Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

12.42 pm

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on Israel’s planned illegal expansion in the E1 zone in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The British Government firmly oppose the E1 settlement plan. It would divide the west bank in two and mark a serious breach of international law. The Prime Minister led 11 other world leaders in a joint statement last month. That condemned the E1 plans, urged the Israeli Government to end settlement expansion, and warned businesses of legal and reputational consequences of participating in construction in E1 and other settlements. We are clear: businesses should not bid for construction tenders in E1 or other settlements.

We are deeply alarmed by the situation in the west bank: illegal settlements continue to expand; settler violence remains at record levels; and the Israeli Government have further entrenched their control. Last month, the Foreign Secretary announced further sanctions in response to that violence in the west bank. That is the fourth package under this Government. We welcome the condemnation of settler violence at the highest levels of Israeli society. Now Israel must conduct swift and transparent investigations into these attacks, and ensure accountability.

The Foreign Secretary also announced that we had updated our business guidance to clearly advise British businesses and citizens not to engage in economic and financial activity in settlements. We have been concerned by efforts to advertise settlement property in the UK and by reports of charitable links between the UK and settlements. I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority and spoken to the Charity Commission about these issues, but I want to reassure the House that while these trends in the west bank continue to worsen, we will continue to take steps to ensure that no one can profit from the sale of land that has been taken unlawfully, that violent settlers are held to account, and that the British Government stand up for the rule of law, for the right of Palestinians to self determination, and for the prospects for peace and security through a two state solution.

We are in discussion with partners, including those few countries who have explored how a ban on settlement trade might work. We are looking at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and promote peace and security. It is only through a negotiated two state solution, not unilateral action, that a viable path to long term peace can be achieved. That path must guarantee security to Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Just yesterday, the Israel Land Authority published new dates for the tender for the construction of the proposed E1 settlement zone in the west bank. The bidding period for the tender ends in October, and once the contracts have been awarded, it will become impossible to stop E1. Why is E1 so critical? It is because the proposed settlement would absolutely and permanently destroy any prospect of a true two state solution. It is a large area of land that would split the west bank from north to south, severing connections between Palestinian communities and East Jerusalem, while forcibly transferring 7,000 Palestinians—itself a war crime under the Rome statute.

A few of us visited just four weeks ago. We saw at first hand the accelerated pace at which Israel is expanding its illegal settlements. A massive 2,000 housing units have been approved since that visit alone according to the United Kingdom chargé d’affaires at the UN on Monday. It is clear that Israel is systematically and deliberately doing all it can to make a two state solution impossible, and its impunity must end.

Will the Minister make categorically clear today that any businesses or organisations, including financial and insurance institutions, or individuals that participate in or facilitate the construction of the E1 zone, will be sanctioned and not allowed to trade and do business with the UK, and will the Government legislate accordingly as a matter of urgency? Secondly, alongside 139 parliamentary colleagues, I have urged the Minister to end all trading with illegal Israeli settlements. Can I once again urge the Minister to implement a full ban and suspend the free trade agreement with Israel, based on its continued violations of human rights and the prospect of this development?

Palestine is fracturing before our eyes. Our intelligence can see this. The international community must stop E1.

I thank my hon. Friend for his attention to these issues, and I know that he recently travelled to the Occupied Palestinian Territories to see it with his own eyes. As I have said many times, I will not comment on sanctions from this Dispatch Box, but I have been clear, and the Prime Minister has led 11 other world leaders in being crystal clear, on the implications and consequences if the E1 settlement continues. He and his colleagues were clear in that statement that there would be implications for the businesses themselves. So far we have had word from the Israeli Government about their plans; clearly, businesses in the region will want to consider carefully the warning in the statement last week and the clear commitment from the Dispatch Box in the UK that we will take further measures if the violent action to increase settlements continues in the west bank.

I call the shadow Minister.

I will address directly the matter of settlements in a moment, but I want to make a broader point first. Diplomacy is about rolling up our sleeves and putting in the hard yards, not just issuing condemnatory statements. I believe that if the Minister wants to have real sway with the Government of Israel, there has to be meaningful dialogue, but at the moment there is no dialogue between this Labour Government and Israel, despite the obvious importance of the bilateral relationship to Britain across so many domains.

That is because of the decisions that Labour has made—from suspending export licences when Israel was burying murdered hostages to cancelling trade talks and recognising a Palestinian state when hostages were still being held in terrorist captivity. By deliberately keeping relations with Israel in a deep freeze, Labour is cutting off its ability to influence situations on the ground.

None the less, settlement expansion in the west bank is not helpful for achieving the long term peace that we all want to see. [Interruption.] That has long been my party’s position. We would also like to see Israel use its legal system to bear down on settler violence.

