement?

[Ed Miliband]

We believe that trade with green-line Israel is important. We value it and we do not believe that it should be ended. It is so important in this House that we make the distinction between the occupied territories and green-line Israel.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I have been privileged to support Bedford Friends of Al-Walaja and to meet children who, despite the horror they have endured, are full of hopes and dreams for the future. Their village’s only school is now under threat of demolition by the Israeli authorities. I welcome the Government’s action to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements. What intervention can the Foreign Secretary make to protect Al-Walaja co-educational school in the west bank and uphold those children’s rights to education under international law?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I or the Minister for the Middle East will take that up.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s emphasis on international law, which is important in Gaza and the west bank, but also elsewhere. In Sudan, people who have committed atrocities involving babies and children at El Fasher’s hospital must also be held to account. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm our Government’s absolute commitment to the independence and proper resourcing of the international court?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary’s words and actions are strong, welcome and—I know my constituents would want me to say this—overdue. Does he agree that it is incumbent on all of us in this House and, to make my wider point, across the country to always be guided in the actions that we take by the need to do all that we can to achieve a two-state solution, which is the only way to bring a just and lasting peace to the lives of all Israeli and Palestinian citizens?

[Ed Miliband]

I 100% agree with my hon. Friend.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I am glad to see the ban on trade with illegal settlements, for which I and many others have called for a long time. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the safety of British Jews, who are being violently targeted by racists simply for being Jewish. Will he join me in urging the Israeli Government to pull back from their expansionist actions and instead work with us and the international community towards a safe and secure Israel alongside a free, democratic Palestine?

[Ed Miliband]

I totally share what my hon. Friend said about this or a future Israeli Government. We want them to draw back; we want them to change course.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, which will come as a welcome addition to the debate. I was proud when this Government took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. However, the very prospect of a single unified Palestinian state is, as we have heard, under enormous threat from the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank. Having visited that area with Members from across the House earlier this year, the sheer scale of the E1 settlement makes it clear that Israel is determined that there should be no possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that anyone—and I mean anyone—who believes in a just and lasting peace in the middle east must also oppose illegal settlement expansion and the violence that so often comes with it?

[Ed Miliband]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. She speaks very eloquently about this.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May I commend the Foreign Secretary for making what I think is the most powerful, principled and important speech by any British Minister for many years on the issue of Palestine? The people of Derry understand well that it is in the moments of greatest despair that those who are committed to hope come to the fore. Will he continue to travel in hope, to hold together the coalition he has built and to do everything he possibly can to bring peace to the people of Palestine and Israel?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is just the beginning of what we must do in this endeavour, and there is so much more to do.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent, Jim Henderson, was killed in the World Central Kitchen attack on 1 April 2024. Two weeks ago, the Israeli authorities said there would be no further investigation. Our Government and the Canadian and Australian Governments condemn that decision. The commander who ordered the strike said he does not regret it. What more can we do to ensure there is accountability?

[Ed Miliband]

I send my deepest condolences to the family of my hon. Friend’s constituent. What happened was a horrifying event. Those were people trying to make a difference in a humanitarian way to the people of Gaza. I will endeavour to talk to her, along with the Minister for the Middle East, about whether we can do more on that issue and what that might be.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and the moral courage the Government are showing to sanction trade with the occupied territories and condemn expanding illegal settlements. The Israeli state will not listen to the UK alone, and collaboration with global partners gives the strongest leverage. Will he say some more about how he is acting alongside international colleagues to demonstrate co-ordinated opposition to illegal settlements and human rights atrocities and reinforce international support for the two-state solution?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the coalition of countries that we have, as well as our actions, that gives us hope that we can actually make a difference on this issue, both substantively in relation to sanctions and on all of the humanitarian issues that so many Members have raised.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Violence and intimidation carried out by settler extremists and the expansion of settlements mean that there cannot be a two-state solution. Yet illegal settlements and outposts targeting Palestinian civilians would not happen without the collusion of the Israeli army. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that he is making representations at the highest level to say that collusion with extremist settlers must stop?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

Absolutely. I say this with some sorrow: it has been obvious that there has been collusion for a long time and the collusion has been allowed to continue. That is the view of former Israeli Prime Ministers and, frankly, former Israeli generals who have spoken out on the issue. I continue to urge the Government of Israel to deal with that.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is 29 years this week since I first visited Israel and the west bank, and I have been a supporter of peace ever since. May I start by putting on the record my tribute to all the victims, from all sides, who have suffered during this period, not least those who suffered at the hands of Hamas and the 20,000 children who have perished in Gaza?

Although self-defence is important, it is not a green light to ethnic cleansing or to illegal occupation. We need international law, as was set out by the Foreign Secretary. I welcome the statement and the fact that he is joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is a great campaigner on this issue. While international law is threatened by many actors around the world, what more can we do to support not just justice but the institutions of international justice?

[Ed Miliband]

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I say more widely that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is right: we need to work with our international partners—at this time of all times—to uphold international law in Gaza, in the west bank and elsewhere.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am a strong supporter of the right of the state of Israel to exist in security and prosperity and of the state of Palestine to exist in security and prosperity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve that, it is essential that the very welcome measures he has outlined take place at pace? We can demonstrate that the state of Israel, under the current Israeli Government, does not get to determine the destiny of the west bank and, for that matter, Gaza.

