Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:45

Moved by

[Lord Lemos]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025.

Relevant documents: 34th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I profusely apologise for making the Committee adjourn. I should have been here, and I was not. I have not got a good excuse, but I hope that everyone will accept my profuse apologies.

This instrument was laid on 22 July under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument, subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 23 July.

The UK’s history of migration is a long and positive story—I am a migrant myself, so I know how positive it is—but today, we face a grave problem. Large numbers of individuals are undertaking dangerous journeys via irregular migration routes that risk their lives and undermine the rule of law. Irregular migration is a foreign policy issue as much as a domestic one. Smashing the gangs and addressing public concerns at home demands hard-headed action abroad. We are determined to confront this head-on, Defending human rights and protecting national and international security are our twin objectives.

People smuggling and trafficking are assaults on human dignity. These vile trades exploit the vulnerable, fuel organised crime and destabilise entire regions. As our national security strategy makes clear, they threaten peace, security and the very fabric of international co-operation. That is why irregular migration is a top priority for this department. Together with the Home Office, we have established a joint unit on international irregular migration to strengthen our efforts, deliver our strategy and drive results.

Sanctions are one of the most important foreign policy tools the UK uses to back our words with action. The UK now has 37 live sanctions regimes, with more than 4,000 individuals and entities designated. All designated individuals and entities appear on the UK sanctions list, which can be found on GOV.UK. We continue to use sanctions alongside all our other diplomatic tools to protect our citizens, uphold our values and defend international peace and security.

This particular sanctions regime is a landmark step, as it is the first dedicated regime of its kind anywhere in the world. It is designed to prevent and combat the networks that enable irregular migration and reflects deep collaboration across government from the Home Office to law enforcement and draws on the full breadth of our expertise. It enables us to strike at every link in the chain from source to destination. We can impose real costs on the callous groups and individuals who promote and profit from the inhuman trade in people’s lives. Sanctioned individuals will face serious consequences, including being banned from entering the UK, being disqualified from company directorships and having their assets frozen. The regime adds powerful new tools to our arsenal. It allows us to act against people smugglers and their enablers with the same force that we apply to terrorists, cybercriminals and kleptocrats. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is evidence of how seriously we intend to tackle this problem.

This regime reflects our broader strategy, which is to use sanctions to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, defend our values and protect our country. It will target individuals and entities wherever they are in the world, from operators in countries of origin to those who smuggle migrants across borders and those who enable, promote and profit from these dangerous journeys, including companies involved in small boat supply chains and organised immigration crime. No part of the smuggling infrastructure will be beyond our reach.

Crucially, the regime will also allow us to target hostile state-backed actors who seek to weaponise migration in order to destabilise the UK or our allies. On 23 July, the UK took action. We sanctioned 25 individuals and entities involved in people smuggling, from small boat suppliers in Asia and hawala money movers in the Middle East to gang leaders in the Balkans and north Africa, individuals such as Bledar Lala, who leads a smuggling ring that moves people from Belgium across the English Channel to the UK, and Muhammed Pirot, a hawala banker who controls payments from people being smuggled from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to Europe via Turkey.

These designations cover a range of activities: supplying boats; forging documents; facilitating illicit payments; and orchestrating smuggling operations. Each one represents a blow to the business model of exploitation. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the designations imposed so far, as well as any future designations, to ensure that they demonstrate our ability to target individuals and entities anywhere in the world, disrupt the activities of criminal networks and deter others from engaging in this vile trade.

Although we are proud to lead, we do not stand alone. People smuggling and trafficking are global concerns, and we are working with international partners to confront them together. That includes strengthening sanctions co-ordination, sharing intelligence and building joint responses to dismantle criminal networks. We welcome the news from EU President von der Leyen that she intends to put forward a new system of sanctions, specifically targeted at people smugglers and traffickers, for EU member states. We look forward to working with the EU and other key partners to smash the gangs and tackle irregular migration.

Sanctions are a powerful tool of foreign and security policy. UK sanctions are built on a transparent and robust legal framework—it is important to emphasise that—which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in July this year. However, there may be instances where activity by a person falls within the scope of sanctions and other relevant law enforcement and criminal justice powers. In these instances, we work closely with colleagues across Whitehall and in law enforcement to deconflict and ensure that appropriate tools are used. The FCDO will continue to play its full part in delivering the Government’s plan for change. This legislation and the designations that follow are proof of that commitment.