We on the Conservative Benches do support a two state solution: one that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Will the Minister tell us whether he has spoken to his Israeli counterparts directly on the E1 situation? Are the Government doing anything at all to help the Abraham accords expand or to unblock issues holding up a broader regional peace? Finally, will he update us on his assessment of the Palestinian Authority’s plan to hold elections in November and whether he is concerned by the PA’s lack of progress on the total overhaul of curricula and welfare policy, which is so clearly needed?

I will deal first with the latter points raised by the Opposition spokesman. Yes, we continue to talk to the Palestinian Authority, including on the reform agenda and the need for elections.

It is an undeniable fact that I am the middle east Minister who during my time recognised a Palestinian state, and sanctioned Israeli Ministers who now regularly take to the airwaves to issue in the most bloodthirsty terms encouragement for some of the activity that I am being asked about today. I am afraid that an inevitable consequence of the actions announced from this Dispatch Box is that the warmth of my relationship with my counterparts in Israel has indeed suffered, but this Government will not hesitate to stand up for principles, which I think are supported right across this House.

The right hon. Lady could not have failed to hear the groans from behind her on the Conservative Benches. I know, in recognising a Palestinian state, that I was of course supported by Labour Members behind me, but I think I was also supported by Conservative Members behind her.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I recently read an interesting letter from the Dutch Foreign Minister to the Speaker of their Parliament. In it, he said that his Government had carefully weighed the efficiency, the effectiveness, the proportionality, the enforceability and the administrative burden of introducing a full trade ban on Israeli goods coming from the illegal settlements in the west bank. He said that, having looked at all of that, the Netherlands had decided that the right thing to do and the legal thing to do was to push for a full trade ban with the settlements—and so has Ireland, and Norway, and Spain, and Slovenia, and Belgium, and Luxembourg, and Portugal, and Finland and Poland. My question is: when are we going to join them?

I dislike disagreeing with my right hon. Friend. Slovenia introduced and then repealed the measures it took. In our discussions with our counterparts—particularly those in the European Union—we hear of a number of technical difficulties that people are encountering. But let me be clear to the House, as I was in my statement, that I am confirming today that we are in discussions about such measures.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Well, here we are again. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine, which we have long called for. We have welcomed more recent statements of intent, including just 10 days ago in this House, but such statements are utterly hollow without action, especially when we know that the Israeli security cabinet’s stated aim is to make a future Palestinian state unviable.

We have asked these questions before, but we will ask them again. When will the Government put forward a clear plan to halt and reverse the illegal expansion into East Jerusalem and the west bank? When will they respond to the 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice? When will they introduce a package of sanctions including fines for any UK firms that bid for contracts for settlement construction in E1 or anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories? Will they expand that to cover any UK financial institution that finances or facilitates UK companies’ involvement in construction or other services? When will the UK move fast to ban all UK trade in goods and services with illegal Israeli settlements?

I think that I have already addressed most of those questions. I have just confirmed again, as I did in the statement, that we are in discussions about further measures in relation to west bank goods. We have set out business guidance, and the Foreign Secretary announced the fourth round of sanctions in June.

The hon. Lady referred to speed. I think she will acknowledge that we have moved rather more quickly than some of our partners and allies. I am pleased to see many of them taking some of the measures that I announced in the House in 2025, including sanctions on the Ministers that I mentioned. We are moving with alacrity in response to what we see.

The question at issue in the urgent question is about the E1 settlement expansion. It is rumoured that there is now a timetable for those tenders. I have been as clear as I can be from the Dispatch Box that we are watching very carefully who bids for those tenders. We have been clear repeatedly with the Israeli Government about our view on the E1 expansion; I have repeated it today. The question before us is whether, in the run up to the Israeli election, commercial entities choose to bid for those tenders. That is what we will be watching carefully and taking action in response to.

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

It is right that the Government acknowledge that Israel’s presence in Palestine is illegal under international law, but for two years they have not responded to the ICJ’s advisory ruling that Israel’s actions towards Palestinians in the west bank may constitute forcible transfer.

The Israeli Government expressly back the E1 scheme, which will necessarily displace tens of thousands of Palestinians and dissect the west bank. Netanyahu said of the plan: “We are going to fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us.”

The UK’s current situation is unsustainable. Will the Minister acknowledge the Israeli Government’s role in the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the west bank and act accordingly with a full range of diplomatic interventions?

