Third Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 28th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 8 hours, 39 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, Mr. Stringer, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship and pleasure to be with members of the committee today. And I beg to move. The committee has approved the global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026. These revoke and re-enact with expanded purposes and designations criteria. The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020. This instrument was laid on 13th of October under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in this instrument subject are subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure and entered into force on the 15th of October.
Mr. chair, since coming into office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action, and relentless in pursuing alliances with partners in those efforts across the world. And sanctions are, of course, a powerful lever that we have to advance our foreign policy goals. When we impose sanctions, we do so to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behavior. We do it to send a clear message far beyond those which we target of the values that the UK will stand up for, and we try to do it wherever possible, alongside partners to maximise the impact of any sanctions we impose.
I often say, Mr. Chair, three days to deter, to disrupt, to demonstrate. Those are the principles at the heart of any of our sanctions regimes and indeed our individual designations under those regimes. Mr. chair, this a global human rights sanctions regime. Now, the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime is particularly vital in this endeavour. 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 Asia and scam centres to extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the West Bank.
To those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia, the global human rights sanctions regime is not our only tool. We also make extensive use of our range of geographic sanctions regimes. For example, on Monday , we announced the designation of 15 commanders on both sides of the conflict in Sudan who are suspended or perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular conflict related sexual violence. And as we mark the anniversary of the horror that we saw after the fall of El Fasher, these designations remind the perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching, and that their actions will have consequences.
There is no impunity. However, that was only possible because our Sudan sanctions regime, our geographic 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 and situations taking place in countries that we did not happen to have their own geographical sanctions regime. And now we do. And I have to say, as sanctions minister for the last two and a bit years, it's been a frustration to me at times that we have wanted to take actions in different places, and we have not had those powers to be able to do that.
We now have those powers. That was a commitment this government made. These things take time to put into practice. I'm sure members of the committee will understand we now have them. That is going to allow us to act in a wider range of circumstances, in ways in which we want to have that impact of deterring, disrupting and demonstrating. So this new instrument 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, for example, has been deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations.
And I'm now going to turn with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, to each measure within this instrument in more detail. I want to be clear, first, that 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 abuse, to the right to life, right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
But these amended regulations do, and I want to assure committee members of this allow all existing pre-existing sanctions to remain in force and the powers that we had, but give us a powerful set of levers to respond to a broader range of situations. The expanded sanctions regime now allows designations to be made in the first case, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law, and this will strengthen the United Kingdom'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.
And as the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on the 8th of September when he committed to laying this instrument. This legislation, for example, gives the UK powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and those who are participating in the E1 settlement expansion. But of course, it allows us to act in a wide range of circumstances. Secondly, on the right to liberty and security of person, as I've said, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of the right to life, right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
But this instrument now adds the right to liberty and security of person to that list, and that ensures that the regime and we have the powers then to act, for example, and better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct, which I'm sure members of the committee will agree is an important power for us to be able to take. The next area where we've expanded the powers is in relation to the obstruction of humanitarian assistance. So the new sanctions regime adds a new ground of obstruction of the delivery or distribution of or access to humanitarian assistance.
And in addition, it reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations. And I'm sure we can think of many horrendous examples of this in a whole range of consequences situations at the moment, in situations that I know members of this House and indeed of this committee raise regularly with me and other ministers in the House. So it gives us that new power. We also. Lastly, Mr. Chair, the designate. The amended regime adds the power to designate by description and. This allows the UK to designate where a specific name is not available and capture all members of a specific group or organization, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime.
So this is a provision that allows, again, us to target a greater range of actors who may be responsible for these violations and be able to take action against them. I will happily give that.
Mr. chair, since coming into office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action, and relentless in pursuing alliances with partners in those efforts across the world. And sanctions are, of course, a powerful lever that we have to advance our foreign policy goals. When we impose sanctions, we do so to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behavior. We do it to send a clear message far beyond those which we target of the values that the UK will stand up for, and we try to do it wherever possible, alongside partners to maximise the impact of any sanctions we impose.
I often say, Mr. Chair, three days to deter, to disrupt, to demonstrate. Those are the principles at the heart of any of our sanctions regimes and indeed our individual designations under those regimes. Mr. chair, this a global human rights sanctions regime. Now, the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime is particularly vital in this endeavour. 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 Asia and scam centres to extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the West Bank.
