Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped.
The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too.
We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said:
“at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.]
Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership?
The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member is doing an excellent job of expressing the moral outrage shared by constituents from Herefordshire to Sunderland to Sheffield, but does she agree that if it is possible for international groups to find origin fraud relating to goods that originate from illegal settlements on the west bank, but are incorrectly labelled as being from within Israel, it is entirely possible for the British Government to do the same? There is no valid reason there for our not implementing sanctions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
To breathe life back into Britain’s high streets, we are addressing antisocial behaviour and crime, rolling out banking hubs, stamping out late payments, establishing a licensing taskforce, empowering communities to fill vacant properties and reforming the business rates system. There is more to do and our forthcoming small and medium enterprise strategy will set out further steps.
Gareth Thomas
Before I had heard about the attractions of Warrington, I had heard about those of Consett. I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and meet many of the great businesses there just before Christmas.
We have introduced measures to fill empty properties, including high-street rental auction powers for councils, which can free up space for new businesses. We are also protecting vital services on the high street through the roll-out of banking hubs, with 170 opened so far. This week, we published our Green Paper on the future of the Post Office, which sets out our plans to do even more to provide banking services on high streets, which, again, I hope will help to bring more footfall on to the high street and help businesses such as the ones that she knows only too well.
Lewis Atkinson
In the last Budget, the Government committed to a fairer business rates system that protects the high street. Making sure online retailers pay a fair share of rates will help support businesses on the high street in Sunderland. Will the Minister update the House on the engagement and design work that his Department are carrying out so that that new fairer system can be announced in the Budget?
Gareth Thomas
The Chancellor announced last year that from the next financial year, 2026-27, we intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail hospitality and leisure properties. A permanent tax cut will ensure that those businesses will benefit from much-needed certainty and support. Treasury colleagues have been engaging businesses on their proposals for a fairer business rates system. The Government plan to publish an interim report on their work and more detail will also be set out in the Budget in the autumn.
Budget Resolutions
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
Either the Government do not know but should know, or they do know and should say.
The Budget also included the highest-ever increase in capital gains tax, and a reduction in business property relief. Just as with the family farm tax, that reduction is an attack on the family-owned businesses that dominate our high streets and industrial parks. The incentive to take risk, and to create and grow a family business with the objective of passing it on, will be fundamentally undermined. Some 75% of UK businesses are family run, and in aggregate they employ 50% of all workers in the economy. We are talking about decades of hard work, dedicated to building a legacy, and people creating an insurance policy for their passing. The so-called “loopholes” in inheritance tax that Government Front-Benchers talk about are legitimate tax policies, introduced by a Labour Government in 1976 to ensure that businesses were not broken up and devastated on the death of an owner, to the detriment of the remaining employees, workers, suppliers, customers, the wider economy, and even the Treasury, which would lose future tax take. This measure could be devastating for our communities and our high streets up and down the country.
It is not just Conservative Members who are sounding the alarm, though we may be doing it with a greater degree of passion. The chief executive officer of UKHospitality said that the increase in national insurance will undermine businesses operating at the margins and
“be a brake on growth”.
Family Business UK, which represents family-owned enterprises, has said that the Budget
“removes entirely any incentive for starting or running a family business.”
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the 2022 spring Budget, the Conservative party increased national insurance for employers by 1.25%, and he supported that. Can he explain why he was in favour of it then but opposes it now, even though we have introduced increased employment allowances that counteract the change?
Andrew Griffith
I am pretty sure that at the time, the now Chancellor described the increase as a “jobs tax”, and that is exactly what this is. What we are seeing is not a need to balance the nation’s books on the back of a global supply chain squeeze, higher energy costs due to the war in Ukraine and the aftermath of covid, but a Government coming in with premeditated plans that they did not share with the British people, and setting the biggest-ever tax raid Budget in British history. That is an enormous difference, and business understands it; it can see through this Government.
One of the UK’s leading hospitality entrepreneurs is Luke Johnson, who runs Gail’s, which I believe some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues are rather keen on—they are the party of Gail’s. He said:
“It is heartbreaking that Britain’s proud record of innovation, flexibility and business success is being thrown away thanks to that old knee-jerk Labour instinct of taxing success.”
I agree.