I would not want there to be any ambiguity about the force of our views about what is going on in the west bank. That is why we have done four rounds of sanctions and why I am setting out clearly today what the likely consequences are, should that action continue. The advisory opinion of the ICJ is important, but it is a non binding opinion of an international court. We do not need to make a judgment on that opinion in order to take action. Indeed, we have taken considerable action over the last two years in the way in which I have set out.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as that of an Israeli child. That is the foundation of all of my views on this. May I congratulate the Minister for the middle east, and indeed the Prime Minister, who is not in his place, on having the courage and the leadership to recognise the Palestinian state when they did so? I supported that and continue to do so.

Indeed, this urgent question justifies that position last September, because at that point we were all concerned that the viability of a Palestinian state was reducing as the weeks went by. We have seen that the extant policy of the current Israeli Government is to continue those illegal occupations and expansion. Will the Minister tell the House the latest on his discussions with Washington about the board of peace and reconstructing Gaza, ensuring that there is a viable Palestinian state? Finally, what is his view on whether the current Israeli Government’s position is likely to pertain beyond this autumn?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the question. We are clearly speaking in the run up to an Israeli election campaign. Elections are likely in October, and there is, as in any democratic country, a particularly heavy amount of policy positioning by various parties. We are calling on all Israeli politicians to abide by the basic principles of both international law and the very important 20-point plan to which he alluded. I have spoken to officials at the board of peace and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza as well as the Palestinian Authority. It is vital that we make progress on that plan. There are still insufficient quantities of aid getting into Gaza and unresolved questions about the disarmament of Hamas. We are playing our full role behind the scenes to try to make progress on those questions, but the situation is becoming urgent indeed, both in the west bank and in Gaza.

The E1 settlement expansion programme is clearly designed to undermine a Palestinian state, despite this Government, for the first time in our history, recognising Palestinian statehood. Will my hon. Friend highlight the timeframe that he is working to, for discussions on the FTA, as well as for other actions, including sanctions? I recognise that he cannot talk about the specifics, but will he set out the timeline in order to assure us that it works, in the light of the expansion plan, so that we are not acting after the event, as has often been the case in relation to the Israeli Government’s actions?

I am hesitant; I do not want to end up talking about, at the Dispatch Box, what the Israeli Government’s plans may or may not be; they will speak about those themselves, through their own channels. As I understand it, there is an intent to have a tender, as was mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, which would end in October. We will work to that timetable, which clearly runs right up to the Israeli election. It is deeply inappropriate to proceed, so close to an Israeli election, with a programme that has such grave consequences internationally.

I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for his urgent question. I was on the trip to Israel with him the other week, and we saw all too clearly and depressingly the very clear strategy of the Israeli Government; for them, E1 is a way of effectively blowing out of the water any delivery of a two state solution. May I gently make this point to the Minister? The quiet, gentle Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office approach of taking a watching brief—looking at events to see how they unfold—needs a bit of gumption and muscle behind it. President Trump recently reminded Israel that without America, it would not exist. That should send a chill up the spine of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Ministers. As well as the Minister trying to talk to his Israeli counterparts, what conversation is he having with the Americans, who provide a massive amount of military support to Israel, to try to get the Netanyahu Government to rein it in, when it comes to E1?

The Foreign Secretary, other Ministers in the Government and I discuss those questions with the American Administration. It is obvious, as the President of the United States has said, that the Israeli Government are alienating even some of their closest allies through their conduct, both on the west bank and in Gaza.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response on Israel breaking international law, and for opposing and denouncing illegal settlements on the west bank. Recently, the International Development Committee heard about some of the atrocities that are taking place; in one instance, gunshot was fired through a car, killing a 7-month old baby and their parents. The community has no legal protections; they are not safe. What more are the Government doing, or considering, to give legal protections to this desperate community?

As I said, questions of justice and accountability are foremost in our mind. We raise them with the Israeli Government regularly, particularly in relation to cases that involve British nationals. We are still awaiting justice and accountability for the World Central Kitchen incident, which killed a number of British aid workers.

I know of so many stories like the one my hon. Friend refers to. I remember visiting Ramallah before I was a Minister; children had been killed on the streets as we drove in to see the Palestinian Authority. There are far, far too many such cases, and we continue to make that point with force, both to the Israelis and in multilateral settings.

In June last year, the UK sanctioned Israeli far right Minister Bezalel Smotrich for inciting violence against Palestinian communities. In recent weeks, Smotrich has issued an order to displace the Palestinian Bedouin community. The UK position on sanctions against Smotrich was part of a joint statement last year with Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Canada. What talks have the Government had with those same partners about further united sanctions against other Israeli Ministers?

For obvious reasons, I will not disclose the full details of diplomatic talks, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman can see the number of things that we have done jointly, including the E1 statement that I referred to last month. We think we have more impact and influence when we work in concert with our friends, and that is what we will always seek to do.