I apologise again for not being present on time and forcing the Committee to wait. I beg to move.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction. I support the Government’s efforts in this area and appreciate the need for innovative policy solutions, but I have some questions about this statutory instrument.

To begin with, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted, the Explanatory Notes and the Explanatory Memorandum are rather thin. We are creating the world’s first sanctions regime on irregular migration with a substantive statutory instrument, as one would expect, but with rather short explanations and without an assessment of the impact. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the practical impact that the Government expect this new instrument to have on the control of irregular migration? As the Minister noted, there were 25 designations a couple of months ago, so, by this stage, the Government will have probably carried out some assessment of the impact of this new tool.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that this will be a global regime that will allow the United Kingdom to

“target relevant persons and entities wherever they are in the world”.

In accordance with that, Regulation 4 defines both people smuggling and trafficking in persons in terms that are not limited to unlawful entry into the UK. But are we really going to designate persons who are involved in people smuggling anywhere in the world? The legal regime may be global, but the policy scope has to be more defined. Is there some connection with the UK that would be a trigger for designations in the policy?

I notice also the remark of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the criteria for involvement not being included in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is important, when this instrument is implemented, to know exactly what the criteria for involvement are, but perhaps that is a problem that can be remedied with guidance published online in due course.

The memorandum mentions that sanctions for human trafficking have been adopted under the global human rights sanctions regime, but that regime was deemed to be inadequate. Can the Minister tell us a bit more as to why that regime was not fit for this purpose and why it was necessary to create a wholly new sanctions regime?

One of the purposes of the regulations is to prevent and combat the instrumentalisation of migration by state actors—the Minister referred to that. This is an interesting and important development, and I am glad to hear that the European Union is keen on this. This is where it is likely that the sanctions will target the political level of certain states—for example, the situation at the border between Poland and Belarus—whereas the other sanctions are likely to target more ordinary criminals, so to speak. Does the Minister agree that it is particularly important for this aspect of the new sanctions regime to ensure that there is international action and co-operation?

I have a final, more technical point. Regulations 6 and 7, under the “urgent procedure”, contain a list of states—the US, the EU, Australia and Canada—where individuals might be designated under similar sanctions and where we would adopt an urgent designation, in part based on those other designations. I was a little confused because I understood that no other states had a sanctions regime like this one. So, in what circumstances would that urgent procedure come to fruition?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister should not be too upset about his late appearance on the Front Bench, with trumpets blaring outside. It is surprising, given the nature of this building and with the conditions outside that we are seeing today, that it does not happen more often.

From these Benches, I will not oppose the sanctioning of criminals who seek to abuse and profit from people smuggling and human trafficking. However, I confess to a degree of doubt as to how effective they will be, given the evasive skills of criminals and, bluntly, whether the sanctions will matter to many of them. That may, in part, depend on having a personal or business presence in the UK. I hope that having this ambitious regime does not mean the diversion of resources from actions that may be more effective.

17:00

Sanctions are an administrative tool; the Minister referred to them as “diplomatic tools”. They become a crime when they are evaded, and evasion will largely be outside the UK, which brings its own obvious difficulties. Nevertheless, the Minister may be able to tell the Committee about what the Government believe the scale may be within the UK—I am talking about handling assets.

Tom Keatinge gave evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in February and said:

“I would like to see the theory of change that suggests that sanctions, as part of a toolkit, are going to contribute to”

smashing the gangs. Sanctions need to be effective, otherwise they become devalued. I have read that is really only the United States that uses them, because it uses them as an opportunity to teach lessons. I will not to be tempted to commend anything that the United States Administration does in this area, but I repeat the observation that is been made that there is little or no incentive for designated individuals to change their behaviour because the system is all stick and no carrot.