To those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia, the global human rights sanctions regime is not our only tool. We also make extensive use of our range of geographic sanctions regimes. For example, on Monday , we announced the designation of 15 commanders on both sides of the conflict in Sudan who are suspended or perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular conflict related sexual violence. And as we mark the anniversary of the horror that we saw after the fall of El Fasher, these designations remind the perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching, and that their actions will have consequences.
There is no impunity. However, that was only possible because our Sudan sanctions regime, our geographic 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 and situations taking place in countries that we did not happen to have their own geographical sanctions regime. And now we do. And I have to say, as sanctions minister for the last two and a bit years, it's been a frustration to me at times that we have wanted to take actions in different places, and we have not had those powers to be able to do that.
We now have those powers. That was a commitment this government made. These things take time to put into practice. I'm sure members of the committee will understand we now have them. That is going to allow us to act in a wider range of circumstances, in ways in which we want to have that impact of deterring, disrupting and demonstrating. So this new instrument 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, for example, has been deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations.
And I'm now going to turn with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, to each measure within this instrument in more detail. I want to be clear, first, that 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 abuse, to the right to life, right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
But these amended regulations do, and I want to assure committee members of this allow all existing pre-existing sanctions to remain in force and the powers that we had, but give us a powerful set of levers to respond to a broader range of situations. The expanded sanctions regime now allows designations to be made in the first case, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law, and this will strengthen the United Kingdom'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.
And as the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on the 8th of September when he committed to laying this instrument. This legislation, for example, gives the UK powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and those who are participating in the E1 settlement expansion. But of course, it allows us to act in a wide range of circumstances. Secondly, on the right to liberty and security of person, as I've said, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of the right to life, right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
But this instrument now adds the right to liberty and security of person to that list, and that ensures that the regime and we have the powers then to act, for example, and better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct, which I'm sure members of the committee will agree is an important power for us to be able to take. The next area where we've expanded the powers is in relation to the obstruction of humanitarian assistance. So the new sanctions regime adds a new ground of obstruction of the delivery or distribution of or access to humanitarian assistance.
And in addition, it reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations. And I'm sure we can think of many horrendous examples of this in a whole range of consequences situations at the moment, in situations that I know members of this House and indeed of this committee raise regularly with me and other ministers in the House. So it gives us that new power. We also. Lastly, Mr. Chair, the designate. The amended regime adds the power to designate by description and. This allows the UK to designate where a specific name is not available and capture all members of a specific group or organization, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime.
So this is a provision that allows, again, us to target a greater range of actors who may be responsible for these violations and be able to take action against them. I will happily give that.
16:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To the minister for giving way. He talked about the purpose of sanctions to be deterred, disrupt and demonstrate. Would he like to give the House the two best examples that he's come across of who the parties were and what they were deterred from doing , and who the parties were and what they were disrupted from doing?
16:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I can give him a very specific example which was able to be done actually under the under the existing powers. But for the sake of the argument, Mr. Chair, and it's one that perhaps will be less familiar with colleagues, but I think it's a very important one. We've had a very significant impact was the actions in relation to South East Asian scam centres. And this is an issue where the direct impact on the streets of this country, people being defrauded. You know, money being taken off them, also people being held effectively in, in servitude in, in these centres in South East Asia.
And not only did we disrupt these networks by, by that action and the designation, but we actually deterred further action. And we actually also encouraged other countries and countries involved to take action domestically in terms of their own legal processes. So that's a very clear example of those two purposes that he he asked about. But, Mr. Chair, to conclude, this instrument provides the government with vital new 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. Of course, at this stage we are not making the specific designations.
Those will come in in due course. As you know, I don't comment on those future designations or when they may come about, but clearly we take powers for a purpose. We take powers in order to be able to use them. This gives us a new set of tools, a new set of levers in our armoury to respond to some of the worst atrocities and violations of the principles that we stand up for in this country in a range of contexts. Mr. chair, I think that's important to emphasise, and I commend the regulations to the committee.