I was proud last year to be part of the Government who finally recognised the state of Palestine. However, the very idea of statehood is illusory when such activities are happening. After four rounds of sanctions, what is being done with international partners to hold individuals to account for forced displacement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), as we know that that constitutes a war crime under international humanitarian law?

It gives me no particular pleasure to be talking about the fourth round of sanctions. One would wish that diplomatic activity could have been enough to prevent the kind of incidents that so many Members are talking about this afternoon, but while they continue, so will we.

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Many of us feel that way about these statements, and surely the Minister must be starting to feel that way, too. He must recognise that the E1 settlement would represent the final and complete collapse of any British strategy in Israel and Palestine, and would have wider ripples, in terms of our standing in the world. Surely it is incumbent on him to change his modus operandi. Over the last two years of savagery, we have had meagre measures—talk, talk, talk, from both this Government and the previous one, frankly—and none of that has had any impact on the conduct of the Israeli Government. Surely now is the time to lay out exactly what the consequences would be for the establishment of the E1 settlement in plain terms, so that there is a hard red line, and the Israelis can make a judgment about whether they want to cross it.

I gently disagree. I feel that there is some force in what the right hon. Gentleman says about insanity being doing the same thing again and again. We have had many exchanges of that nature. Over the course of two years, the British Government have taken a whole range of steps. We have talked about recognition and sanctions—

None of them has had any impact; not a single thing has changed.

Returning to the question about the consequences for the Israeli Government, we could not have been clearer, alongside 11 other world leaders, about what they would look like. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the range of actions taken by the Government that I am a part of was absolutely unthinkable to him when he was sitting on the Government Benches. Recognition, suspension of—[Interruption.] We have done it; you did not.

Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, so let us make sure that we keep our emotions in check.

Israel’s illegal expansion in the E1 zone of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a clear breach of international law and makes a viable Palestinian state impossible. Does the Minister agree that that is nothing short of ethnic cleansing, and that the Government should do everything in their power to prevent that from happening by sanctioning all British companies complicit in the expansion, bringing an end to the import of settlement goods, and establishing a full arms embargo?

I have set out as clearly as I can our position on the E1 settlement. I have also been clear that no one should be profiting from unlawfully seized land.

The expansion is yet another egregious violation of international law, and as expected, the UK Government have unequivocally condemned it, but the problem is that, as Tel Aviv understands it, condemnation from the United Kingdom is pretty meaningless and largely consequence free. That is a position that simply cannot hold. Will the Minister lay out what the consequences will be for the state of Israel of its actions, and for any UK company that seeks to involve itself in the illegal expansion into the E1 zone?

I gently push back on the suggestion that what we do has no consequences. I have been pleased to see, as I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that other partners and allies have taken the actions that we have. There are consequences for Israel, in terms of its position in the world, when it alienates as many of its friends and allies as it has. We have set out as clearly as we can, both for companies and for the Israeli Government, what our views on the E1 settlement are. We did that at head of Government level last month. That statement has been seen widely around the world. I cannot guarantee to this House that people will take heed of the statement, but we have set out our position in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman requests.

I have joined other MPs in visiting the west bank and East Jerusalem. This mega development, this zonal occupation, is huge in scale. It involves a massive city, a dual carriageway, universities and hospitals, and it is absolutely undermining the peace of the two nations. I ask the Minister: what more can be done at international level? What is being done by our mission in the United Nations to bring in international sanctions, working together? Can he also tell us more about what is being done with America? This is being done with its blessing, support and money. What more can be done to get a change of pace, and to ensure that a different envoy goes in from America to sort out peace in the middle east?

I will not speak for the American Government; they have set out their position on their concerns about annexation quite clearly. We have discussed throughout this afternoon just how significant the E1 development would be, and I think that that is understood in Washington DC.

I share the Minister’s frustration about our appearing to be on the sidelines as this Israeli Government divide up the west bank, making a two state solution nigh on impossible. What is happening is contrary to the fourth Geneva convention, Oslo II and all the rest of it. However, does he agree that his capacity to influence what is happening is finite? If Israel, under Netanyahu, is not listening to the Trump Administration, it almost certainly will not listen to the Administration that the Minister is part of. However, he can do something in this awful situation: he can at least protect those in this country who will suffer the consequences of what is happening in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who are the butt of a lot of the violence in this country, namely the Jewish community. What will he do to ensure that they do not suffer the consequences of what is going on?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, for his question, and for the opportunity to comment on antisemitism. Before I do, I just want to say that this is a delicate period in Israeli politics. I hope the result of the Israeli election will be a set of Israeli policies that are much closer to the wishes of this House. He is, of course, right to say that my ability to influence developments on the ground is finite—if it were not, we would not be in this situation—but we will continue to use all our leverage to try to ensure change. During this period, we can perhaps hope that the Israeli political process will deliver results more akin to a policy that this House would like to see.

