Abtisam Mohamed
MP for Sheffield Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“Some will argue that it is too complex to enforce a ban and that our system of not allowing tariff preferences for settlement goods works perfectly well. It does not work, and it puts us on a collision course with our international legal obligations.”
“When I have written to companies such as Barclays and JCB about their links to Israeli settlements, they offer very little concern, but if our Government were to take stronger action to compel them not to do business in illegal settlements, we would see that action. We would see them sever their links with illegal settlements.”
“In the last week alone, my office has identified products from 12 different companies based in the occupied territories being sold online or physically in our shops and markets.”
“When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not say that sanctions were too complicated; we relished identifying Russian-linked assets. We did not say that economic pressure was pointless because Russia would just ignore it; we acted because we rightly believed in the principles at stake.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a powerful point. Some time ago, the Palestinian ambassador, Dr Husam Zomlot, reminded parliamentarians that Gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank are not separate issues, but all parts of the same national story.”
“The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The first act should be that we seek to stem trade from the settlements; the other points are valid ones that must be explored.”
The complete record
Every one of 171 lines we hold for Abtisam Mohamed, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Why do we continue to maintain a status quo that has rewarded Israeli expansionism while punishing Palestinian aspiration—a status quo that has expected Palestinians to quietly accept that their humanity, rights and self-determination must always play second fiddle?”
“This is how injustice survives: not through one dramatic moment, but through gradual acceptance, the lowering of expectations and the repetition of the same statements while the reality on the ground continues to change. For years, successive British Governments have said that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, that settlements undermine peace and that they threaten the viability of a two-state solution, yet the settlements continue to expand. I pose to the Government the simple question that sits at the heart of this debate: if settlements are illegal, why have we not banned trade with them outright? What exactly is it that we are waiting for?”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, the Government for allocating time for it, Members from across the House for supporting the application, and 32,000 constituents for writing to their MPs and asking them to attend and speak on this important issue. Two embattled generations have grown up in the ashes of the collapse of the Oslo accords. What little hope was cultivated then—the promise of two states, of dignity and of democratic rights for all—has been replaced with abject misery.”
“In the last year alone, more than 120 checkpoints and obstacles have been installed to control Palestinian movement. More recently, the E1 settlement plan, which was approved by the Israeli Government, includes just short of 3,500 housing units. It includes the construction of a new neighbourhood, a new employment and commercial zone, and a new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a powerful point. Some time ago, the Palestinian ambassador, Dr Husam Zomlot, reminded parliamentarians that Gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank are not separate issues, but all parts of the same national story. They may be separated, occupied and besieged, but they are all connected by the same struggle for freedom. Together, they are the beating heart of one state of Palestine—a state that the UK, our Government, has quite rightly taken a historic step to recognise. Yet, although we have recognised Palestine in its entirety, we have failed to make that recognition a meaningful reality through any follow-up action. The expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank has seen almost 500,000 acres of Palestinian land appropriated since 1967.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only, will reroute Palestinians and seal off the E1 corridor permanently. This is a state-wide strategy that uses every civilian and military means to appropriate land, isolate Palestinians and make a Palestinian state impossible to realise.”
“Between 2009 and 2020, Israeli settlers in area C received 22,000 building permits; for Palestinians, the figure was just 66. When Palestinians build their homes, their presence is rendered illegal and they are often slapped with demolition orders. Settlers, however, can have their illegal outposts given full legal status by the Israeli Government. In the last two years alone, 3,500 Palestinians have been displaced in the west bank. That is over 80 communities. This is an Israeli Government-backed policy reaching far and wide across the west bank.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why it is essential that we are having this debate and that there must be a ban on trade. I will not take further interventions now because I have to make progress. The annexation has accelerated so fast that today 750,000 settlers are believed to be living on occupied Palestinian land. Their presence each year robs the Palestinian economy, which is largely agricultural, of over £38 billion. Water in the west bank is extracted disproportionately to sustain Israel and Israeli settlers. Seventy per cent of grazing land in the occupied territories is systematically denied to Palestinians. Olive orchards are regularly set on fire. Toxic waste is dumped on their crops to destroy their economic future—I could go on.”
“The Government say that they support international law, that settlements are illegal and that they support a viable Palestinian state, so what does it mean if we can identify the problem and yet we refuse to take the necessary steps, and refuse to move beyond discouragement and expressions of concern? The time to legislate for a ban on trade with illegal settlements was decades ago, and now it may be too late to do anything. We must demonstrate that Britain’s commitment to international law is measured not only in what we say, but in what we do, because if settlements are illegal, Britain should not be trading with them.”
