Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026
(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:39 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 90 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Wood of Anfield
That the Regulations laid before the House on 12 October be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations revoke and re-enact, with expanded purposes and designations criteria, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020.
This instrument was laid on 13 October, under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 15 October.
Since coming into office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action and relentless in pursuing alliances with our partners across the world.
Sanctions are a powerful lever that we have to advance our foreign policy goals in the face of action that breaks the law and is unacceptable. When we impose sanctions, we do so to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour. We do it to send a clear message, far beyond those we target, of the values that the UK will stand up for. We try to do it, where possible, alongside our partners to maximise the impact of the sanctions we impose.
The global human rights sanctions regime—now the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime—is particularly vital for this. Since the regime began in 2020, the UK has delivered over 180 designations, and under this Government we have used the global human rights sanctions regime to tackle issues such as forced labour in south-east Asian scam centres and extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the West Bank, and to those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia.
The global human rights sanctions regime is of course not our only tool: we also make extensive use of our range of geographic sanctions regimes. For example, last week we announced the designation of 15 commanders, on both sides of the conflict in Sudan, who are suspected of perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular conflict-related sexual violence. As we mark the anniversary of the horror we saw after the fall of El Fasher, these designations remind the perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching them, and that actions have consequences.
However, the action on Sudan was possible only because our Sudan sanctions regime permits designations on the grounds of violations of international humanitarian law. Before we laid this instrument, the Government did not have the flexibility to respond in this fashion to similar atrocities taking place in countries that did not happen to have their own geographical sanctions regime. As a result of this revision, now we do.
This instrument also expands our ability to stand up for our values and tackle injustice and suffering around the world in other ways. The expanded regime addresses a broader range of human rights abuses and violations by adding the right to security of liberty and person, and also gives the Government powers to respond with sanctions where aid has been deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations.
I will now turn to each measure in this instrument in more detail. I want to be clear this is a strong enhancement of our existing powers. The global human rights sanctions regime gave us the ability to use sanctions where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations or abuses of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. These amended regulations allow all pre-existing sanctions to remain in force but give us a powerful lever to respond to a broader range of situations.
The expanded sanctions regime now allows designations to be made where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law. This strengthens the UK’s ability to respond to serious conduct that arises during armed conflict, such as the targeting or mistreatment of civilians, where international humanitarian law provides the most relevant legal framework.
As the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on 8 September when he committed to laying this instrument, it gives the UK the powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, such as those participating in E1 settlement expansion.
As I have said, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. This instrument now adds the right to liberty and security of person to that list of rights. This ensures that the regime can now better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct.
The global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime also adds a new ground of obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance. This addition reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations—an objective I am sure noble Lords will agree is important.
The amended regime also adds the power to designate by description. This allows the UK to designate where a specific name is not available and, in doing so, to capture all members of a specific group or organisation, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has tabled an amendment of regret, and I look forward to hearing from him and responding to his concerns.
To conclude, this instrument provides the Government with vital new general powers with which to stand up for British values and respond to serious human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law around the globe. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
At end to insert “but this House, while recognising the importance of effective targeted sanctions, regrets that the Regulations permit designation on suspicion of indirect involvement, benefit or association without clearly defining those terms; notes the absence of safeguards to protect lawful trade with Israel within its pre-1967 lines; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to (1) confirm that such trade will not be affected by these Regulations, (2) publish clear designation criteria and an evidence-based framework to ensure consistent global application, and (3) provide an impact assessment and annual report to Parliament on the operation of the regime”.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, in moving the regret amendment in my name, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Sanctions, precisely targeted and founded on clear evidence, are a legitimate instrument of British foreign policy and have my support. But these regulations do not meet that test. They seem, to many, to be there to satisfy the local domestic political objectives of the Foreign Secretary and his Government.
This is a major change in British foreign policy, made without consultation, without an impact assessment and without a vote in either House. Parliament is being asked to approve powers already in use. That is not scrutiny; it is ratification. I move this amendment because I believe this policy is a mistake.
The Explanatory Note makes no reference to Israel, but the Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place makes it clear, as has the Minister, that his concern is about settler violence in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, and that is driving this legislation through. Let me be quite clear: I condemn such violence, by either side. Those who break the law should be arrested and punished. But I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary made no mention whatever of the numerous attacks on Jewish people in that area. Violence by terrorists against any civilians must be condemned. The Government already have the tools to act: 38 people have been sanctioned for settler violence, and the Government’s relentless and unequal focus on measures against Israel has left many Jews in this country fearful.
The regulations came with three promises: that they would be targeted, that they would not touch Israel inside the green line, and that they would be global. Not one of them survives a reading of the text.
The first promise was that they would be targeted. But a person can be designated not for committing an abuse but for providing “support” for it, obtaining “any other benefit” from it, or being “associated with” someone involved. That is not a scalpel; that is a net, and the Government know it. They have said themselves that these powers
“widen the net … to anyone who facilitates, promotes, incites, or funds”
the conduct in question, including the banks that finance settlement growth. So, what does “associated with” mean? A relative? An accountant? A customer? When the penalty is seven years in prison, a British business is entitled to know where the line is drawn. It is a fundamental feature of the rule of law that the law, especially a law with criminal penalties, should be clear, so that everyone knows what they can and cannot do.
The second promise was on the green line. On 8 September, the Foreign Secretary told the other place that the Government would
“absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]
They would “absolutely ensure” that. So, where is it? These regulations contain no safeguard for trade inside the green line, and no definition of where that line runs.