I echo the frustration that we all have, and I want to live long enough to see Netanyahu before a criminal court. When we raise individual cases, it is frustrating to not know whether it will have any effect, but sometimes it can have the effect of letting people know that they are not forgotten. Part of the annexation of the west bank has been about the arrests of individuals, and one of them is Dr Mazen al Rantisi, known as the doctor of the poor. Can I ask the Minister to raise his case with the Israelis? Could he also raise another case that we mentioned some time ago—that of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who has been in isolation for 500 days? If we could raise those cases, at least their families would know that they are not forgotten.

We have, and we will.

All this hand wringing over the E1 zone is very important, but in reality what is happening is part of the greater Israel plan. Israel already controls 70% of the Gaza strip; it is squeezing the whole population into the sea or into Egypt. It is already supporting, by military means, all the activities of the settlers, their abominable behaviour towards Palestinian people, and the construction of massive settlements all over the west bank. In reality, it is Israel’s strategy, Israel’s plan and Israel’s determination that we are up against. Merely condemning Israel for this occupation of E1 will achieve nothing. There has to be a policy of stopping all arms trading and military co operation of any sort with Israel until it ends this settlement policy. Anything less will just be hand wringing that the Israeli Government will ignore.

I do not think the policy of settlements is supported across the whole of Israel. That is very clear in the discussions about the coming elections. There are many voices in Israel who recognise the terrible harm being done to the state of Israel by the expansion of settlements. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I come back to the point about antisemitism. We must be really careful in our language. There are many, many Israelis—and indeed many, many British Jews—who can see the terrible damage being done by violent settlement, and we must not tar communities in this country or the whole nation of Israel with the same brush. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to the point raised by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

First, may I thank the Minister most sincerely for his statement? His is not an easy task. Eileen and Catherine from Bury St Edmunds lobbied me here in Parliament yesterday, for they feel very deeply about the plight of the Palestinians, as do we all. They asked me what we in this House could do to influence the Government of Israel. I believe that we must support progressive voices in Israel, for this is an election year. Does the Minister agree with me?

I do agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work. I know he has been an active voice on these questions and that he sought to visit Israel to engage with those progressive voices. More fool Israel that it did not allow him in.

The Minister has one of the toughest jobs in Government, and he carries out his duties with diligence, courtesy, reasonableness and ability. I wish him well in whatever the future holds, and I hope he retains his post. Members on both sides of the House have rightly highlighted the illegality of settlements and rightly expressed support for a two state solution. However, it was reported that on approving the E1 zone development last year, Israel’s Finance Minister said that it would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

Will the Minister unequivocally reiterate his full condemnation of such a statement and approach?

I will, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous words.

Before I start, I thank the Minister not only for his statement but for his robust response to the Opposition Front Bench, whose response was appalling. The E1 settlement plan deliberately cuts the west bank in two. The escalating violence and expansion of illegal settlements not only undermine the viability of the Palestinian state but fly in the face of international law. This is not by accident; this is by deliberate design. Will the Minister outline how exactly the Government can guarantee that illegal settler activity is not supported by UK registered businesses, charities or trade, and how we will hold them to account if they ignore the guidance set out?

My hon. Friend has been a doughty advocate on these questions for many years, and I was pleased to join her to meet students from Gaza earlier this week. We will take steps to ensure that the UK is not in any way involved. Legitimate trade with green line Israel is, of course, permissible, but when businesses in this country trade with the occupied territories and seek to make a profit from land that has been unlawfully procured, we will take action.

Build E1, kill the prospect of Palestine. It is that simple, and that is not a conspiracy theory; it is Israel’s stated aim. We have a small window to affect what happens next because the Israeli elections are happening soon, as the Minister said. If we are going to make any difference to the ordinary Israeli politic about who they decide to elect, we need to act now and turn this on its head. He talks about the technicalities in banning trade with the illegal settlements. I have laid a Bill that makes it quite simple: prohibit it now, put the onus on the Israeli Government to sort it out, and if they change their policy, we will change ours.

I thank the hon. Lady for the question. I can reassure her that I am very conscious of the electoral timeline and the rumoured timeline for the tenders as well. That is one reason we have set out the statements that we have on the timeline that we have.

As co chairs of the Britain Palestine all party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and I have written to over 43 organisations that have, or are suspected to have, previously been involved in unlawful expansion in the occupied territories. That was to warn them of the potential issues should they try to bid for these tenders. We have also been in contact with counterparts in Europe and Australia who will be doing a similar thing, and we hope that Members in the New Zealand and Canadian Parliaments will follow suit. On what the Government can do, the Minister has mentioned monitoring. Have the Government written to these entities, not just made a statement, to make them aware of their responsibilities? What will the Government do if they are found to bid for these tenders?