“When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not say that sanctions were too complicated; we relished identifying Russian-linked assets. We did not say that economic pressure was pointless because Russia would just ignore it; we acted because we rightly believed in the principles at stake. What answer does the Minister have to the accusations of double standards that we constantly hear? If the Government believe that international law has meaning, it should be applied consistently. In years to come, will we have the words to explain that we saw the warning signs, we recognised the damage being done, and still we chose to hesitate? Will we really be able to look back and say that we did enough? There are only so many times that Members can hear the same holding responses repeated at the Dispatch Box by Ministers.”
“When I have written to companies such as Barclays and JCB about their links to Israeli settlements, they offer very little concern, but if our Government were to take stronger action to compel them not to do business in illegal settlements, we would see that action. We would see them sever their links with illegal settlements. Others say that European countries find it difficult to enforce their bans, and that may make our job even more difficult. However, the question is not about new enforcement powers, but about utilising existing ones. There are enough instruments already to seriously disrupt illegal activity wherever it is happening. I need only point to the successes of legislation such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, through which much more complex sanctions have been applied in much tougher circumstances.”
“In the last week alone, my office has identified products from 12 different companies based in the occupied territories being sold online or physically in our shops and markets. Most of them are marked as Israeli products, so the differentiation system we depend on does not stop the goods entering this country; it only allows us to slap a tariff charge on them. Those tariff charges actually mean nothing because the Israeli Government offer incentives to settlers. They give out millions in grants to companies to cover the costs of doing business from an illegal settlement. I remind the Minister of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 2024. It includes an obligation not to aid or assist the illegal occupation, and to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that sustain it.”
“Some will argue that it is too complex to enforce a ban and that our system of not allowing tariff preferences for settlement goods works perfectly well. It does not work, and it puts us on a collision course with our international legal obligations. Ministers cannot in good faith say that it is impossible to ban settlement trade, not when the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel already depends on identifying whether goods qualify as being of Israeli origin. Complexity is not an excuse to hide from our international obligations. In fact, the complexity is why a ban is needed. Settlement goods are routinely mislabelled, mixed into supply chains and rerouted to obscure their origin. According to a major Global Echo study, 17% of Israeli goods that are either sold, supplied or advertised in the UK are actually from illegal settlements.”
“The Belgian Council of Ministers is expected to agree the detail of a ban tomorrow and for it to be in place by the end of this year. Belgium has also asked the European Commission to bring proposals to the Foreign Ministers meeting on 13 July. The Netherlands has begun moving beyond a policy of simple discouragement and has tabled a legal instrument to ban settlement trade. These countries have looked at the same legal questions and the same settlement expansions. They have the same international obligations as we do, but they have concluded that words alone are not enough. The UK remains hesitant, which should concern us all because our Government do have the tools to act. The issue is not capability, but political will.”
“They will both have the same dreams, the same hopes, the same potential, yet one will grow up benefiting from a system of privilege while the other experiences the consequences of occupation. These two children will be governed by two different sets of laws, one civilian and one military. I am sure everyone will be able to guess which child is which. These waves of injustice will keep flowing, over families, over communities, over generations. How is it possible that two children in the west bank can have such different experiences, yet still there is denial that it is apartheid? Across Europe, action is starting to take shape. Ireland has moved forward towards a ban on settlement goods. Spain has already implemented a ban.”
“The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The first act should be that we seek to stem trade from the settlements; the other points are valid ones that must be explored. Let us imagine two children born in the same land: one is born in an Israeli settlement; the other is born in a Palestinian community—perhaps one of the 58 refugee camps scattered across the nearby region. They may be separated by only a few miles, but they will grow up under entirely different systems. One will enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement, infrastructure investment, dependable access to healthcare, free-flowing water, the right to be educated, legal protections and state support. The other may face military restrictions, checkpoints, demolitions, land seizures and profound uncertainty about their future.”
“The debate is specifically about banning trade in that particular area, so I am not sure whether there was confusion about what we are actually proposing or indeed debating today. I thank the Minister for his contribution, and please let us arrange a meeting so that we can take this forward. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.”