And not only did we disrupt these networks by, by that action and the designation, but we actually deterred further action. And we actually also encouraged other countries and countries involved to take action domestically in terms of their own legal processes. So that's a very clear example of those two purposes that he he asked about. But, Mr. Chair, to conclude, this instrument provides the government with vital new 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. Of course, at this stage we are not making the specific designations.
Those will come in in due course. As you know, I don't comment on those future designations or when they may come about, but clearly we take powers for a purpose. We take powers in order to be able to use them. This gives us a new set of tools, a new set of levers in our armoury to respond to some of the worst atrocities and violations of the principles that we stand up for in this country in a range of contexts. Mr. chair, I think that's important to emphasise, and I commend the regulations to the committee.
16:39
16:39
16:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Mr. Stringer, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And from the outset, I'd like the Minister to know that His Majesty's loyal opposition will not be opposing these regulations today. It's right that the government should have the power to sanction individuals, groups and companies responsible for serious human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law, and these regulations provide it. But asset freezes director qualifications and travel bans are serious measures, and these regulations considerably widen the conduct for which they can be imposed. Powers of this kind must be used fairly consistently and on the basis of sound evidence, and I therefore request an area for areas of clarification from the minister, and I thank him for his in-depth opening remarks.
First is on the scope. The regulations add three new grounds for designation serious violations of the right to liberty and security of person, serious violations of international humanitarian law, and obstructions of humanitarian assistance. How does the government intend to apply them, and what process will govern their use and review? In particular, how will these powers interact with the separate assessments regime? The government announced in September? Second, are safeguards in areas of humanitarian crisis. Legitimate commercial and humanitarian activity can sit close to conduct that might trigger designation under regulation eight. Anyone who provides financial or goods, finance or goods to a person responsible for these abuses can be treated as involved, and that limb contains no requirement of knowledge.
So I ask, what protections will there be for British people and businesses acting legitimately and in good faith? Third is impact. Now, I understand that no specific consultation or full impact assessment was carried out, given that British nationals and companies are bound wherever they operate, what assessment has the government made of the consequences of British businesses, and what guidance will it provide? Fourthly, is consistency. Mr. Stringer designation requires only reasonable grounds to suspect. What evidence will the government require in practice, particularly for designations by description, where a whole class of people can be designated at once?
And how will the minister ensure that these standards are applied consistently across different conflicts and countries? As stated Mr. Stringer, the His Majesty's loyal opposition does not oppose these regulations. We only ask that ministers put on record how these powers will be used, where their limits lie, and what safeguards will protect legitimate activity and ensure consistency. Thank you.
First is on the scope. The regulations add three new grounds for designation serious violations of the right to liberty and security of person, serious violations of international humanitarian law, and obstructions of humanitarian assistance. How does the government intend to apply them, and what process will govern their use and review? In particular, how will these powers interact with the separate assessments regime? The government announced in September? Second, are safeguards in areas of humanitarian crisis. Legitimate commercial and humanitarian activity can sit close to conduct that might trigger designation under regulation eight. Anyone who provides financial or goods, finance or goods to a person responsible for these abuses can be treated as involved, and that limb contains no requirement of knowledge.
So I ask, what protections will there be for British people and businesses acting legitimately and in good faith? Third is impact. Now, I understand that no specific consultation or full impact assessment was carried out, given that British nationals and companies are bound wherever they operate, what assessment has the government made of the consequences of British businesses, and what guidance will it provide? Fourthly, is consistency. Mr. Stringer designation requires only reasonable grounds to suspect. What evidence will the government require in practice, particularly for designations by description, where a whole class of people can be designated at once?
And how will the minister ensure that these standards are applied consistently across different conflicts and countries? As stated Mr. Stringer, the His Majesty's loyal opposition does not oppose these regulations. We only ask that ministers put on record how these powers will be used, where their limits lie, and what safeguards will protect legitimate activity and ensure consistency. Thank you.
16:42
16:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair, it's my pleasure. Serving under your chair, I welcome the expanded sanctions framework and in particular, the introduction of the new sanctions ground relating to the deprivation of liberty. It is right that serious arbitrary detention, unlawful imprisonment and the denial of basic legal protections can now form the basis of sanctions and designations. So can the minister, therefore, set out how this new ground will be applied in practice to evidence concerning the detention of Palestinian children, human rights organisations and international bodies have for many years raised concerns about the arbitrary or unlawful detention of Palestinian children, including prolonged detention without charge or trial, military detention and the systemic denial of due processes and legal protections.