I have set out the statement we made last year and the intensity of focus we have on these issues. I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority following concerns raised in many places, including in this House, about an event some weeks ago, and have indeed engaged with the Charity Commission following concerns being raised.

Frankly, I despair. I have lost count of the number of times that I and others across this entire House have come here to press the Minister to put in place a full ban on settlement trade and the number of times he has prevaricated. I have lost count of the number of times that he has wrung his hands, made statements of concern, expressed worry and condemnation and yet refused to do what he claims he will do, because he has talked about acting with alacrity and using all the leverage we have, and yet he does not. If E1 goes ahead, that will be the death knell for the prospect of the Palestinian state that he, all Labour MPs and so many of us are so proud of this Government for recognising last year. It is, however, worth nothing if he does not follow up with action and use every lever in this Government’s power to follow through, to put pressure on the Israeli Government and to ensure that the rights of Palestinians are upheld.

The hon. Lady is right: we have had many exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I gently remind her that over the course of these exchanges, I have recognised the Palestinian state; I have sanctioned Israeli Ministers; we have restricted arms sales; and we have led statements repeatedly on these issues. I understand that we are all appalled by the violence that continues, but that does not mean we are not taking the action that we can—

You’re not doing everything!

And no doubt you can set out your own proposals. We have taken repeated actions and will continue to do so.

“You” and “your”—the best thing to do is always speak through the Chair. That prevents that mistake from happening.

Building on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), what more can we in this House and this Government, and other Governments around the world, do to make it clear to those many Israelis who are appalled by the behaviour of this Israeli Government that a two state solution and a viable Palestinian state are very clearly in their interests, and furthermore that we will do everything in our power to ensure that that state becomes a reality and is safe and secure, just as we want Israel to be safe and secure?

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me beg your forgiveness for forgetting the customs of the House—you would think that practice would make perfect.

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. All of us, particularly in election year, need to be reminding all our friends in Israel and all the politicians of the importance of the points that he makes.

All settlers are criminals— not just those who are violent—because they occupy land that does not belong to them. Since the late ’90s, successive Governments have called the E1 a red line because it would permanently divide the west bank and destroy the possibility of a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, more than 700,000 settlers now live illegally over 140 sanctioned settlements and 100 unsanctioned outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and settlements continue to expand while Palestinians continue to be forcibly displaced. The International Court of Justice has made it clear that states must not assist in this unlawful occupation. Is the E1 finally the moment when this Government will match their words with action, or will this simply become another so called red line that Israel crosses without consequence?

I have tried to be as explicit as I can be about the potential consequences, while abiding to the long standing position on sanctions.

I will not ask the Minister to comment on future sanctions designations—I understand he cannot do that. I want to ask him about something different: the scope of the multilateral statement. He will be well aware that the statement did not specify just one type of firm—for example, construction firms; it talks about involvement. Can he confirm that it is the UK Government’s view that the scope of that statement, following its wording, is not restricted to construction firms, but could cover, for example, firms financing this? Can he confirm that there is no prima facie restriction within that statement?

The statement was signed by 11 countries. We all have different arrangements and different tools at our disposal. The British Government’s position is that we oppose any involvement of any kind in the E1 settlement. Given the magnitude of the consequences of the E1 settlement, we would consider that in a broad way, not a narrow way.

I think I heard the Minister say a few moments ago that he hoped the outcome of the Israeli election would be a policy more amenable to British Government policy. May I just clarify that he, as a Minister of the Crown, is suggesting that the British Government would like Netanyahu to lose that election?

It is obviously not appropriate for me to set out who should win an election in a fellow democracy. What I can set out is British Government policy and what we would wish to see from Israel. We have been very clear over an incredibly long period of time about our views on a two state solution, about the conduct of the war in Gaza. It is not for us to set out who should win the Israeli election. It is perfectly reasonable for us to set out what we would wish the policy of the Israeli Government to be in relation to these questions after October.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing this question. I, too, attended the visit to Israel and Palestine last month. The scale of the E1 settlement, as has been described, is massive, but just as insidious is the trend, which has been going on for a long time, of Israeli settlements surrounding Palestinian villages across Palestine and cutting those villages off from vital services such as water and other utilities. Also in the ranks of the insidious actions of the Israeli Government is the fact that they demand that taxation from Palestine must go through Israel and then be repaid to the Palestinian Authority. That money accounts for some 70% to 75% of the Palestinian Authority’s revenue. No money has been paid since May 2025, which perhaps explains why they cannot do all the things that the Opposition would like them to do. Is that an area we can put pressure on to ensure that the Palestinian Authority has its own revenue, which it is entitled to, to do its work?