“I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody for their excellent contributions: those who are here with us now in the Chamber and those who were not able to make a contribution—I know many colleagues have left now but wanted to make interventions. I thank the Minister for his action and the work that will be taken forward. If he is willing, while he is still in position, to meet the many of us who are really keen to ensure that we do have tangible action, it would be greatly appreciated. I say to the shadow Minister that I think he may have misunderstood. This issue is about the west bank. The west bank is occupied territory. That is recognised. Governments of all shades in the past have recognised that it is occupied territory.”
“That is the action that my leaseholders deserve and that I hope the Minister will carry out in following through the recommendations of the Committee.”
“The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has made it clear, as does the evidence in Lord Best’s review, that voluntary self-regulation has not delivered the standards that leaseholders deserve, nor will it deliver the accountability they want. Where management agents repeatedly fail residents, simply issuing guidance is not enough. The regulator should be able to impose meaningful financial penalties and, where appropriate, remove licences altogether. Leaseholders deserve far greater transparency over their service charges, stronger rights to challenge unreasonable costs, and easier routes to replace managing agents who fail to deliver. We have got to seize this opportunity to ensure that managing agents are properly regulated.”
“Another resident told me that her service charge went up by 250%, and when she challenged that, so opaque were the figures and how they were calculated, they were then dropped. Many other residents, who had tried to take over the management of their properties, complained that the finalised accounts they requested never materialised. The lack of financial transparency is staggering. It shows that these are not only isolated failures but symptoms of wider structural problems. There are two things that my constituents are calling for above everything else: transparency in their arrangements, and accountability when things sadly go wrong. Today’s motion rightly says that the absence of statutory regulation for property management agents represents a major weakness in our plans for reform.”
“Across the developments of Columbia Place, Millsands, Riverside House, Anchor Point and Little Kelham in my constituency, residents speak with one voice: the problems in their homes are overwhelming; the responsibility to chase managing agents is taking up their time; and they are being charged extortionate amounts for work that never seems to happen properly, or at all. Two weeks ago, I met with over 40 residents from Little Kelham. Their stories told of one horror after another. I heard from a family with a six-year-old child living in a home with a broken window, who were told by the managing agent that there was not enough money to fix it. Another family were told to move out from their home for six weeks for repairs. It ended up being 14 months, and when they moved back in, the repairs were incomplete.”
“The exploitations in the leasehold system are endless: unfair service charges, ground rents, marriage value buy backs, the hidden cost of utilities, inflated insurance—the list goes on and on, as do the ways that freeholders line their pockets while ordinary homeowners bear the cost. We have seen that acutely in Sheffield, with Andrew Milne buying up hundreds of freeholds at £250, and then shamefully charging homeowners extortionate prices to buy them back. He has rightly faced consequences with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the police for blackmail. It was only a few months ago that residents in Walkley in my constituency were receiving legal letters saying that their leases would soon be up for sale, leaving them worried whether they too would be subjected to extortion. No one should be living with that kind of fear.”
“I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the measures that she has announced today, but I want to come back to her strong advice to businesses that we should not conduct any economic and financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements, rather than having an outright ban. We know a ban is possible, because we did it for illegally occupied territories in Ukraine, and we know it is the right thing to do, because when it comes to trading in ivory, firearms or narcotics, we ban it outright. We know that anything less than a total ban risks the UK aiding Israel’s repeated violations of international law. Is it not time to move beyond strong guidance and advice by taking meaningful, proportionate action and having an outright ban?”
“Some 125 health workers have been killed in Lebanon in the last three months alone. Today, an Israeli strike hit an ambulance in south Lebanon, killing two paramedics, which takes the death toll to 127. The November 2024 ceasefire agreement is barely worth the paper it is written on. The Minister rightly condemns the targeting of civilians, but what about Israel’s targeting of health workers or journalists? Does the Minister realise that condemnation without action has utterly failed, and reinforces Israel’s continuing disregard for international law? Will the Minister make it clear today that sanctions must be used to hold Israel accountable?”
“A recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam students’ union shows that 82% of students are struggling, and many are working more hours at the expense of their studies. Too many are skipping meals and going without essentials, harming their health and their participation in university life. That is compounded by serious financial challenges at our universities, including staff cuts that are putting further pressure on the learning experiences of students. What action is the Minister taking across Government to review and widen financial support for students? Will he meet me to discuss the financial situation at Sheffield Hallam University?”
“Missing vital mail has become a danger to people’s health, wellbeing and financial security. Despite contacting Royal Mail, it has not responded to a single one of my emails; it is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what Royal Mail is telling us and what their workers are saying is happening on the ground, particularly about the deliberate strategy within the company to devalue those who are doing their jobs in the sorting offices?”