And what of Jerusalem? Two weeks ago, I was in east Jerusalem, as the UK chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, for the opening of the Beit Hanina sports complex. It is the first ever swimming pool in east Jerusalem. It was paid for in part by the city, and in no small part by international Jewish donors, and it will be handed as a gift to the local community to run. It has been so successful that we would like to build a second swimming pool in east Jerusalem, to match the many in west Jerusalem. But donors have now told us they are not prepared to consider such a proposal, because they may be caught under this legislation. Can the Minister assure British charities that their work will not be caught by this instrument, when their trustees face the real possibility of criminal penalties?
The Government treat east Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, as occupied territory, so I ask the Minister: is the Western Wall within the scope of this regime—yes or no? Could a British citizen who buys a flat in the Jewish quarter of the old city from a Jewish seller be at risk when, if they made the same purchase from an Arab seller, they would not be? The Government, and every party to negotiations, have always said that the status of Jerusalem must be settled in negotiations, not in regulations.
The real cost is trade between Britain and Israel, which is worth some £5.9 billion a year, and at the heart of it sit Israel’s major banks. Those banks lend across the country because Israeli law forbids them from refusing customers due to where they live. Under these regulations, a mortgage in a settlement could be “support”, the interest on it a “benefit” and, on suspicion alone, the bank could be designated.
Anyone who has worked in the City knows how compliance departments work. They will face undefined tests and a seven-year criminal sentence. They will not ask, “Is it lawful?”; they will ask, “Is it worth the risk?”, and they will say no. That is how a boycott of Israel begins: not by decree but by deterrence. The Government say they oppose the BDS campaign, yet they have written its sharpest element into British law.
So who pays? I am afraid that we in the UK pay. British banks pay and firms with US operations pay: US federal law treats measures against any territory controlled by Israel as a boycott, so compliance with these regulations would expose them to US penalties. The NHS pays. One in seven generic medicine packs prescribed here comes from an Israeli company, Teva. British business pays: firms with American operations now risk anti-boycott penalties. Palestinians pay: some 30,000 depend on jobs with settlement-linked employers. This smacks of collective punishment. I ask the Minister: will the Treasury issue general licences to protect the NHS’s medicine supply?
The third promise was that this regime is global. Take Northern Cyprus. Turkey has occupied the north of Cyprus since 1974. The UN Security Council has ruled the self-declared republic as legally invalid, and this country is one of Cyprus’s three guarantor powers. How many designations have the Government made? None. How many restrictions on trade? None. One rule for Turkey, one rule for Israel.
Then there is Xinjiang. Its settler corporation has been sanctioned in full by the US since 2020. Here, goods from the region enter without restriction. Then there is Hamas’s and the Iran-backed Houthis’ hostage-taking, diversion of aid and detention of UN staff, yet Ministers have given no indication that these powers will be used against them. That is not a global regime; it is a regime with a global title and a single target.
The cost is not hypothetical. Within a day of the announcement, Israel ordered the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem, expelled British personnel from the centre co-ordinating—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)
I respectfully remind the noble Lord that the limit for this is six minutes.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I was graciously given a minute by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, but thank you.
There were 1,962 antisemitic incidents over the past six months in the UK. These regulations do nothing to reduce the tensions in the UK.
I conclude by asking the Minister five questions. Will he confirm that trade with Israel inside the green line will not lead to designation? Will he assure British banks that they will not be penalised for continuing to deal with Israel’s banks? Will the Government define the terms on which people can be sanctioned and report annually to Parliament on how this regime is used, country by country? Will the Government assess the impact, particularly on charities, before going further? Will the Government refrain from designations while Israel forms a new Government at this crucial time? I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I speak from the perspective of being a vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, not as a spokesman of my group.
This is an even more unstable and unpredictable time in Middle East politics than usual. We have the aftermath of elections in both Israel and the US, with lots of speculation but not so much actual knowledge of what the next few weeks and months will hold. I hope for a Change Government in Israel—my party, the Liberal Democrats, is allied with Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid—but everything is up in the air there, as it is in Washington. The possibility of a US-led renewal of hostilities in the Iran war cannot be dismissed, regardless of the domestic Israeli situation, and could influence the coalition talks.
I ask the Minister what forethought is going into the application of these sanctions and their potential repercussions at this time. Let us recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, did, all the things that happened within a day of September’s announcement: the closure of the British consulate-general in east Jerusalem and other consequences. Did the Government foresee that response by the Israeli Government, as they should have done? Does the Minister accept that the UK now has less influence over Israeli policy, events in Gaza and the future of Jerusalem than it did on 7 September, and that relations with the Palestinian Authority are made harder by a much reduced presence in east Jerusalem?
Looking at the situation now, and the question from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, about designations during coalition talks, will the Government undertake not to issue designations while a new Israeli Government are being formed? The Foreign Secretary said in the House on 8 September 8 that
“our argument is not with the people of Israel … our argument is with the conduct of its Government”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 880.]
so should the UK Government not prioritise getting a change in the conduct of a new Israeli Government, away from the destructive policies of the Netanyahu Government? What assessment will the UK Government make, before any designation, of the impact not only on those coalition talks but on relations with whatever Government emerge?
The opposition Change parties have said that they will, thankfully, crack down on the horrendous settler violence in the West Bank, show more flexibility in moving forward with a post-war plan for Gaza and mend fences with Israel’s allies, so do the Government really think now is a good time to apply these sanctions, about which there are many questions? Will the Minister confirm that any designation will be preceded by a formal assessment of its diplomatic consequences, including in the light of emerging US policy? Finally, will the Government confirm that the decision will be taken by Ministers, not officials alone, given the political and diplomatic minefield that is before them?