I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and I know that she has been a doughty supporter of some of the Gaza students who were relocated to her constituency. She is right to raise the financial pressure that the Palestinian Authority—and the whole of the economy of Palestine—are under as a result of this dispute about correspondent banking. We have raised this repeatedly and will continue to do so. The economic viability of Palestine is vital.

The E1 zone expansion is a deliberate attempt to do away with any hope of a two state solution. The FCDO’s unit tracking the Israeli Government’s breaches of international law was closed earlier this year, in April. I am glad, of course, that the Government recognise the state of Palestine and for the moves they have taken so far, but surely the very least this Government’s watching brief can do is to be willing and able to track atrocities of their own initiative and to come to their own conclusions.

I am pleased to confirm to the House that the unit was not closed—it was moved. The function remains within the Foreign Office and we still receive assessments. There has been some reorganisation within the Department—I was surprised that excited as much interest as it did—but I can confirm that the function remains and the unit was not closed.

Advice to UK businesses and complaints to Israeli Ministers are not just inadequate but create ambiguities, because they suggest that the UK Government are prepared to speak but not to act. When Netanyahu previously threatened the annexation of parts of the west bank, we made it clear what the consequences would be. Will the Minister do the same now, and say that in the event of any move towards E1, there will be a comprehensive trade and investment ban?

I do not think I can go further in response to my hon. Friend than I have already. We have been clear at the highest possible level, in the voice of our Prime Minister, about the seriousness with which we take this issue, the breadth of concern that we have and the consequences that are likely to follow. I cannot spell out those consequences for reasons I have already alluded to, but I reassure him that we treat this with the seriousness that it deserves.

Yesterday, a group of us met with non governmental organisations and heard about how the settlers are physically surrounding Palestinian homes and schools, with properties built on every side of homes, schools and sports pitches, making it impossible for children to get to and from school. In one case, we were told that the only way to reach a school was via the back stairs of a residential property. All the settlements are illegal and we must focus on the building of E1 to prevent expansion. In an election year, the UK has an additional influence on Israelis who also abhor this illegality and violence, so will the Minister consider a full travel ban on all settlers to show that there are real consequences for illegal activity?

I have spoken myself to schoolgirls impeded in their day to day lives. We have taken four waves of sanctions sanctions against settlers, recognising the severity of the situation, and I have been clear that while the situation continues to get worse, we will continue to act.

With every expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements and with every horrendous act of settler violence, the prospect of a two state solution recedes, and my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West lose faith in the capacity or the will of the rules based international order to deliver some measure of justice for Palestinians. The Minister and I have corresponded about what we could actually do in this country, so does he agree that regardless of the technical issues that he has outlined, as a matter of principle, goods from Israel’s illegal settlements should not be traded with the United Kingdom?

Goods produced in illegal settlements should not be traded with the United Kingdom. We distinguish them clearly from goods produced in green line Israel. I have said repeatedly that no one should benefit from a profit made on land that has been unlawfully procured.

No one doubts the Minister’s commitment to bringing about change. Those hon. Members who have consistently stood up as firm friends and allies of Israel recognise its absolute right to defend itself and secure its borders. However, as someone who represents a deeply rural constituency with a strong tradition of family businesses and farming, I know that land is not a political commodity; it is a livelihood. In the E1 corridor, any unilateral land grab will disrupt centuries of agricultural practices and cut off traditional grazing routes. When farming infrastructure and small businesses are dismantled or isolated by expansion, local economies collapse, leaving families with no means of self sufficiency. Will he Minister take time to convey those concerns to our ally and friend, and ask for immediate reconsideration of this action?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and raises a concern that many across the House have raised about the huge disruption to long standing agricultural practices caused by the expansion of settlements.

The Government have said that they advise British businesses against involvement in illegal settlements, and this week they warned companies not to bid for the E1 contracts. Given that settlement expansion continues unbated, with properties recently promoted in London, over and above sending in the Advertising Standards Authority, will the Government confirm that they are working with UK regulatory bodies and will ensure that existing sanctions and anti money laundering and proceeds of crime powers are used to prevent and to punish UK financial and commercial support for and involvement in illegal settlements? We have the criminal powers, so if the Minister wants to take action, will he explain why they are not being used?

My hon. Friend asks me about the use of the Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act 2018. That is obviously the basis on which all the Foreign Office sanctions are made. For the reasons that I have set out, I will not say anything further about sanctions from the Dispatch Box. We have done four waves and we have been clear today, as we were last month. In relation to the expo he refers to, I can clarify that it is legitimate to sell real estate within green line Israel in the UK and to advertise that, but it is not legitimate to advertise illegal settlements. That is why I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority following that expo.