“I pay tribute to the dedicated postal workers in Sheffield Central, who work tirelessly to ensure that people receive their letters and deliveries throughout the year. I have also been contacted by constituents in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield who have complained of delays and missing post. Some residents have missed important work papers, legal documents and hospital appointments, while others have found themselves waiting endlessly for their gas or electric cards. One constituent in particular is responsible for planning decisions in the Peak district, and is still waiting for official committee papers posted first class nearly a month ago. That has directly impacted his ability to do his job. Many described receiving nothing for weeks on end, and then finally receiving a bundle of post on one day.”
“It is therefore essential that if these reforms proceed, their impact on black and ethnic minority defendants is specifically examined, transparently and rigorously. None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. However, if the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog, I suggest that we should understand why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system, rather than a time-limited measure.”
“They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence, and that is why we should be cautious before curtailing them. There is also a serious question about the impact that these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants. The Justice Secretary’s own review, published in 2017, highlighted deep disparities and a troubling lack of trust in parts of our criminal justice system. One of his key messages was that fairness must not only exist, but must be seen to exist. Juries who are drawn from our communities play an important role in public confidence. Reducing access to jury trial could risk further eroding trust among certain communities who already feel disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system.”
“That raises an obvious question: if the contribution that these measures will make to reducing the backlog is uncertain, why are we being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system? Members have spoken about a range of offences, from theft to drug-related crimes, but when people are taken to court over action to advance causes in which they believe—in the past it was the suffragettes; today it is the climate activists and Palestinian protesters—it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract.”
“In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence, and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen at first hand how fragile access to justice can be, and how years of under-investment have taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. Change is clearly needed, but the reforms before us, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, do not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem. The evidence does not support the claim that the reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest.”
“I say to the Justice Secretary that if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny, a meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this policy does not work.”
“I do agree. The logical approach would be to treat this as a time-limited measure—or the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time-bound review, assessing the impact of these changes not only on the backlog but on trial outcomes, on equality before the law, on public confidence, and specifically on black and ethnic minority defendants. All those matters must be included in a review if it is to be robust. The review must not only allow Parliament to examine the evidence but, if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, allow us to revisit and, if necessary, reverse them. That would be a constructive and responsible approach. Efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may know that Sheffield is well known for being the outdoor city and is one of the few major cities in the UK that has a national park within its boundaries. I support him in his red lines for nature campaign. Does he agree that protecting nature is vital, not just to protect our green spaces, but to make sure that communities have access to the right types of space, so that they are happier and more fulfilled?”
“I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?”
“Paying it off within 30 years is impossible. It makes me wish I hadn’t gone.” When education makes young people regret participation, something is profoundly wrong. We are told that the system is progressive because repayments are income contingent, but if we look closer, higher earners clear their debt quickly, escape decades of interest and move on. The thought of such staggering debt will likely put off working-class students from going to university. That is not progressive; it is regressive, and it will entrench inequality rather than reduce it. I say to the Minister: we must cap interest on all student loans at CPI and restore fair repayment thresholds.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate, which at its core is about fairness. In my Sheffield Central constituency, which is home to two major universities, I regularly meet with students and graduates, whether in surgeries or through meetings with student officers. One core theme that they have relayed to me is that they feel anxious and frustrated, and they rightly ask why the system is stacked against them. I will read a few examples that constituents have given me. One said: “I started university in 2012 and since graduating have had a salary of between £30,000-£40,000 for much of that time. Despite this, since graduating my loan has increased from ~£45,000 to nearly £80,000”. Another said: “I borrowed £76,829. I repay £3,700 every year. But my interest rises by £7,000.”
“I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his expert advocacy on this issue. As a former lawyer who worked in immigration before being elected to this House, I can say with confidence that the changes announced last year, and expected to emerge from the consultation, represent some of the most complex and far-reaching reforms in decades. We are told that this is a moral mission to restore order and control and create a system that is fair and firm. If that is the aim, why are we proposing changes that strip away certainty for people who are already here—people who believed that ILR was a transitional route to stability, and not a moving target?”
“The congregations of St Mark’s and St Mary’s in my constituency have also presented me with a petition that urges the Government to show compassion and make suitable transitional arrangements for those who are already here, building their lives and contributing to our communities in Sheffield. They, like many of my constituents, know that the proposals lack humanity. They know that they will impose extraordinary hardship on friends, neighbours and the wider community. And they know that a country that truly believes in sanctuary does not make belonging something that has to be earned again and again, over a lifetime. I urge the Minister to end any retrospective changes, and to retain the five-year route for people who are already here.”