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, yesterday evening, some of us had the privilege of gathering in the Robing Room, with the permission of His Majesty, to celebrate the life of our dear friend Meta, Baroness Ramsay. We miss her greatly. Having had the privilege of serving with her when she was the long-standing chair of Labour Friends of Israel in the House of Lords—I had a much briefer stint as chair in the Commons—I think I can say with confidence how dismayed she would be, not only by these sanctions targeting Israel in the way they do but by the turn this Government have taken since the new Foreign Secretary took his place, with the Minister supporting him.
The tributes reflected on how loyal and faithful Meta was to the Labour Party over many years—more faithful, I have to say, than I have been. I think she rebelled fewer than half a dozen times in her whole career in the Lords, so if this were brought to a vote, it is highly unlikely that she would have voted against the Government. However, I think the Minister knows from his time observing her on the parliamentary committee that she would have made her views known in a courteous but persuasive way. In her absence, I will finish with a number of extra questions.
The new aid-obstruction ground in the sanctions covers those who facilitate or finance the disbursal of aid. Will the Government use it against Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, and against those who finance and shelter it, including the IRGC and Hamas figures operating from Turkey? What safeguards will prevent the definitions “associated with” and “supported” being weaponised against Jewish charities, donors and trustees who wish to give lawfully to Israel? Finally, the Government said that these regulations will not affect freedom of religion. Have the Government assessed their impact on Jewish religious observance? Will the Minister confirm that worship, religious visits and support for synagogues and other religious institutions will not be treated as support for settlement activity?
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support my noble friend Lord Leigh and wish to focus on one issue: certainty. If these regulations are truly targeted, those affected should be able to understand where the boundary lies. Yet the Government have failed to provide that clarity. Faced with serious penalties, many will simply err on the side of caution. Can the Government state clearly whether buying a home in East Jerusalem, including near the Western Wall, or making a charitable donation would become grounds for designation? What legal test distinguishes a lawful transaction from sanctionable support? Will that test be published? Trustees, donors and charities should not have to guess whether lawful activity crosses an invisible line. If the Government have a clear test, they should publish it. If they do not, that is precisely the problem.
There are wider consequences. If charities and individuals cannot determine where the line is drawn, why should banks and businesses? Many will simply withdraw from dealings with Israel as the safest course. What assessment did the Government make of the impact on UK businesses with US operations in light of American anti-boycott laws? What assessment was made of any wider implications for the UK-US relationship? What guidance will be issued? If those assessments have been undertaken, they should be published. If guidance has been prepared, it should be issued.
The House is not being asked this afternoon whether certainty is desirable. It is being asked to approve regulations whose boundaries remain undefined in practice. Where sanctions carry serious penalties, uncertainty is not a technical flaw; it is a fundamental defect. If those affected cannot know with confidence where the line is drawn, the House should be concerned about what it is being asked to approve. Whether it was intended or not, this is in effect BDS by the backdoor. That is why I support the regret amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I supported the principle behind the global human rights sanctions when they were first introduced but, like many good things, this instrument carries a risk of mission creep. I fear that that is what we see in these new regulations.
I am concerned about the extension of the regime to three new grounds, in particular violations of international humanitarian law. I am also concerned about the new mechanism of designation by description, whereas until now we had been able to designate only by name. Both questions matter because the threshold is quite low. “Reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a demanding test, particularly when applied in the fog of war. I do not think that there has ever been a war in the history of warfare in which there were not reasonable grounds to suspect that the laws of war were being broken. If we want to apply consistently this threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect, we would be required to consider imposing sanctions in connection with every ongoing armed conflict, including those involving allies.
I wonder whether the Government have thought about the relationship between this instrument and the arms embargo regime, where the threshold is “clear risk” and is higher than “reasonable grounds to suspect” —particularly when we consider that individuals associated with someone may also be sanctionable under the new instrument. Does that mean that we could still potentially sell arms to individuals whom we have sanctioned? How do the two regimes operate together?
I have further questions for the Minister. Will the Government publish examples that show what “reasonable grounds to suspect” specifically means in evidential terms in the context of an armed conflict? What independent assessment will the Government make of evidence from the UN, NGOs, media or foreign Governments, particularly where an allegation is repeated in report after report despite often being based on the same second-hand source?
Most importantly, how will the Government ensure that these new grounds and mechanisms are generally applied consistently? If the Government impose sanctions in connection with a settlement in the West Bank, will they set out the legal reasons for not doing the same in other occupied territories such as Western Sahara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and beg its indulgence. For me, this is a serious issue that places the Jewish people under significant antisemitic—
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
The noble Baroness was not present at the start of the debate.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I do not think that the Government realise how serious this is. I beg the House’s indulgence that I may make a few remarks. I thank the House for that; I will be very brief.
Lord Sacks said that antisemitism is defined by the language of its age, which seems now to be human rights. I am afraid that the West is being played, and this statutory instrument will simply stoke further Jew hatred. It rewards those who are opposed to a two-state solution. It will not promote or help in any way the people who want the two-state solution or the Palestinians who will lose their jobs because they are working alongside Israelis. I beg the Government to understand the danger of singling out Israel for special punishment, when so many of us who are Jewish citizens of this country are trying to warn of the dangers that this entails.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, the new sanctions purport to be global, but in reality they apply only to Israel. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, there have been no designations over Northern Cyprus, which has been occupied by Turkey since 1974. The Xinjiang settler corporation in China is unsanctioned. Ministers have not said that the powers will be used against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza or the Iran-backed Houthis, who are detaining UN aid workers.
