Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[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)?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.