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I say to Members of the House that while I am critical of the current Israeli Government, this occupation has become entrenched over a long period. We have to work to unwind it and find ways in which we can get back to a two-state solution, and we have to act urgently.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his moral leadership today. Since I came into this House, hundreds of Gloucester residents have told me that the Government could and should be doing more in the light of the atrocities in Gaza and the west bank. That is a point I have made in this House and to Ministers directly, and I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for acknowledging those concerns today and for going further. Does he agree that this shows that the Government are not just going to show warm words in the light of these atrocities, and that they are going to take action to uphold the values that we hold dear?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. friend raises a really important point, which is that this issue has mobilised ordinary British people right across our country. It is really important to understand that. The immorality of what is happening has stirred the conscience of millions of people across our country, and it is right that we act.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Palestinians in the west bank have told the world of being held at gunpoint, of blockades, and of searchlights and lasers being shone into their homes and at their livestock. Given that the integrity of the E1 zone is essential for a two-state solution, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community should do whatever it can to prevent settler occupation, and that settlements constructed there should be dismantled as part of the peaceful future that we all want to see?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. E1 crossed a long-standing red line for the international community, which is why we saw such an outpouring from our allies. He is absolutely right about the urgency of acting.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement and the manner in which it was delivered. I want to ask about international collaboration and how the allegations of war crimes can be addressed and compiled so that those responsible can eventually be brought to justice. I am thinking not only of the situation in Gaza and the west bank, but of the actions in southern Lebanon. Can the Foreign Secretary illuminate me on the plans to ensure that the allegations of the alleged crimes are properly compiled?

[Ed Miliband]

This is something that we work on with the courts, and the most important thing is upholding the role of both the ICC and the ICJ in these processes. They are incredibly important institutions, in the view of the British Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In thanking him for his patience, I call Douglas McAllister.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

During the debate in this House on 9 July, I and other Members raised our concerns about charities working in the illegal Israeli settlements and, in particular, about the use of taxpayers’ money through gift aid contributions to those charities. As a result, I received a response from the Charity Commission for England and Wales sharing those concerns about the potential impact, including on public trust and confidence in the charity sector, of charities being seen to actively assist in the development or expansion of illegal settlements in Palestine. What more will the Foreign Secretary do, in the light of today’s statement, to ensure that gift aid is not given to organisations linked to Israeli settlements?

[Ed Miliband]

I will undertake to look at that issue. We are very clear that we do not want to see illegal settlement expansion, so I promise to look at this. I want to take this opportunity to thank all Members of this House for their questions, and I reiterate my undertaking to work with Members across Parliament as we take forward these issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to help oppose the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)]

Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Last month, we saw the issuing of tenders for the E1 settlement, long regarded as the crossing of a red line because it cuts through the heart of the west bank and risks making a Palestinian state unviable. This action was rightly condemned by a whole range of countries in the international community, including the United Kingdom. In recent weeks, we have also seen appalling settler terrorism and Palestinians driven from their homes. This Government will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution—we will act. I will set out a comprehensive set of measures in the coming weeks.

[James Naish]

The UK told the Security Council on 29 June that more than 6,000 settlement housing units had already been approved this year, alongside the declaration on 24 June of a further 465 dunams of Palestinian land as state land, in violation of international law. The situation has only deteriorated since. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that this pace of expansion shows that current UK measures are failing to change Israeli Government behaviour, and that a trade ban is now the necessary next step?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great sense on this matter. I am deeply worried about the pace of what is happening. Let us be honest about what is happening here: we are seeing the creation of facts on the ground that seek to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. We cannot simply stand by and let that happen. My hon. Friend will know that shortly before becoming Prime Minister, the Prime Minister talked about doing more on measures to ban the trading of goods with illegal settlements, and we are working across Government and with our allies on those measures. If my hon. Friend is a little patient, we will have more to say in the coming weeks.

[Martin Rhodes]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer and for his condemnation of the Israeli Government’s policies in the west bank. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that action against these illegal settlements must include banning the trade in services—as well as goods—such as mortgages, financial support and legal services from UK companies to illegal settlement builders?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes another important point. We need to look at our wider economic relationship with the occupied territories, as we are doing, and at the different tools we have. I want to be clear, as my hon. Friend says, that we do not want British companies financing, constructing or advertising new settlements. The work we are now undertaking is on how we can stop that; as I say, I will have more to say soon.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the situation that we find ourselves in, in the west bank and Palestine more widely, represents an almost complete failure of British foreign policy in this regard? As a British citizen, one of the most distressing aspects of this conflict, aside from the death, destruction and savagery, has been the sight of British Ministers being sent out to mouth platitudinous condemnations like goldfish, and promise action, only being dragged to take pathetic ineffectual steps by pressure from their own Back Benchers. My question is this: is anything going to change?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes. I associate myself pretty much entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We need to face facts on both sides of the House here. It has been the policy of successive Governments over a long period to be for the two-state solution, but if we are for the two-state solution and we see it being destroyed by the facts on the ground, we must act. The right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest and expertise on these issues, and I assure him that we will do so.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new role. He will be aware that none of his recent predecessors were ever short of an angry word or condemnatory statement about Israel’s actions in Gaza or the west bank, but they were woefully short on any meaningful action to back up their supposed outrage. What is happening in the west bank is happening right now, so time is of the essence. When will he spell out exactly the consequences for the state of Israel and for any UK national or UK-based company found to be complicit in this illegal E1 expansion programme?