Failure to take any action over Cyprus is particularly heinous. As guarantor under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, the UK has a particular responsibility. The UN Security Council declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus “legally invalid”, the Council of Europe has condemned the “colonisation” by Turkish settlers, and the European Court of Human Rights has found that Turkey violated the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots. Indeed, homes continue to be built and sold on their land, including to British buyers, but no sanctions have been imposed. Yet the Government claim that the sanctions regime is global. If so, why has no action been taken in these other cases?
If the Government’s view is that settlement activity in occupied territory constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, presumably that view rests on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies equally to every alleged occupying power. The Government speak out loudly against antisemitism, but singling out the one Jewish state for sanctions raises serious doubts as to the sincerity of such a claim. Does the Minister accept that a decision not to apply the regime to comparable conduct elsewhere could be open to judicial review if it rests on a different legal test? Will the Government undertake to publish the criteria that they apply? Will the Government also now confirm that action will be taken against those responsible for these other violations? If not, how will the Government show that it is not being applied to Israel alone?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
When announcing these measures, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would “absolutely ensure” that this regime
“does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]
and that trade with Israel would continue to be supported. That trade is worth around £6 billion, with UK exports worth more than half of it—a trade surplus in Britain’s favour of roughly £1 billion. Over the past five years, more than 400 Israeli companies have been established or expanded in the UK, creating 4,000 jobs and bringing in £1 billion of investment. This makes a huge contribution to the UK economy; they are highly skilled and well-paid jobs, and I am sure the Minister will agree that none of them should be put at risk.
Despite the Foreign Secretary’s commitment, the Minister will know that businesses involved in UK-Israel trade, people in Israel and—as we have heard from a number of speakers in this debate—many people in the Jewish community want to be reassured about the precise impact of these measures and that they will not affect trade within Israel’s pre-1967 lines. Will the Treasury and the Foreign Office issue clear guidance, so that banks know that ordinary trade finance and payments to Israeli businesses are not to be affected? What assurance can we give to Palestinian banks which clear shekel payments through Israeli correspondent banks? Given claims by Members of Parliament that a recent event recruiting Jewish doctors to work in Israel would have contravened these regulations, will the Minister make it clear that lawful healthcare, medical recruitment and Jewish communal events are not within scope?
Only last night, these regulations were cited when Birmingham City Council’s Lib Dem and Green coalition —supported by Labour councillors, I have to say—passed a motion on divestment from Israel, including a review of pension fund investments and the council’s banking relationships. This is a city that has had to be rescued from bankruptcy by taxpayers, where rubbish has been piled high in the streets and that is the youth unemployment capital of Britain. Yet the clowns on the council are more concerned—obsessed—with a war 3,000 miles away that they know next to nothing about and can do even less to solve. So will the Minister make it clear that this is not government policy? Will he confirm that the Government’s opposition to boycotts of Israel applies to Labour councillors too? Will he commit to monitoring whether UK banks and businesses are withdrawing from lawful trade with Israel, and to act to deal with that if they are?
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Leigh and want to provide a gentle reminder of why we are here today. Three years ago, on 7 October, more than 6,000 Palestinian men invaded Israel. They slaughtered over 1,200 men, women, children and infants. They tortured, beheaded, burned alive, blew up, gang-raped and sodomised their way through the Nova festival and a number of kibbutz. Their second war crime was to take over 250 innocent civilians hostage, including children and infants, and into the tunnels of Gaza, where they were tortured and raped, with many murdered and some kept hostage for more than two and a half years.
Some employees of UNRWA were complicit, and these actions were supported by the Palestinian Authority, whose members have never condemned the attacks. In fact, it was due to their weakness and cowardice that Hamas and the Palestinian jihadis were able to take control of Gaza in 2006, when the one and only election took place. The Islamic Republic of Iran pulled the strings of its proxies, and the rest is history.
Having witnessed one of the worst crimes in living memory on the citizens of Israel—an ally, by the way, that provides us with intelligence, cancer drugs used by the NHS and much more—what have this Government done? Let us take a look, shall we? This Government decided to recognise a Palestinian state, despite there being no such thing. There are no borders, no rule of law or anything, in fact, to warrant such a decision. This Government have allowed pro-Palestinian, antisemitic hate protests to take place weekly, to this day. The protesters who take part, including Islamist supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, all continue to call for the annihilation of Israel and all Jews. Is it then surprising that British Jewish citizens have been, and continue to be, bullied, attacked and murdered on the streets of the UK? Jewish children and their families are living in a ring of steel and antisemitism is at a level I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Finally, I come to sanctions. Because of a disputed territory—of which we have plenty of our own—this Government place sanctions on our ally, along with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Russia, Somalia, Syria and other despotic, barbaric regimes, and yet again give succour to our enemies by appeasing and rewarding those terrorists who threaten to attack Israel, again and again. The truth is that this Government have kowtowed to those who shout loudest and to those they hope will keep them in power. Their actions are shameful and a blight on the freedoms we have fought for. They run completely counter to the silent majority of this country. We know a distraction when we see one, and this regulation has to be one of the worst examples yet.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, time precludes a more general review of the expansion of these sanctions. I hope the House will forgive me if I focus on some questions relating to the Government’s current favourite target: Israel.
Since the Clinton parameters, every serious peace proposal has envisaged Israel retaining major settlement blocs, while compensating it with land swaps. This does not excuse violence, dispossession or unlawful expansion, but it recognises the compromises and complexities on which peace has always depended and the pursuit of has always required. Is residential construction in those major blocs in itself a serious violation of international humanitarian law for the purposes of these regulations? If it is, what assessment have the Government made of the effect on the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution? Have they assessed how restrictions on civilian economic life in these same blocs might affect the prospects of an agreed territorial compromise?