As we know, Israel is the only country in the world that systematically and automatically tries children through military court with a conviction rate of 99% for Palestinian defendants. And, of course, we're all alarmed by the introduction of the death penalty, which has been criticised by human rights groups and the UN as applying de facto exclusively to Palestinians. The separation of legal systems based on the race and nationality of defendants have led leading human rights organizations, including B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch, to declare Israel an apartheid regime. If the government receives evidence that such practices meet, the threshold established under these regulations, will ministers actively consider designations under the new liberty ground?
Furthermore, when assessing responsibility, will the government look not only at those directly responsible for detention, but also those who enable and sustain these practices, including officials, ministers and private actors who provide services that facilitate places of detention where serious violations are alleged to occur. Finally, how does the Minister intend to keep Parliament informed of the use of this new sanctions power? Given the significance of the Liberty Ground, it is important that members understand how evidence is being assessed and where the potential cases, including the detention of children, are being actively considered. The creation of this new sanctions ground is welcome.
The tests will now be whether it is applied consistently and robustly , wherever credible evidence or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty exists. Thank you chair.
As we know, Israel is the only country in the world that systematically and automatically tries children through military court with a conviction rate of 99% for Palestinian defendants. And, of course, we're all alarmed by the introduction of the death penalty, which has been criticised by human rights groups and the UN as applying de facto exclusively to Palestinians. The separation of legal systems based on the race and nationality of defendants have led leading human rights organizations, including B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch, to declare Israel an apartheid regime. If the government receives evidence that such practices meet, the threshold established under these regulations, will ministers actively consider designations under the new liberty ground?
Furthermore, when assessing responsibility, will the government look not only at those directly responsible for detention, but also those who enable and sustain these practices, including officials, ministers and private actors who provide services that facilitate places of detention where serious violations are alleged to occur. Finally, how does the Minister intend to keep Parliament informed of the use of this new sanctions power? Given the significance of the Liberty Ground, it is important that members understand how evidence is being assessed and where the potential cases, including the detention of children, are being actively considered. The creation of this new sanctions ground is welcome.
The tests will now be whether it is applied consistently and robustly , wherever credible evidence or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty exists. Thank you chair.
16:45
16:45
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Minister. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome the new statutory instruments in relation to the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions. We we know that sanctions are a vital tool for the government to use to promote our British values, in particular in relation to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. By designating individuals or entities responsible for human rights violations, for example, we send a clear message that the UK stands firm against despots like Vladimir Putin, sanction persons face penalties, including direct disqualification in this country, asset freezes and being prevented from travelling to to Britain.
These are significant penalties, penalties and those who are designated to face them are only designated on reasonable grounds. While the 2018 Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act was certainly an important piece of legislation, recent events have shown that incompleteness of its implementation, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations from 2020, which the regulations were debating replace, was, of course, correct to punish those who perpetrate violations of human rights. However, it was clearly an oversight to punish these acts while not taking equivalent action for serious breaches of international humanitarian law. So what does this new expanded set of regulations mean?
As the name sets out the new global human rights and international human rights humanitarian law, Sanctions Regulations 26, I'll just call them. The new regulations expand the former regulations that serious breaches of international human humanitarian law around the world now constitute designated designated activity. Previously, this was not a consistent policy of the British government. Such breaches could be designated in countries which face their own UK geographic sanctions. Regimes such as Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. And this change is common sense. Some examples of serious breaches include armed actors targeting defenceless civilians, performing public executions, and a state of deporting or transferring parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.
One of the chief catalysts for this action was the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu, making a clear statement that it is intended to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state, and with it, the two state solution through illegal settlement expansions, particularly in the case of each of the E1 project. This breaches the rights of Palestinians for self-determination. Israel always had a right to defend itself in a proportionate manner after the heinous terror attacks of the 7th of October 2023. However, what we have seen in both Gaza and the West Bank has gone far beyond this.