[Ed Miliband]

I do want to defend the record of my predecessors for a moment. Recognition of the Palestinian state was a historic decision made by this Government, and action was taken on arms licences. As the Prime Minister has said, we on this side of the House recognise the need for a step change in our approach, given the urgency. As I say, the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of the Israeli Government’s removal of Dutch representatives from positions monitoring the ceasefire in Gaza following trade bans by the Dutch Government recently. What reassurances can he give the House that in the event of any decision to impose new trade restrictions, the UK’s ability to influence events in the middle east will not be undercut further as a result?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point, but I just want to say this: we must listen to the voices across the piece on these questions, including the Palestinian Authority. People rightly worry about the impacts that it can have, but I think it is very important when we weigh our decisions to listen to those who represent Palestinians and who say, “The time to act is now”. That is what we are going to do.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome the new Foreign Secretary and his team to their places. He is the third Labour Foreign Secretary in just over two years. We have had so many hand-wringing statements. He has just said that the time to act is now, but he is asking us to wait weeks more for a statement about banning settlement trade, which it is absolutely clear is essential. What is he waiting for? Will he ban trade in goods, services and investment in both directions immediately, because the facts on the ground are changing now, at pace and faster than ever before? What are the UK Government still waiting for?

[Ed Miliband]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working intensively on this, and as I said in earlier answers, she will not have to wait long. I want to get this right, because we need a comprehensive reset of our policy across the piece. Many Members on both sides of the House have made very important points about not only trade but a whole set of issues, including the International Court of Justice judgment on legality. I want a comprehensive reset of our approach on these issues, for the reasons that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and many hon. Members said. It is necessary and high time.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of international action on climate change on national security.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of international action on climate change on national security.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)]

Keeping the British people safe is the first duty of government. This summer we have seen the effects of the climate crisis in starker terms than ever. We are impacted here at home and by what happens overseas. Showing leadership on this will be a core priority for me as Foreign Secretary, and I will bring a group of Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations later this month to discuss how to respond.

[Gill Furniss]

My thoughts are with the victims of the flooding in Nepal and Tibet last week—a horrifying and pertinent reminder that climate change and its inevitable consequences are the biggest threat to our health, our homes and our way of life. Already drought and resource scarcity are actively fuelling regional conflicts around the globe and driving mass displacement. What diplomatic initiatives is the Secretary of State leading to combat climate change and prevent resource-driven conflict?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Met Office said today that this was the hottest summer on record. That brings home to us that whatever one’s views on net zero and associated issues—I know there are various views on all sides of the House—this is one of the biggest national security threats that we face. I undertake to my hon. Friend and Members across the House that as Foreign Secretary I will treat this with the seriousness that it deserves.

[Melanie Onn]

The Humber generates 20% of our electricity and is critical to delivering UK energy security. We have to work with our international allies to build a stronger framework of the friendly to protect all our critical infrastructure. The memorandum of understanding between Humber Marine and Renewables and Norwegian Offshore Wind is a really good example of collaboration that will keep the turbines turning. Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with allied partners to protect and grow clean energy projects, to improve collaboration and to better support global energy security?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend—I used to say this at Energy Security and Net Zero questions—is a brilliant advocate on these issues, with huge expertise from before she came to the House. I assure her that, as part of the work that we are doing in alliance with my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary, we will be working with other countries on these questions. We have to tackle the problem of emissions and we have to help countries adapt—both are crucial.

[Perran Moon]

I associate myself with the comments of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), about the appalling scenes in Nepal.

The success of our action on climate change is dependent on working collaboratively with international allies to secure resilient supply chains and limit dependencies on states hostile to the national interest. Cornwall council, as part of its international strategy, is working with the likes of the Breton government and the Quebec government to enhance the resilience of renewable energy and critical minerals supply chains. What is the Foreign Office doing to support national security through such outward-looking initiatives?

[Ed Miliband]

We love Cornwall, and we love my hon. Friend for his brilliant advocacy on behalf of his constituents and for what Cornwall is doing. He is right, and I will look at his initiative, because working with Governments across the world on these issues—including state governments—is crucial. This is a collective action problem and we have to tackle it collectively.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

May I put on record that the Liberal Democrats’ concern and thoughts are with the people of Nepal and Tibet as this tragedy unfolds? I urge the Government to stay the distance with them.