Has the Minister considered how the regulations will apply? Banks and insurers, confronted with uncertain tests and grave penalties, may well withdraw from perfectly lawful Israeli trade. The Government say they oppose boycotts. If British institutions withdraw from lawful trade with Israel as a whole, how is that different, in effect, from a boycott? What do the Government intend to do to prevent that? We would be grateful for officials’ current briefings on this, which have indicated that the regulations are setting terms that Israel cannot meet, even by breaching its own law.
What assessment have the Government made of the West Bank economy, and what support and arrangements are needed to support Palestinian financial institutions and banks, given the changes?
Will the Minister please also give us some view as to what safeguards there are to ensure that, if a company de-lists or stops a relevant activity, the Government will reassess its designation so that the regulations are always applied on an up-to-date, factual basis?
Why does Regulation 8(3)(e) on supplying goods or services contain no requirement of knowledge when Regulation 8(3)(d) does? How promptly will a person designated by a description receive a usable notice, and how can they obtain clarification of whether the designation applies to them? How frequently will the Government reassess the factual basis and continuing appropriateness of each designation, or will they publish aggregate review outcomes? What remedy is available to an innocent third party suffering losses from a mistaken identification or mistaken ownership and control assessment? How will the Government distinguish a remote or incidental financial benefit from a sufficiently direct benefit under Regulation 8(3)(f)? Under Regulation 8(3)(e), can a supplier with no knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect wrongdoing nevertheless be treated as involved, and what proportionality safeguard would apply? What factors merely distinguish an innocent professional, familial or charitable association from an association sufficient for designation under Regulation 8(1)(d)?
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [R]
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Yesterday, I spoke to a group of amendments to the Health Bill, which dealt with the need to address the pernicious threat to the NHS posed by antisemitism and other forms of racism. I spoke then from a patient’s perspective, in my case as someone who owes so much to my childhood Jewish refugee consultant, most of whose family were murdered in the Holocaust, and in whose memory I will always defend Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and refute the charge of genocide in the tragic situation that is Gaza.
Today, I speak again from a patient’s perspective, and I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, can he say what contingency arrangements would be put in place to maintain medicines, emergency medical treatment and aid payments if a major intermediary became designated?
Secondly, can he say what assessment the Government have made of the effects that would be felt as a result of any settlement-related sanctions or proposed services restrictions on access to healthcare for Israeli and Palestinian patients, including continuity of care and the recruitment of clinicians? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
I will raise briefly two specific concerns on this proposed legislation. The first is the risk that the sanctions under consideration will not be effectively targeted. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, talked about the chilling effect, as I think one could describe it, of the ambiguity of aspects of these sanctions and definitions. That is a negative risk, if you like. However, the Foreign Secretary in the Commons, when announcing these sanctions, also set out a positive duty. He said that
“we will absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]
He also said:
“We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 882.]
If those were not just words, they imply a positive duty to act, by embassies, government officials and departments that support trade between the UK and Israel. Businesses need to know what positive, practical support the Government can still give, and government officials need to know what they can and cannot do under these sanctions. Can the Minister explain what the Government will do to deliver on the Foreign Secretary’s positive commitment? Will they publish guidance, for example to make clear what trade and investment is supported by HMG and their officials, and what is not? That is my first concern.
The second is how the follow-up regulations to these sanctions are to be handled in practice. They are presented as the first stage in a series of measures tightening restrictions over time, and the Government’s planned measures to prohibit or restrict import services advertising will be very far-reaching. They will hit a lot of people who probably never imagined they were going to be hit by this. There is a high risk of getting the detail wrong or having inadvertent consequential effects.
This does happen. Some of us may remember that the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023 banned legal advisory services. They were made on 27 June that year and came into force three days later. It took an outside stakeholder, a law firm, to tell us, the legislators, that these regulations actually made it a crime for UK-based lawyers to advise on how to comply with the sanctions. The firm went on to say that this was “unnecessary, and likely unintended”. Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee went on to confirm this was the effect and it took the Government a year to get the legislation right.
This happened in a sanctions regime that by then was well understood and often used, so will the Government commit to doing the maximum to avoid a similar situation arising again? Instead of drafting follow-up laws and simply bringing them into force, will they commit to ensuring that measures under this legislation will be published in draft, consulted on and properly debated in this Parliament first?
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Frost, who has demonstrated his considerable knowledge and experience in this field.
It is a hallmark of bad law that it encourages shadow compliance and overcompliance. British companies and institutions quite rightly wish to obey the law, but also wish not to be test cases. It takes time and money to be a test case and, after all, it is not their job to clarify UK law. The Government should be responsible for saying exactly where the boundaries lie. Because of that, I ask the Minister for his assurance about the assessment that the Government have made that their actions are going to be proportionate under this legislation to their stated aims and consistent with their obligations under international law.
I have considerable respect for the Minister and I understand that he will want to do his best to get this right, but we in this House always remember that statutory instruments and other legislation that we approve will be used by future Ministers. That is why, because I do not necessarily trust people who in future might pick up this responsibility, I ask the Minister for a further safeguard: that he restore the duty to report to Parliament on sanctions regimes which was scrapped back in 2022. This is a considerable extension of the Government’s power of sanctioning, and it is right that both Houses of Parliament get a report every year about what has happened, who has been sanctioned and what the results are going to be. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on both those points.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, the acute human cost of current global conflicts provides the undeniable catalyst for today’s debate. The plight of civilians, particularly in the catastrophic situation of Gaza, is of profound concern. The Government are entirely right to use these regulations to expand our foreign policy toolkit. By making the intentional obstruction of life-saving humanitarian assistance and serious breaches of international humanitarian law explicit, sanctionable offences, they are creating a necessary legal lever to address atrocities worldwide.