This government has thankfully accepted the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, and my right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, was exactly right to say in his statement of the 8th of September, if the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no. Nevertheless, without a new statutory instrument, normal economic relationships with illegal settlements would have been effectively maintained. The previous regulations did not afford the government the power to systematically oppose their creation through financial and construction and their creation through financing and construction.
Originating in the UK. The previous regulations, while a good step, were inadequate for the government to deliver on its obligations under international humanitarian law. While I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the previous regulations with the new ones, two questions remain which I would like to put to the Minister. How will the government monitor those who commit acts which may make them liable to designation, and how swiftly will we act upon reliable reports of such acts? I'm sure that in the particular case of the government's ambition, with its allies to stop Iran being built and protect the two state solution, the Foreign Secretary's statement on the.
To the House and the 8th of September, and the joint statement from this and other governments on on how we will take action against settlement expansion was a meaningful factor in the Israeli attorney General's delaying the opening of construction and and and financing tenders to mid November. A long sentence in one breath to support the government's action, the Appg on Britain and Palestine, which I co-chair with my honourable friend the member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, has written to over 150 financial and business entities, trade associations and regulators to inform them of the obligations these regulations place on them, their members and those under their regulatory purview.
Currently, we've had a response of 27 from some of those entities. It is evident that the government's initial announcement on the 8th of September was a good warning for them to avoid involvement in EU one. Nevertheless, that response rate suggests that people haven't quite got the message. We cannot afford to march to the edge of action, only to falter when we're finally shown the collective action of the UK and our allies to be a powerful threat against breaches of international humanitarian law. I therefore ask the minister what work does his department is his Department undertaking to ensure that this unity of purpose, particularly between those who are co-signatories of the Joint Foreign Minister's statement on the two state solution on the 8th of September translates into unity and action?
Does he also. Does he also view these measures as sufficient to combat activities to maintain existing settlements? If not, what action will he take to ensure that this is the case? Only yesterday it was. I was approached by a journalist with evidence of jobs in medical clinics, in illegal settlements being advertised in this country at an event in London last weekend. I know the government was outraged by the advertising, the advertisement of illegal settlement properties of the great Israeli real estate event, which took place a few months ago in London. So what action can the government take to ensure that these activities cannot happen again?
As I've said, I fully support these new regulations. However, will be interested to know whether creating a set of activity based regulations applying to all existing settlements, not just the the new ones, would would be a better approach. I'm grateful for your time, Mr. Stringer, and thank you also the members of the committee.
These are significant penalties, penalties and those who are designated to face them are only designated on reasonable grounds. While the 2018 Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act was certainly an important piece of legislation, recent events have shown that incompleteness of its implementation, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations from 2020, which the regulations were debating replace, was, of course, correct to punish those who perpetrate violations of human rights. However, it was clearly an oversight to punish these acts while not taking equivalent action for serious breaches of international humanitarian law. So what does this new expanded set of regulations mean?
As the name sets out the new global human rights and international human rights humanitarian law, Sanctions Regulations 26, I'll just call them. The new regulations expand the former regulations that serious breaches of international human humanitarian law around the world now constitute designated designated activity. Previously, this was not a consistent policy of the British government. Such breaches could be designated in countries which face their own UK geographic sanctions. Regimes such as Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. And this change is common sense. Some examples of serious breaches include armed actors targeting defenceless civilians, performing public executions, and a state of deporting or transferring parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.
One of the chief catalysts for this action was the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu, making a clear statement that it is intended to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state, and with it, the two state solution through illegal settlement expansions, particularly in the case of each of the E1 project. This breaches the rights of Palestinians for self-determination. Israel always had a right to defend itself in a proportionate manner after the heinous terror attacks of the 7th of October 2023. However, what we have seen in both Gaza and the West Bank has gone far beyond this.
This government has thankfully accepted the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, and my right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, was exactly right to say in his statement of the 8th of September, if the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no. Nevertheless, without a new statutory instrument, normal economic relationships with illegal settlements would have been effectively maintained. The previous regulations did not afford the government the power to systematically oppose their creation through financial and construction and their creation through financing and construction.
Originating in the UK. The previous regulations, while a good step, were inadequate for the government to deliver on its obligations under international humanitarian law. While I wholeheartedly support the replacement of the previous regulations with the new ones, two questions remain which I would like to put to the Minister. How will the government monitor those who commit acts which may make them liable to designation, and how swiftly will we act upon reliable reports of such acts? I'm sure that in the particular case of the government's ambition, with its allies to stop Iran being built and protect the two state solution, the Foreign Secretary's statement on the.