“We cannot announce a two-dimensional approach to migration and work out the consequences later—not when it concerns some of the most life-altering decisions that people will ever make. I know that the proposals are under consultation, but we must be clear about the direction of travel. They risk recreating the very conditions that defined the hostile environment: long-term uncertainty, barriers to stability, and communities living with the constant fear that the rules could change again. When my constituents hear migration described as a destabilising event and migrants framed as a burden to be managed, and see policies recycled from failures of the past, they know that this is not reform, but a road to insecurity and division.”
“I agree entirely. Many people uprooted their lives, accepted jobs, bought homes, enrolled their children in schools and planned their futures in good faith, on the understanding that settlement after five years was the agreed pathway. They are now being told, midway through that journey, that the rules have changed. Retrospective application of this policy would be not only deeply unfair, but entirely unjustified. At the same time, the uncoupling of joint routes to settlement would leave families separated for longer periods. Consider a family where the primary breadwinner is fast-tracked to settlement, while their spouse—the primary caregiver, perhaps working part time—is left on a longer and more precarious route. Where are the impact assessments for those on maternity leave, part-time workers, carers or people with disabilities?”
“Sheffield Central businesses continue to face disproportionately higher pressures, with ever-increasing running costs stacking up and a drop in footfall. Businesses like the Gamers Guide Café and the Dove and Rainbow pub tell me that they need much more to survive the dip in foot traffic, so will the Minister set out how he is reducing pressures on high street cafés and pubs, and will he consider targeted relief to ensure viability for hospitality businesses?”
“I pay tribute to the Minister’s work, which I know will bring real relief to many of my constituents. However, leaseholders in the Riverside Exchange development are being blocked from securing their right to manage because of absentee leaseholders. This has left them trapped with eye-watering service charges, which have increased from £1,900 to £5,500. Can the Minister set out how the upcoming legislation will reform and reduce the minimum qualifying threshold for the right to manage, which is currently set at 50%?”
“I, too, warmly welcome the plan and the investment that is coming with it, and I strongly commend the leadership of the Secretary of State in this area. It is great news that small businesses are the vehicle that will drive home the upgrades in our local communities, but they too have struggled. I have over 5,000 small businesses in Sheffield Central. Will he outline how those small businesses will benefit from this plan?”
“The chief executive of Yorkshire Water said her bonus may “feel like it’s a lot of money” and that she gets “paid what the board decide” she “ought to be paid”; £1.5 million through an offshore company feels like a lot of money because it is a lot of money. She was rewarded for failure, and as my constituency still deals with burst water pipes, it feels like her board decides she should be rewarded for failure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new water ombudsman will enforce the prevention of these hidden bonuses, and that infrastructure development will not just end up in higher bills for customers?”
“In the context of what the United Nations special envoy has described as a rapidly worsening humanitarian and economic crisis in Yemen, does the Minister welcome the forthcoming southern dialogue conference, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council? How is the UK, as penholder on Yemen, supporting that process to deliver a tangible road map for a way forward that addresses the aspirations of southern communities?”
“Like my Sheffield colleagues, I strongly welcome the Government commitment to upgrading our Sheffield station and putting in place faster and more frequent trains to Leeds and Manchester. This will increase our city centre regeneration, and will be of strong benefit to our universities and students who commute into the city. Will the Minister meet me and other South Yorkshire MPs to discuss timescales and to ensure that our infrastructure plans match the economic ambitions for growth and regeneration in Sheffield?”
“Q13. England is the only country in the world with a fully privatised and monopolised water system, and it is broken. My constituents in Sheffield Central, like many across the country, continue to face burst water pipes, polluted rivers and rising bills—all while the chief executive of Yorkshire Water has taken £1.3 million in bonus payments through an offshore company, and that is on top of her very healthy £660,000 salary. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the forthcoming water White Paper will have stronger accountability and put the public interest first, before bosses’ bonuses? More importantly, will it consider bringing this essential public service back in-house?”
“I commend my hon. Friend on his continued advocacy on this subject. Does he agree that international humanitarian law is clear that the protection of civilians is not optional, that the UK has deep and historic ties to Kashmir and its people, and that we are therefore not fulfilling our obligations? Given that context, does he agree that we need to do more?”