Crucially, these powers are truly global. While the immediate focus of many is the Middle East, the updated framework allows the UK to target perpetrators across other devastating theatres of war. It strengthens our hand, as the Minister has already outlined. It is to penalise those orchestrating violence or blocking food and medicine in Sudan, for example, where we have recently seen severe human rights violations and the restrictions of aid.
The updated framework gives us an explicit legal baseline to act decisively in conflicts across Myanmar, Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sahel region. Previously, punishing these acts required slow, country-specific geographic regimes. Today, we establish a unified global standard for accountability.
Furthermore, updating our powers to allow designations by descriptions rather than just by individual name provides the agility that is required in fast-moving conflicts. It ensures that the UK can act in immediate lockstep with international allies to deter actions that undermine humanitarian law—whether against violent settler networks in the West Bank or warlords in east Africa.
Procedural questions regarding delegated legislation and legal thresholds are fair matters for this House to scrutinise. However, technical caution must not paralyse urgent humanitarian leverage. Rather than regretting these regulations, our focus must be on efficient enforcement. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Office has the dedicated intelligence resources to rapidly monitor aid obstruction globally, ensuring that these powers are deployed effectively to protect vulnerable civilians in Gaza, Sudan and beyond?
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, a director of the British Friends of Israel and the editor-in-chief and majority owner of the Daily Sceptic.
Sanctions should target wrongdoing, not lawful disagreement. No academic or journalist should fear sanctions and losing access to their bank account for challenging the Government’s account of a conflict. Yet these regulations risk blurring that distinction through broad, undefined references to “promotion”, “support” and “association”. The risk is particularly acute if the Government intend to rely on notoriously unreliable UN reporting on Israel. What happens to the academic who challenges such a report, or the journalist who exposes its flaws? As the publisher of the Daily Sceptic, would I be at risk of designation for publishing such an exposé?
Will the Minister confirm that lawful journalism, academic inquiry and political argument will not by themselves justify designation under these regulations? Will he also confirm that the Government will not rely on contested UN findings as evidence for designation without first testing them independently?
Lord McCabe (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, told us, this decision represents a significant change in the position adopted by British Governments over many years. It is also a serious departure from long-standing Labour Party policy. Like many others, I worry about the implications of this and the damage that it might do to our relations with a vital ally and many innocent parties. The Foreign Secretary tells us that we cannot outsource our moral responsibilities, so he is taking the decision to act under our global human rights and international humanitarian law. However, unless we are going to see a raft of other measures, that sentiment could have a very hollow ring. What kind of moral responsibility does it show to act in one instance while turning a blind eye in many others?
Like other speakers, I ask my noble friend: if the Government are applying a global approach, can we expect soon to see measures directed at those who seized property and settlements in Northern Cyprus? Will we see real measures to curb the IRGC and the Iran-backed Houthis? Will we see measures against China and the Xinjiang settler organisation—and against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza? If not, how can our Government avoid the charge that this decision is about acting against and singling out Israel?
Given the uncertainty and potential risks associated with these measures, was the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade fully consulted before they were announced? Can my noble friend say with confidence that the regulations and the planned import ban are compatible with the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement?
Lord Polak (Con)
I refer the House to my registered interests. Over many years, I have taken more than 150 delegations of parliamentarians to Israel and the region. I have seen what Britain can achieve when we are trusted and when we are in the room, and I have sadly watched this Government give it all away.
As my noble friend Lord Leigh said, within a day of the announcement our consul-general in Jerusalem was ordered to leave. British personnel were removed from the centre co-ordinating the Gaza ceasefire and rebuilding. Our training of Palestinian Authority security forces was stopped. Not one designation had been made, yet we lost our seat at the table before the ink was dry.
And for what? These regulations will not bring peace one day closer. How would the Government even know? Beyond counting designations, what measurable outcomes will they use to judge whether these sanctions improve humanitarian access?
The Abraham accords have shown that peace is built through trade, investment and partnership. Britain should be part of that. Instead, with tests that no one can define and penalties of up to seven years in prison, British banks and businesses cannot know where the Government’s line falls. Many will simply walk away from Israel. That damages British trade, it damages Israel and it damages the relationship between our two countries. I gently remind the Minister that the British mandate ended almost 80 years ago.
Only yesterday, in relation to our national security and defence, my right honourable friend Kemi Badenoch said:
“This is not a student union; this is the running of our country”.
This sanctions policy is another example of student politics at its worst.
During this debate, by my calculation, there have been about 40 legitimate questions posed to the Minister. We did not have an opportunity before the SI was laid, so I struggle to understand how such a flawed policy can be rushed through with no parliamentary scrutiny and done on purely domestic political considerations, with a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras and, frankly, pandering to the mob.
These measures do not help the two-state solution that the Government say they support. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn said, every serious peace proposal since the Clinton parameters of 2000 has expected the major settlement blocs to remain part of Israel.
So, if this policy is to stand, I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, how do these sanctions bring the two-state solution closer? Secondly, if the green line is now the line on which British sanctions turn, will the Government publish where it runs and say clearly whether east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights fall within it? Thirdly, will the planned advertising ban stop British estate agents, newspapers or community organisations from advertising homes in the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem?
Peace is built through engagement, not sanctions. Britain should be building bridges in the Middle East, not burning them.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn omitted to declare his interest earlier and wishes to briefly do so.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise. In hacking my speech down, I omitted at the very beginning to declare my interests as set out in the register.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I should state that repeatedly in this debate there have been incorrect references to interests. The Companion is perfectly clear that references to interests need to be specific. There have been a number of instances in this debate that I hope the Government Whips and Opposition Whips will reflect on the handling of.