The UK’s spend on international aid and development aids our national security not only in climate change but in keeping extremism, pandemics and illegal immigration from our shores, but the Government have slashed aid brutally, and the true impact of the cuts was finally realised only in the final hours before summer recess. The cuts are deep and worrying. Will this Administration reverse them? Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when UK aid will return to 0.7% of GNI—a commitment that the House legislated for?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do say to her that we inherited an incredibly difficult fiscal position, with extraordinary pressures on the public finances. We are doing everything we can on development—indeed, I associate myself with the remarks she made about Nepal and will say more about it later—which is why, as soon as the tragedy happened, we were one of the first countries to show that we would provide financial assistance to the Government of Nepal. We take these issues incredibly seriously and have a proud record.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

With the United States stepping back from multilateral climate co-operation, what specific coalitions is the UK convening to fill the gap that the United States is leaving? Which countries have signed up to that so far?

[Ed Miliband]

In my six weeks or so in the job, I have met a wide range of Foreign Ministers and have talked to many of them about these issues. Frankly, this has not been at the forefront of Foreign Ministers’ agendas, but in a sense—I know that we have said this many times before on climate issues—this summer is a wake-up call. Important as Energy Ministers are—of course, I was one recently—it also has to be a matter across Government, with a cross-Government approach to these issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we will do.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

We know that food security is part of national security, and it has been another tough year for agriculture, with a record wet winter and now a record hot summer. We also have bluetongue disease going through livestock—when I was at vet school, that was a disease of northern Africa and southern Europe—which has spread through Europe to the UK and now to Scotland because of climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is hugely irresponsible and scientifically ignorant for the Leader of the Opposition to ban Conservative candidates who believe in taking serious action to tackle climate change from standing at the next general election?

[Ed Miliband]

The Leader of the Opposition will have to take responsibility for her own candidates. I was once Leader of the Opposition—it is a hard job, as I proved. There is an interesting point here, which is that a debate has broken out in the pages of The Daily Telegraph—an organ I obviously read a lot—on climate change, and people are saying, “Hang on a minute; how can the Conservative party, which cares about preservation of our way of life, ignore this issue?” I urge people across the House to take the issue seriously.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

5. What diplomatic steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

19. What diplomatic steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)]

This Government are determined to follow the leadership of every British Government since the Russian invasion and stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression, which has intensified in recent weeks, with July the worst month for civilian casualties since 2022. My first Foreign Minister call was with my Ukrainian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sybiha, and I had the privilege of meeting President Zelenski, alongside the Prime Minister, in my second week in this role. On Russian sanctions, on helping Ukraine with its defence and on helping it ensure that it can prevail in the conflict, we will be with the people of Ukraine and their Government for as long as it takes.

[James Wild]

The Government rightly champion long-term support for Ukraine and deterrence against Russian aggression, but that diplomatic approach has to be backed up by credible pledges on military capability. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this Government are committed to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 —something the Chancellor said was essential to defend our country only a few weeks ago?

[Ed Miliband]

These are matters for the Chancellor to determine, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but I say this specifically on Ukraine: we will do whatever is necessary to support the Government of Ukraine. It is clear to me that we have shown, at so many different levels, our solidarity—that of the British people and of the Government—with the people of Ukraine, and I pay tribute, as I did in my opening answer, to previous Governments, beginning with the Government of Boris Johnson. Not just solidarity, but action, are absolutely crucial. This conflict matters in principle and it matters to our future security too.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

We know that the Kremlin uses disinformation and misinformation to thwart Ukraine’s effort and that of its allies in the fight against Russian aggression. In recent weeks, there has been evidence that Meta has permitted Russian state propaganda, including threats that Britain should be punished for its assistance to Ukraine, to be targeted at individuals. What steps are the Foreign Office and the Government more widely taking to hold Meta to account?

[Ed Miliband]

On the end point made by the hon. Gentleman, Russia can make its threats, but we will not be deterred from our solidarity and support for Ukraine. I put that on record and make it clear in the House. I have been reading the back catalogue of Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions, because that is the kind of thing I do, and I know that the issue of disinformation and misinformation, which the hon. Gentleman raises, has come up a lot. I undertake to work on that, and specifically on the Meta issue that he raised, with my colleagues across Government.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team, and I wish them well. In recent months I have been proud, alongside the former Prime Minister, to negotiate the UK’s participation in the EU support loan for Ukraine. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, going forward, there should be no unnecessary delays in procurement, and that the kit and the weapons need to get to the frontline in Ukraine, where they are needed, as soon as possible?

[Ed Miliband]

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent job that my right hon. Friend did in government on Europe and those very difficult negotiations. I pay tribute to him for the brilliance with which he undertook that. The answer to his substantive question is: absolutely, yes. I say to the House that this winter is crucial for the conflict, and we must do everything we can not just to support Ukraine, but to do so in a speedy way.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Members across this House remain deeply concerned about the 20,610 Ukrainian children stolen by Russia since the start of its illegal war. My right hon. Friend’s predecessor established this country’s proud record on that issue, committing £4 million to tracing efforts that have located more than 1,000 children, imposed more than 130 sanctions and supported Ukraine in establishing a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. Will the new Foreign Secretary commit to working with me to continue the Government’s vital work in that area?