The instrument uses interesting language. As has been observed, “involved in” is very broad, and the phrase

“the instrumentalisation of migration for the purpose of destabilisation”

seems more to come from the counterterrorism world. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report was very useful, and I thank it for it. As it points out, it needed material that was supplementary not only to the SI but to the Explanatory Memorandum, to explain the detail of this. It comments that it should have been included in the Explanatory Memorandum. I suppose that language included in the explanation that is less precise than that used in primary legislation creating criminal law may be inevitable in a sanctions regime. However, I confess to feeling uncomfortable that an “appeal” requires the Minister to mark his or her own homework, with ultimately an application to the court being possible using judicial review principles.

Without these regulations, individuals connected with human trafficking could be designated—as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said—under the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime, and I, too, would be interested to know in what respect those powers are not sufficiently broad and whether these sanctions can do anything that counterterrorism powers cannot.

Regulation 4.2 of the instrument gives a definition of trafficking in persons that is not the same as the definition in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Will the Minister explain the thinking here? I gave him a little warning, but it was given with only a little time, that I would ask these technical questions, so if he is not able to answer them today, perhaps he could write to me so that we will get a will write letter on the record.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to “dangerous irregular migration”, which are, as has been said, not terms used in the instrument. Can the Minister say whether these are a commentary, an explanation of where sanctions will be targeted, criteria or something else?

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has said that sanctions are more powerful when imposed by several states rather than just one. These issues are, by definition, international. I, too, will be interested to know—these are more obvious questions—about arrangements with international partners, particularly partners so far, to enable the best use of this regime.

I think I have seen that sanctions have already been applied to the supplier of small boats from China. We have also heard about the trade of boats in Germany, so I wonder whether there is any news there.

Can the Committee be told when the guidance required under the 2018 parent Act will be published? I note that, on 23 July, 25 individuals and entities were designated under the new regime when, by definition, the guidance was not available. The FCDO has said to the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House that annual reviews of sanctions are important because they mean reviewing the evidence that is relied on. I am sure that the Minister will be told to say that the Home Office and the FCDO will keep these under review, but can the Government commit to regular monitoring and the publication of the results? After all, it is integral to the success of sanctions as a deterrent for us and the possible offenders to know what is going on and how successful the Government are being.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving this statutory instrument. It is part of an incredibly important discourse surrounding an extremely pressing issue, and any chance to debate how we might rectify the current immigration situation is welcome. Nations cannot survive without sovereign control of their borders; for that sovereignty, a nation needs the means to exact border control.

I do not want to ventilate arguments that have already been made, most recently during the debates on the borders Bill in your Lordships’ House; they will be well known, as will the position of the Official Opposition. It is our view that the Government do not currently possess the correct policy for border control. As a result, the British public are now facing waves of illegal immigration on their shores.

Like much of the Government’s legislation on immigration, in particular illegal migration, we have grave doubts that this instrument will be effective in enabling the Government to sanction traffickers. However, although those facilitating illegal migration into our country should rightly be punished—for that reason, we will not oppose this Motion—I ask the Minister: does he really believe that this measure will assist in halting the growing crisis?

I want to make some very specific points; there will be some overlap with the pertinent points already made by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. First, those who are trafficking migrants on to our shores often do not reside in the United Kingdom. They operate in a deeply underground and illicit trade. There is little to no chance of them seeking to join a legitimate company in this country, let alone set up or become a director of one—something that this instrument prevents.

Secondly, financial sanctions will have little effect on those operating illegally. They do not act through legitimate routes and, therefore, neither does a large proportion of their money. Does the Minister have an estimate on the extent to which these sanctions will deter people from migrating illegally? There is even a risk that measures such as these will not stop attempts to cross the channel and borders but will instead force the criminal gangs further underground into less safe routes; I am not saying that this will necessarily be the case, but it would be reassuring to hear from the Minister that the Government have at least accounted for that possibility.

I welcome the expansion of the criteria under which a person may be considered involved with illegal migration. We have, for too long, been too lax on those who aid and abet these crimes. An expansion of the scope of those considered accomplices is needed.

In conclusion, it is our belief that this issue needs far more thorough measures to be resolved. Attempting to punish those facilitating this crime may be an appropriate measure, but it is certainly not sufficient in and of itself.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will try to answer as many of their questions as I can; if I cannot answer any of them, I will be very happy to write, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested. That said, I have an answer to her question—I have been briefed.