Businesses trading with unlawful settlements can be under no illusion that the settlements are unlawful and that the majority of Members of this House view them as utterly morally repugnant. Nor can they be under any illusion that the UK Government’s position is that people should not trade with unlawful settlements. I urge the Minister to act swiftly on this and to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that clever legal arguments around retrospectivity—because any measures will come in after the Minister’s clear statement—are closed off. Will the Minister consider primary legislation to ensure that those engaging in this morally repugnant trade are closed off, even if they enter into contracts today and legislation is passed in two months’ time?

I hesitate to commit the Government to primary legislation. The Sanctions and Anti Money Laundering Act has been sufficient for the four waves so far, but I have heard my hon. Friend’s important points.

These settlements are not “unhelpful”, as the Opposition have claimed today; they are illegal. My constituents and I are horrified by the ongoing settler violence and the expansion of these illegal settlements. In that context, I welcome the Minister’s clear condemnation and the further actions he has committed to today. Will he assure me and my constituents that his Department is working with Treasury colleagues to fully map and understand the exposure of UK financial institutions to the financing of illegal settlements, their expansion and trade within them? When his Department and the Treasury understand that, are they committed to taking action against those institutions?

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I know that the people of Uxbridge have raised them with him many times and he has not failed to reflect that to me. We are taking actions in the way that I have set out, and I expressed the range of concern that we have about financing for the settlements in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).

I express my concern about the tone taken by the shadow Minister at the beginning of the urgent question. Netanyahu could not have been clearer about his point of view that there should not be a Palestinian state, and the plans for the E1 area near East Jerusalem are just the continued manifestation of the intention to entirely destroy the viability of a Palestinian state. Taken together with clear evidence of war crimes, it is obvious to all that this Israeli Government are not serious about a sustainable peace for the region. As hon. Members have said numerous times, I fear that Netanyahu is pressing ahead with this in order to shore up his support ahead of critical elections that could see fresh leadership in Israel, which we would all like to see. Will the Minister tell us a little more about what steps he is taking with allies to keep the two state solution alive? What sanctions and penalties might be imposed should these settlements proceed?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the response of the Opposition. This is a particularly critical year. It is critical for us all to engage with the full breadth of Israeli politics and society to encourage Israelis, alongside our allies, that there is a better way for the state of Israel and the state of Palestine, and that will be a focus until that election.

Since we rightly recognised the state of Palestine, I put it to the Minister that actually nothing has changed. The settlement expansions are ongoing, as are the land grabs and ultimately the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. The cultural, economic and educational genocide inflicted on Palestinians carries on regardless.

For years, we have seen what drives Benjamin Netanyahu—what his ultimate goal and ambition is—and that is the eradication of Palestinian people and of Palestine. My fear is that diplomacy once again will fail. What will the UK Government do to stop the eradication of Palestine and the Palestinian people?

We will do everything we can. I have set out some of the steps taken so far, and I will not hesitate to return to this House as and when required.

I hope I am not alone in knowing that the vast majority of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis want peace. As an optimist, I hope that they vote for it when they get the chance later this year in both Palestine and Israel.

It is clear that the consensus here is that this expansion would be a bad idea—it would be illegal and bad for any hope of peace in the future—but what about the existing settlements? How do we consider them? I know that the Minister has talked about trade, but what about their actual existence as a barrier to peace? Are the Government raising that with Netanyahu’s Government?

We consider those settlements to be illegal, and we are clear with the Israeli Government that that is our position.

I echo the concerns of colleagues from all parts of the House on the E1 settlements. If they go ahead, they will clearly destroy the viability of a Palestinian state. That is not a commentary; as has been said, it is a stated aim.

To build on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), may I encourage the Minister to do whatever he can to emphasise to the business community not just in this country, but across the world, that involvement with these settlements is morally bankrupt? The public will not tolerate it, and we need to do everything we can to stop British business being involved in this morally repugnant trade.

That was one of the reasons why we set out even clearer business guidance to our own businesses, and I am sure that many others will have taken notice.

I welcome the Minister’s strong condemnation of the annexation of land in Gaza and the west bank. What reassurance can he give to Members of this House that no military components that we have sold to Israel—not just bombs and bullets—have been used in this further illegal settlement expansion?

It is important to say that at the moment, the E1 is going through a tendering process. There are not yet spades in the ground, but that is what we must seek to avert. That will be a focus of our diplomacy, as it has been since the most recent announcements by Prime Minister Netanyahu in September 2025 of his intention to go ahead. As many Members have said over the course of this afternoon, we have a window before October, and we intend to use it.