[Ed Miliband]

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and other Members across the House on this incredibly important and profound issue. I can say yes, 100%, I commit to working with her and other Members from all parties on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ed Miliband]

I endorse absolutely the spirit and substance of the hon. Gentleman’s important question. Let us be clear where the aggression comes from: it comes from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the wider threat to our allies. I say very clearly that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and we will not be intimidated by Russian threats.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking with international partners to help protect freedom of navigation through the strait of Hormuz.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deep sorrow for the flooding on the Nepal-China border that has caused widespread death and devastation. There are 987 confirmed deaths and 3,916 people still missing, of whom 36 are British nationals. From the moment the tragedy unfolded, we have sought to provide all the help we can to the Nepalese authorities and to support British nationals, including £5 million in additional humanitarian assistance. Our humanitarian and consular specialists are on the ground in Nepal, and FCDO crisis teams are working around the clock to support relatives of those missing. My deepest condolences go to all those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, particularly British nationals and their families.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the case of Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong resident who is being prosecuted by the Administration in Hong Kong using the national security law? The Secretary of State will know that Hong Kong has trashed the Sino-British agreement and decoupled the concept of common law from rights and responsibilities. All Joshua Wong has done is to ask for the same rights and privileges that we in this country hold dear. Will the Secretary of State take up that case with the Chinese Government and say to them, “Enough is enough. It’s time to stop chasing peaceful protesters?”

[Ed Miliband]

I absolutely will take up that case. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest on a whole range of such issues. Because of that interest, I say to him that we will be forthright on human rights when it comes to China, and we will be strong in relation to foreign interference, espionage and on any threats to this country that we find.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

T2. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to show personal leadership in acting as the UK Governor to the World Bank, given the wildfires that we have seen in Europe across the summer and the flooding in Nepal. Will he tell us how he intends to use the UK’s influence to ensure that adaptation and resilience finance is accessible much more quickly to those countries that need it most?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The reason I took up this role is that I want the World Bank to do more to make adaptation and resilience go further and faster and to make it simpler and more accessible. We know from events around the world how vulnerable countries on the frontline of climate breakdown are, and I undertake to him and to the House that I will make that a top priority.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has declared that development and climate finance will be “central” to his tenure, yet the aid watchdog has found that the system has too often focused on meeting a spending target, rather than clear priorities or value for money. Before he embarks on an expensive road map back to 0.7%, will he commit to a full national interest review that includes considering value for money for the taxpayer?

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. Any aid spending that we do must be value for money, but this is not just the right thing to do in principle to help to support the world’s poorest countries; it is the right thing from our point of view. That is a very important point, which I hope those on both sides of the House can agree on. If we do not deal with problems around the world, they come to Britain.

[Wendy Morton]

Let me touch on Nepal and Tibet. The situation there is truly harrowing, with hundreds of lives lost, thousands still missing and British nationals among those unaccounted for. We welcome the deployment of the UK’s rapid response team and the humanitarian package, but when it comes to British nationals, can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that our consular teams have secured full access on both sides of the Nepal-Tibet border? What specialist British search, rescue and victim identification assistance is being and will continue to be offered?

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Lady raises a very important and sensitive issue about the families of British nationals who are missing. I assure her that we are engaging with the authorities on both sides of the border. We are making available all the resources that we have at our disposal to help in this process; I have said that from the morning after the disaster, when I spoke to the Nepalese Foreign Minister.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

T6. Will the Minister update the House about the steps that the Government are taking to tackle the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

T4. As bond yields climb sharply and turmoil in the middle east revives inflationary pressures, how is the Foreign Secretary reassuring international partners that Britain can pay its way? More importantly, is he warning the new Prime Minister of fresh, non-essential spending?

[Ed Miliband]

I take incredibly seriously my role in helping to tackle the cost of living crisis that the British people face, and that means working tirelessly to get back to the strait of Hormuz being reopened so that we can get oil and gas flowing. That is what we need to do.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

T9. Around the world, countries such as Seychelles are leading the way in decriminalising same-sex acts, while others, such as Ghana, are passing appalling new laws that attack the LGBT+ community simply for being who they are. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK is doing all it can to work with like-minded countries around the world to advance equality and protect the fundamental rights of LGBT+ people?

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

T5. It is beyond doubt that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are illegal, and the Foreign Secretary has stated that sanctions for those who participate in illegal settlement expansion will be brought forward. Sadly, Labour MPs in this House are trying to prevent that on the basis that it could result in retaliatory measures from the US. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK’s adherence to international law will not be traded away, that the rights of the Palestinian people are not bargaining chips, and that he will not be bullied by Back Benchers or President Trump into allowing continued settler violence and the deliberate destruction of the two-state solution?

[Ed Miliband]

I can assure the hon. Member that Labour MPs are very keen that action be taken, and it will be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Globally, the rights of women and girls are being stripped away at alarming speed, particularly when it comes to education and sexual and reproductive rights. Does the Foreign Secretary plan to honour his predecessor’s commitment to making sure that women’s and girls’ rights are embedded across FCDO programming?

[Ed Miliband]

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for her excellent work leading the campaign globally on violence against women and girls. My answer is 100% yes, I will continue her brilliant work.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

T7. I have heard at first hand from many Palestinian business owners how illegal Israeli settlements ruin lives and disproportionately impact women and girls. I have received hundreds of emails from my Chelmsford constituents demanding comprehensive Government action. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore reassure my constituents and pledge that any trade ban will include services and investments?