I welcome these sanctions. Indeed, having scrutinised all the sanctions that the UK has passed since 2018, I have called for the updating and expansion of the human rights sanctions. I welcome the new elements and criteria and also the fact that descriptions of actions will be put in place to prevent circumvention.
I shall refer briefly to the regret amendment. We already have designated individuals within the Israeli Government. Many Israeli actors have been designated under the human rights regime. I slightly regret the partisan tone in this debate, and I want to quote the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he was Foreign Secretary under the last Government:
“Today’s sanctions place restrictions on those involved in some of the most egregious abuses of human rights ... Extremist Israeli settlers are threatening Palestinians, often at gunpoint, and forcing them off land that is rightfully theirs. This behaviour is illegal and unacceptable”.
That was in February 2024. There are many elements of this debate today that are not new. Indeed, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In fact, I questioned him in this House. Many who have taken part in this debate today did not.
Outposts are illegal under Israeli law. I do not understand why we should allow UK bodies to be immune from our law, facilitating settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. We have an obligation in this country to ensure that UK entities do not facilitate human rights abuses and egregious breaches of international humanitarian law, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined in 2024.
I welcome the fact that this is a global regime, as the Minister said. Indeed, we can now move more quickly beyond Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the DRC, where there is country-specific scope, as the Minister indicated. I am glad that the Minister mentioned Sudan. I welcome the fact that the commanders are now being sanctioned for the terrible human rights abuses in that conflict. The Minister normally says that Ministers do not comment on individuals to be sanctioned, but it is worth noting that the UK still has not sanctioned General Burhan and General Hemedti, the two people most responsible for the world’s worst humanitarian abuses.
My final point is about humanitarian relief. There is scope under these measures to have a Treasury licence for exemptions. Humanitarian scope is in place. I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government do indeed intend to have a humanitarian assistance licence.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, when the Government announced these sanctions, the Government and the Official Opposition reasserted our commitment to the two-state solution and Israel’s right to defend itself. We all want to see sustainable, long-term peace in the region. I know there is a broad consensus in the House on that matter. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, we all condemn settler violence, and I hope that the Israeli authorities will clamp down on many of the abuses we have seen.
However, as I said in September, the test by which the Government’s sanctions will be judged is whether they bring us closer to a sustainable two-state solution. We on these Benches are far from satisfied that the Government’s approach is any closer to achieving that. We were particularly concerned by the Government’s decision to announce these sanctions, which will take months to be implemented, surprisingly close to the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, which, incidentally, meant creating a further political row during the lead-up to the elections in Israel. This was a serious misjudgment, leading many of us to suspect that domestic political considerations were at the forefront of the Government’s consideration.
I share many of the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House today, including on the government Benches. I hope the Minister will be able to give full answers to the many serious questions that have been put to him today. If he needs to write to noble Lords to provide detailed replies, I would be grateful if he would commit to sharing those detailed answers with all Peers for the information of the House and laying copies of his replies in the Library.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I add some questions to his extensive list. On religious freedom, the Government have said that these regulations would not affect freedom of religion. What assessment have they made of the impact on Jewish religious observance, including acts of worship, religious visits, religious goods and related payments; and of compatibility with Article 9, on freedom of religion, and Article 14, on prohibition of discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Government keep telling us they are committed to, as given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998? Will they publish objective criteria distinguishing support for worship and religious institutions from financing settlement expansion before charities, donors and banks are expected to apply them?
Will the Government report annually to Parliament on designations and decisions not to designate by country and build an annual review or sunset clause into the operation of the regulations, so that their efficacy, fairness and proportionality can be assessed every year by all of us? Will the regulations be applied in a manner proportionate to their stated aims and consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law? Can the Minister tell us whether the Treasury, BIST, DHSC and relevant financial regulators were consulted on the wider effects, and will the Government publish a summary of their assessments?
Finally, on the necessity of these regulations, what specific conduct could not be addressed adequately under the 2020 regime, and what evidence led Ministers to conclude that these additional 2026 designation grounds were necessary, beyond domestic political considerations? I look forward to the Minister’s response, but should my noble friend Lord Leigh put his amendment to the vote, I will certainly support him.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said about Meta Ramsay. We all miss her very much. I am sure he is right that she would have disagreed with many, if not the preponderance, of today’s SI amendments. The expansion of the global human rights sanctions regime, now the global human rights and international humanitarian law regime, shows how the UK is taking bold action to stand up for British values around the world.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I am sorry to see opposition. I understand many of the arguments made by the noble Lord and others concerning the specific cases of Israel that he and most other noble Lords focused on, but I am disappointed to see opposition to this as the vehicle by which they express their passionate, strongly held views on the question of Israel and the UK’s relationship with Israel. Why? Because today is about something slightly different from what the majority of noble Lords have been focusing on. It is about an instrument whose purpose is to strengthen the UK’s ability to respond to serious abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law wherever they occur. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, were successful, this House would be on record as regretting the expansion of the Government’s powers to act wherever abuses of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law occur across the globe, and I do not believe that that is the message this House wants to send.
These regulations are not targeting any country; they are expanding the range of abuses upon which the global human rights regime will be based and upon which the UK Government can act. They are global in scope. They are designed to ensure the UK has the necessary powers to hold individuals and entities accountable for serious misconduct across a range of situations around the world. They provide an important and proportionate addition to our sanctions toolkit and strengthen our ability to act in defence of fundamental rights and international norms. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Gill very much to heart. We need to maintain strong monitoring of human rights abuses and international humanitarian law rights abuses, including information from the United Nations and many other sources as well, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Through his amendment and in his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has raised many specific questions about trade with Israel. To be clear, as the Foreign Secretary has said, we will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel and its people. These regulations do not affect that trade. Indeed, they not about trade; they are about behaviour. The noble Lord also asked whether the Government will publish clear designation criteria and an evidence-based framework. The designation criteria are set out in the regulations themselves, specifically in Regulation 8.