It is a moral and national imperative that we tackle this issue. Under these regulations, this Government have already sanctioned 25 individuals and entities at the heart of the people-smuggling networks driving irregular migration to the UK. The Government have acted to address the concerns of the British people to protect migrants from the dangers of organised crime and smash the gangs.

I shall now try to respond to some of the specific answers asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked me how convinced we are that this measure will have a meaningful impact. As I said, this is the first regime of its kind in the world. To some extent, it is a model that we hope others will follow, but, of course, we do not know how effective it will be. We do not believe and are not suggesting that this is a silver bullet or a fix-it for the whole problem of human trafficking and irregular migration, but we are suggesting that it is part of the toolbox that we can use—and which we have already used, by sanctioning 25 people the day after the legislation was introduced.

The noble Lord asked about the impact that we expect this regime to have on preventing irregular migration and people smuggling. As I said, this is the first dedicated regime of its kind in the world, so we are breaking new ground by creating the ability to impose sanctions in this way. As I set out, we hope to be able to disrupt the activity of the criminal gangs and deter others from seeking to be involved in this evil trade. As noble Lords would expect, we will monitor the effect of our sanctions wherever possible, seeking to build on successes and learn from where they have been less effective. As I said, we do not assume that they will entirely fix the problem on their own.

We will also seek to use sanctions in conjunction with other measures to tackle irregular migration; we will work with international partners to do so. I stress the point about working with international partners. As I said, it is a key part of our objective that we lead the world, but we hope that others will follow. We will monitor the impact of the designation wherever possible, learning lessons from other sanction regimes.

All noble Lords, I think, asked why the Government think that this measure will be effective, given that many of the people who might be sanctioned will not be in the UK. That is, obviously, a concern. We believe that the measures we are proposing to use to target those involved should be taken in the round. They will encompass the travel ban, the asset freeze and the director disqualification. As well as the direct consequences of the sanctions on the designated person—such as preventing them travelling to the UK and, crucially, interacting with the UK’s economy—the designation also de-anonymises the individual; as I said, the names of all of the people who are sanctioned are published. Although we do not speculate on future designations, once the designation is made, it is public. Designation can both cause disruption to people smugglers’ operations and have a deterrent effect in terms of the willingness of others to work with them.

17:15

I turn now to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others about why the global human rights sanctions were not thought sufficient. The UK’s global human rights sanctions regime enables persons to be designated for violating an individual’s right to life, their right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or their right to be free from slavery and not it be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. Where these rights are violated in the context of human trafficking, the global human rights sanctions regime would have applicability.

However, the global irregular migration sanctions regime, which we are talking about today, enables the UK to impose sanctions on activities that are considered human trafficking but do not necessarily meet the criteria I have set out: for example, the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of an individual for the purpose of exploitation, using coercive means if an adult is involved or, where the individual is under the age of 18, whether or not coercive means are used.

Lastly, although people smuggling and human trafficking are distinct concepts, the activities involved can frequently overlap. There are operational advantages to being able to target networks and actors involved in such activities under the same regulations. When pursuing sanctions, the FCDO will consider which sanctions powers are the most appropriate for use, depending on the purposes of each instrument. They are not mutually exclusive, but operate together. As I said, the Government’s view is that sanctions are a foreign policy tool that is distinct from the law-enforcement requirements, although we work closely with the Home Office.

I will deal with the question asked by the noble Lord about the urgent procedure. This procedure is added as standard to all our regimes to allow us to move quickly. However, as I have already said several times, the UK is a leader in this area, and we shall make sure that they are implemented in the way that is required.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the new sanctions regime would detract from wider efforts. All our sanctions regimes are sufficiently well resourced to ensure maximum effectiveness. I can reassure the noble Baroness on that.

On the question of the threshold for designation asked by the noble Lord, the legislation sets out the detailed criteria. We apply designations based on evidence from a range of sources. All cases are reviewed to ensure that they are legally robust.

I have already talked about monitoring impact.

Finally, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, statutory guidance on the regime and policy guidance on the consideration of designations was published alongside the legislation on 22 July.

With those clarifications—if I have not dealt with any points that noble Lords raised, I will be very happy to follow up in writing—I commend these regulations and apologise again for my late arrival.

Motion agreed.