[Ed Miliband]

As I said earlier, we are looking at all the economic issues in relation to the occupied territories. The hon. Lady raises an important point, which is that what has happened in Gaza and the west bank has pricked the conscience of a generation, and that is why we will act.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the British company, Dana Petroleum, is involved in a consortium that has been granted licences for oil exploration in Palestinian waters off the coast of the occupied Gaza strip? Does he agree that it is illegal and amounts to the war crime of pillage? What does he intend to do to challenge this illegal action by a British-based company?

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.

May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate? It is right that Members from both sides of the House of Commons have a clear opportunity to address these pressing issues. I will seek to keep my remarks brief to allow others to contribute to the debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for co-sponsoring this debate. Throughout the past couple of days he has acted with great dignity and great eloquence, as recognised on both sides of the House. He and I are approaching this debate in the hope of sending a clear and united view from this House about President Trump’s measures.

I should say at the start that this debate is not about our respect for the United States or our friendship with that country. I have lived there and I have friends there, and the declaration of independence is one of the most powerful political documents. Since its foundation, the United States has been built on the back of immigrants from around the world. Indeed, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty is the phrase:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It is precisely the role of the United States historically, and our friendship and unique relationship with America, that gives us a special responsibility, given what has transpired over the past few days.

At the heart of this debate are three simple questions. First, is it right for President Trump to ban indiscriminately people from certain countries of the world from entering the US, and to indefinitely ban Syrian refugees?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech, as usual, but will he tell the House who gives the most funds to support Syrian refugees? Is it not the United States?

[Edward Miliband]

The US plays a role and this country plays a very important role, but that is really beside the point of whether the US should impose an indiscriminate and, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—my hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate—said to me over the weekend, an indefinite ban in relation to Syrian refugees. I shall come to that later in my speech, as I am sure will other Members.

The second question is crucial: will the President’s actions make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one? My contention is that they will make the world a more dangerous place, and that on its own reflects our national interest in this matter. The third question follows on from that: what is Britain’s responsibility in speaking up on these issues?

I shall discuss those three questions briefly, but let me say first that Americans and, indeed, people in this country are fearful about the threat from ISIS and wider terrorist networks. Those fears are understandable and we must respond to them. There is no dispute about that. I support measures that keep our citizens, and those of the United States, safe, but it is not enough to say that we are fearful, or that our citizens are fearful; we then have to weigh whatever actions are proposed or taken. Understandable fears cannot be an excuse for the suspension of reason and rationality—that applies to the Trump Administration in a whole number of areas. The only way to understand the ban is that it represents the suspension of reason and rationality. Indeed, it has perversity, discrimination and divisiveness at its heart.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

One of the key aspects is the dramatic effect of the ban on those who had boarded aircraft, ready to go to the United States with valid visas, only to arrive and be told that they had to go back. It is that physical, emotional effect that is the most damning part of what is being proposed.

[Edward Miliband]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on this issue and the wider issues raised. One of the most chilling things—I am sure that other Members found this as well—was that the accounts of what happened to individuals over the weekend sounded like the results of the actions of a tin-pot dictatorship. They did not sound like what we would expect or hope for from the United States.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but does he agree that we have a responsibility to act and speak responsibly in this Chamber? The seven countries of concern were identified by the Obama Administration, and restrictions were placed on migration in 2015.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will perhaps say something personal about that, but I say to the hon. Gentleman—this is very important, because President Trump is trying to sow confusion on this issue—that President Obama’s action was about the visa waiver scheme in relation to those countries. It was most emphatically not about a blanket ban on individuals from those countries coming to the US.

The countries selected for the ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. There is no question but that those countries, in their different ways, are extremely dangerous places, but does a blanket ban on people from those countries make any sense? In my view, it does not. If we read the Executive order—it is worth reading it, along with the annotations to it—we see that it falls apart at the first hurdle. Section 1 of the order, right up at the front, states the rationale for the President’s proposals. What does it cite? It cites the 9/11 attacks on America—absolutely appalling events that shocked us all—but none of the 9/11 attackers came from the countries on which the ban has been imposed. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others are not on the list, so the very justification offered in the Executive order frankly falls apart.

Nobody is against the proper vetting of people from those countries—the strongest security checks—but a blanket ban cannot be the answer. I do not think I can do better than to read the words of Chancellor Merkel, who said earlier:

“The necessary and decisive fight against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain belief—in this case people of Muslim belief or people from a certain country. That way of thinking is against my interpretation of the basic tenets of international refugee support and co-operation.”

Chancellor Merkel put it incredibly well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, we have seen the dreadful results of this blanket ban playing out over the past few days.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the statesmanship that has been shown by Chancellor Merkel was not shown in our name by our Prime Minister this weekend?

[Edward Miliband]

The intention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I is to maintain as much unity as we can in this debate so that we send a clear message. I would have liked the Prime Minister to be much clearer, much earlier, and I would still like a clearer message from the Government.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is there not a danger that the ban could increase hate crimes in this country and elsewhere? Is there not another danger that it will give ammunition to the violent extremists? It will almost be a recruitment sergeant, as we have learned from other experiences—for example, in Ireland.