Any designation must meet the legal tests established in sanctions legislation and be made in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Decisions are made by Ministers on the basis of evidence and are subject to the safeguards and scrutiny established by Parliament. As a passing remark, Regulation 8 sets out the designation criteria and is almost identical, I believe, to Regulation 6 in the 2020 regulations. The idea that there is some massive redefinition of the small print is simply not true. The main changes are in Regulation 4, where we have added
“serious violation of international humanitarian law”
and wider human rights grounds. Many noble Lords’ comments are not correct in saying that there is a subversive expansion going on here to get particular cases in. That is factually incorrect.
Questions were raised regarding impact assessments and reporting to Parliament. A de minimis impact assessment has been completed and concluded that the expected additional impact on UK businesses will be negligible. That is because the regulations are enabling legislation only and are global in scope. The sanctions regime itself is not targeted at any specific country, conflict, sector, product, market or group of businesses. Any economic impacts arise only if Ministers decide to designate specific persons under the expanded regime. These designations are separate and case-by-case, and each designation follows a robust legal process. We designate according only to the specific grounds of the appropriate regime and our reasoning must be properly evidenced, with credible sources that can be relied upon in court. We regularly keep sanctions regimes and designations under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, was right that the duty to report annually to Parliament was scrapped in 2022, by the previous Conservative Government. However, this House and the other place have a range of mechanisms through which sanctions policy and implementation are examined, including debates, Questions, committee scrutiny, correspondence and evidence sessions—and through extremely friendly text exchanges with friends such as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on a regular basis. My honourable friend Minister Doughty writes regularly to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, setting out the Government’s sanctions work in detail. Such correspondence is available in the Libraries of both Houses. I am committed, as I am sure noble Lords across the House already know, to continuing regular engagement with Members across this House on sanctions and related issues.
Let me respond quickly to some individual remarks—I can deal with only some of them. A number of noble Lords asked whether this instrument was singling out or focused on Israel in some way. This is not about Israel; it is a statutory instrument amending the global human rights regime. Let me refer to some of the designations that have been made: in Georgia, as I mentioned before; in Sri Lanka, where we sanctioned individuals responsible for serious human rights abuses and violations during the Sri Lankan civil war; and in Cambodia, where we have used them to deliver high-impact sanctions against global conglomerates running sham and scam centres, as well as their enablers. It is simply not true that this is a regime targeted on Israel or any one country.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
May I just bring to the attention of the Minister a press release that came out on 8 September, a week after Sir Keir Starmer resigned? It read:
“UK to bring forward new powers to respond to moral emergency in Palestine, and target illegal settlement activity in the West Bank to protect the viability of a two-state solution”.
I will happily give this document to the Minister when he has completed his response.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness; I am familiar with that document—I may even have had a hand in helping to write it. There is confusion, if the noble Baroness does not mind me saying so, at the heart of her point. On 8 September, the Foreign Secretary announced two things—in fact, he announced many things, including a series of sanctions, which some noble Lords have forgotten, on the financing arms of Hamas and Hezbollah, but he announced two things in particular.
First, the Foreign Secretary announced that there will be a new sanctions regime designed to stop UK economic activity supporting the expansion of illegal settlements, and that that would be laid before Parliament within six to nine months. Many comments made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the last hour have been focused on a Bill that is yet to be produced and measures that have yet to be clarified. I take very seriously the injunctions of many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, for clarity to be provided, as much as is consistent with those new rules. But today is about the second thing the Foreign Secretary talked about: the expansion of our existing global human rights regime. That is what we are discussing, and it is not what the quote the noble Baroness read out was about.
I will happily come back to noble Lords on specific issues, but I am afraid I do not have time to go through everything now.
As I said earlier, if this amendment was successful, we would not be taking action on any one country; we would be saying no to the expansion of the Government’s ability to act in response to abuse of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Is that the message we want to send, or do we want to make a general modification to an established and successfully operating set of regulations to expand our ability to act against abuses that we all debate, day-to-day, and which people rightly get upset about and ask me Oral Questions about on a regular basis?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the Minister wishes to make progress, and I welcome the fact that more time was given to this through the usual channels. However, the Minister says he has no more time. Will he assure the House that he will place in the Library a full response to all the questions raised by noble Lords in this debate?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I will happily provide answers to the questions I have not been able to address.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I am happy to place them in the Library.
In recent years, the UK has transformed its use of sanctions and continues to lead internationally in their implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime gives us a stronger and more flexible means of promoting accountability and responsibility, and responding to some of the gravest abuses seen around the world. I therefore respectfully urge noble Lords not to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is motivated by things that are not the substance of today’s regulations, which concern the global human rights regime rules.
To conclude, I once again thank the House for the many insightful contributions and the continued cross-party support for our sanctions regime. We continue to lead internationally on sanctions implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime will give the UK a powerful tool to respond to human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations across the world.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the very many noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I listened to some extremely powerful, passionate and very well-informed comments from all sides of the House, and I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who took the time and trouble so to do.
There were some 40 to 50 questions asked, and I think the Minister answered about 10. The purpose of our Chamber is to look at things in more detail and express reservations, and there are clearly enormous reservations about these statutory instruments. The protections we have asked for and the concerns we have raised have not been answered. It is therefore more than appropriate that the opinion of this House is tested, and I wish to do that.