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it very well, and anticipates what I am going to say. What message does this send to a quarter of the world’s population? What message does it send to Muslims around the world? It sends the message that they are not wanted in the United States because of their religious faith. What more of a recruiting sergeant, as my hon. Friend says, could there be for ISIS and others?

I was saying that we have seen the dreadful results of the order over the past few days, and I will briefly mention some of them. One of the first people detained, I believe for 19 hours, was an Iraqi interpreter who had worked with the US military for 10 years. If that is not a perverse result, I do not know what is. There are instances of green card holders being handcuffed and held in detention for 16 hours. A five-year-old was apparently detained for several hours, and then there is the issue—it is welcome that the Foreign Secretary clarified this—of dual citizens, including our own, such as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and Sir Mo Farah, being caught up in this.

As bad as the substance of the Executive order—“cavalier” is not putting it nearly high enough—is the appalling way in which the US Government have gone about this. It is the action of a tin-pot dictatorship. I think that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement when responding to a question from one of my hon. Friends that people had been caught on the hop. This draconian measure was imposed without even consulting the people responsible for its implementation.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. I think that everyone in the House loves, admires and respects America and its democratic traditions, and is saddened by what has happened. One concern is the fact that the federal court rulings often do not appear to be implemented in the airports and points of entry. The message about respect for the rule of law is one that we all endorse and want to be heard. We want to get that message out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks very eloquently. I noticed that the Prime Minister told President Erdogan that human rights and the rule of law were incredibly important. The same thing applies to President Trump. All of us have to make that clear, and it is good to see in the Chamber the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who—I do not want to cause him trouble—issued a good statement earlier today. He is nodding.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in one way the Executive order is not a surprise, because it was a key plank of President Trump’s election campaign last year? Simply because it was an election pledge does not in any way suggest that it is right.

[Edward Miliband]

That is completely right. The person who coined the phrase that people were taking Mr Trump seriously but not literally has turned out to be wrong, because the President is acting literally. Whether he talked about this in the campaign or not, we all have a responsibility to decide both how we respond and the strength of our response. I will come on to why it is important that we speak up.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am conscious of the fact that other Members want to speak in the debate, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not wish to diminish the topic that we are discussing, but my wife, who is a British citizen, was born in Israel. She will not be able to travel to Malaysia, where many people in this country go on holiday, and she will not be able to travel to 17 countries in and around the middle east. If the right hon. Gentleman cares so passionately about this—and I do not dispute that he does—what does he intend to do about that?

[Edward Miliband]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about what he says. These are definitely important issues. I do not want to sound like the old man of the sea, but I recall the debate on intervention in Libya in which I supported the then Government. A Back-Bench hon. Friend got up and said that they could not support the measure—and different people had different views on intervention—because there were many other terrible things happening in the world, so what were we going to do about them? Two wrongs do not make a right. This is, after all, supposed to be our closest ally and the people who are supposed to uphold human rights and the rule of law all around the world. It is hard to lecture other countries on respect for human rights if the President of the United States fails to do so.

I would like to mention a specific case that brings home the lunacy of the proposal. I read yesterday about the case of an 18-year-old called Mahmoud Hassan from Syria. He was recently accepted for a degree in engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The letter that MIT sent him described him as

“one of the most talented and promising students in one of the most competitive applicant pools in the history of the Institute.”

That young man from Syria who wants to study engineering at MIT said:

“Now Trump's orders will prevent me from going there. My dreams are basically ruined.”

I hope that on the question of students, as on the issue of green cards, the US Administration find a way of changing their position, but that brings home the reason why a blanket ban is nonsense. There are countless other examples, and doubtless other hon. Members will want to discuss them.

I would like to deal briefly with the issue of whether or not this is a Muslim ban. It clearly is. That was the President’s original intention. Rudolph Giuliani said on television yesterday—I paraphrase—“Donald Trump rang me up and asked how we could get a Muslim ban and make it work. I said, ‘Here’s a way we can make it happen.’” As for the Executive order itself, we all recognise the persecution, in particular, of Christians in the middle east. It is important to take special note of that and, indeed, that is already done in the way in which refugees are handled.

The Executive order singles out the possibility that minorities from predominantly Muslim countries will receive special treatment, which draws into the order the idea that this is being done on the basis of religious faith. It is a ban aimed at Muslims.

[Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

What my right hon. Friend is describing emphasises why it is important that we as a country can contribute to, and serve as members of, organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, otherwise we will lose the ability to join other nations to make exactly the points he is making.

[Edward Miliband]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would like—and perhaps the Minister will ponder this—a more co-ordinated European response on this issue. We are still members of the European Union, and if there is any area where Europe should speak with one voice, this is it. I do not see why there could not be a European Heads of Government meeting to discuss the issue and Europe’s response. It is important that President Trump knows that there is a co-ordinated and clear voice from Europe on this issue.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, along with how abhorrent this is to many people looking on, we must save a thought for the staff in the embassies and consulates around the world? I worked for a time with the US State Department in the consulate in Edinburgh, and I know how strong the feeling is in many offices. It is difficult for staff to have to execute the order and serve on the front line.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Lots of people who are trying to implement the order are wondering why they have to do so. Apparently, on Friday night some of them were saying to people who were victims of the proposal, “You’d better call President Trump if you don’t like this.”

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am concerned. Will he clarify the difference between orders from President Obama’s Administration and those from President Trump’s?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

Well, there is a huge difference. President Trump’s order is a blanket ban on people from seven different countries. President Obama’s proposal —if I am allowed to say so, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has had personal experience of this—was a specific issue about the visa waiver scheme. It was not about saying that there would be any kind of blanket ban on people coming into the country.

My final point on why the order is such a terrible thing for President Trump to have done is one that other hon. Members will want to talk about: the ban on all refugees from Syria. I recommend a piece that my brother wrote on the matter in The New York Times. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted people in the world, with up to 36 months of vetting and screening by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Department of Defence and others. There has been summary detention of the innocent, clear discrimination on the basis of faith, and a decision to depart from the UN convention relating to the status of refugees. This ban is neither rational nor fair, and it will not make the country or the world safer; indeed, quite the opposite. I can do no better than to quote Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who yesterday said

“we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism…This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”

I believe they are right.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I am sure that I am not alone in saying that my office has today been besieged by phone calls from tearful, upset constituents asking, “Why has the world abandoned us when someone is basically saying that we are all terrorists?”

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. In fact, I was about to come to that point. We already see the implications of the order playing out. We are in partnership with the Iraqi Government against ISIL, and today we have seen their response to the Trump ban, as the Iraqi Parliament has asked its Government to retaliate against the measures of the US Administration. As my hon. Friend said, we should think about what this order signals to 1.6 billion Muslims all around the world. It sends the message that they are not welcome. Indeed, it precisely buys into the clash of civilisations narrative that politicians from across the political spectrum have tried to avoid ever since 9/11.

Regarding our responsibilities, the United States has always been our oldest and closest ally, and some will say that this is not a matter for us as long as our citizens are protected. I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely a matter for us because the fundamental and dangerous betrayal of values that this measure represents is an affront to us all—the Muslims living here and every other citizen of this country—and it will make the world a more dangerous place. Allowing the measure to stand and shrugging our shoulders will amount to complicity with President Trump. These actions are not normal, rational or sensible. President Trump is a bully, and the only course of action open to us in relation to his bullying is to stand up and be counted.

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

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case about why the order should be challenged. Does he share my despair that it has become apparent today that our Prime Minister knew about this before she walked into a room, looked President Trump in the face and chose to say nothing?

[Edward Miliband]

I heard my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary a powerful question earlier, and she makes an important point. On the wider issue, I understand the need for a trade deal with the United States—although a whole set of issues surrounds that deal—but we cannot, on the basis of our keenness to get a trade deal, shrink from speaking truths to the most powerful man in the world. That would just be the wrong thing to do.

The only course of action open to us regarding this Executive order in the United States is to act on the basis of our values. That is the purpose of the debate, which I thank you again, Mr Speaker, for granting, and that is the purpose of the motion before the House. I hope it will be approved by hon. and right hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this debate. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the debate possible, because it showed a wish to make sure that this House was relevant to the issue of the day and the issue of the moment. I particularly commend the speeches—forgive me if I do not mention all the excellent speeches we have heard—by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). My friend, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), spoke incredibly movingly and eloquently. We also heard from the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). There were many other excellent speeches, including from the Front Benches—my own and others.

The main thing I take out of this is that we achieved our purpose, which is to show that on the merits of this issue there is remarkable unity across this House. There is no division on the Government or Opposition Benches about the fact that this ban is basically a repugnant, abhorrent thing. It is a very good achievement for the House to have set that out.

The second question, though, is what happens next? In a good contribution, the Minister came a bit closer to raising that issue. The question is whether we classify this a kind of normal, run-of-the-mill disagreement—“They do their thing, we do our thing”—or as something much, much more serious. I urge the Minister to take back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the strong feeling across this House that this is not some run-of-the-mill thing—“They do our policy and we do ours”—but incredibly serious. It is incredibly serious because of the values that it speaks to, which offend this House of Commons, and because it takes us down a slippery slope. Someone pointed out that we are only two weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency. My goodness, it feels like a year, really, and we still have at least three years and a lot of a year to go. There is a real danger of a slippery slope.

Thirdly, this policy is going to make us less safe, not more safe—it is more dangerous for our world. I really hope that the Minister takes back the message that this is not run of the mill but deadly serious, and that we expect a response from the Prime Minister, including speaking to the President, that is proportionate to the feeling of this House of Commons.

I apologise for having briefly gone outside because I was due to speak at the event that was taking place, although I never quite made it to speak. There were tens of thousands of people, I think, or thousands of people. One must not get into crowd size estimates given recent experience; I do not want to do a Trump—[Hon. Members: “Millions!”] There were millions of people outside. I think there is a feeling across this country, from the petition to the people outside, that this ban is not in our name. This House of Commons has said that today and I hope that the Government will reflect that in the weeks and months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.

[Mr Speaker]

For the record, that was passed unanimously.