To the House and the 8th of September, and the joint statement from this and other governments on on how we will take action against settlement expansion was a meaningful factor in the Israeli attorney General's delaying the opening of construction and and and financing tenders to mid November. A long sentence in one breath to support the government's action, the Appg on Britain and Palestine, which I co-chair with my honourable friend the member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, has written to over 150 financial and business entities, trade associations and regulators to inform them of the obligations these regulations place on them, their members and those under their regulatory purview.
Currently, we've had a response of 27 from some of those entities. It is evident that the government's initial announcement on the 8th of September was a good warning for them to avoid involvement in EU one. Nevertheless, that response rate suggests that people haven't quite got the message. We cannot afford to march to the edge of action, only to falter when we're finally shown the collective action of the UK and our allies to be a powerful threat against breaches of international humanitarian law. I therefore ask the minister what work does his department is his Department undertaking to ensure that this unity of purpose, particularly between those who are co-signatories of the Joint Foreign Minister's statement on the two state solution on the 8th of September translates into unity and action?
Does he also. Does he also view these measures as sufficient to combat activities to maintain existing settlements? If not, what action will he take to ensure that this is the case? Only yesterday it was. I was approached by a journalist with evidence of jobs in medical clinics, in illegal settlements being advertised in this country at an event in London last weekend. I know the government was outraged by the advertising, the advertisement of illegal settlement properties of the great Israeli real estate event, which took place a few months ago in London. So what action can the government take to ensure that these activities cannot happen again?
As I've said, I fully support these new regulations. However, will be interested to know whether creating a set of activity based regulations applying to all existing settlements, not just the the new ones, would would be a better approach. I'm grateful for your time, Mr. Stringer, and thank you also the members of the committee.
16:52
16:52
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. This is an encouraging and very welcome step forward. The Liberal Democrats have long pushed for a greater use of the UK's sanction regime to target those whose actions are actively undermining human rights, targeting the most vulnerable and perpetrating war crimes. It is important and right that the legislation more fully provides for responded to egregious violations of international humanitarian law. This is particularly so at a time when millions around the world are facing humanitarian crises. Yet while brave humanitarians are doing their best to provide life saving assistance, other actors are actively undermining, obstructing, or preventing those efforts.
The Liberal Democrats support this legislation and will back it. But in setting out our support for this, it is also vital to note that this is whilst an important step forward, not the final step. This legislation furnishes the government with the framework needed to stand up for human rights and international humanitarian law around the world. It is a tool and a powerful one, which allows the UK to take targeted measures to stand up for the most vulnerable people around the world. So what matters now is the government's willingness to use this tool given to it, to it by the House to stand up for the values it has articulated and take on with our support.
Those powerful forces who believe that they can act with impunity. The government must have the courage of his convictions. And in light of the provisions set out in this legislation, it must evaluate without fear or favour the actions of all those friend or foe whose actions are both fuelling and carrying out violence, displacement, famine and human rights abuses around the world. The legislation opens the door to further sanctions and greater accountability. The government must grasp this opportunity and members across the House must demand it.
The Liberal Democrats support this legislation and will back it. But in setting out our support for this, it is also vital to note that this is whilst an important step forward, not the final step. This legislation furnishes the government with the framework needed to stand up for human rights and international humanitarian law around the world. It is a tool and a powerful one, which allows the UK to take targeted measures to stand up for the most vulnerable people around the world. So what matters now is the government's willingness to use this tool given to it, to it by the House to stand up for the values it has articulated and take on with our support.
Those powerful forces who believe that they can act with impunity. The government must have the courage of his convictions. And in light of the provisions set out in this legislation, it must evaluate without fear or favour the actions of all those friend or foe whose actions are both fuelling and carrying out violence, displacement, famine and human rights abuses around the world. The legislation opens the door to further sanctions and greater accountability. The government must grasp this opportunity and members across the House must demand it.
16:54
16:54
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think often in these delegated legislation committees, we think we're just going to be talking about technical issues and maybe not covering matters that are of groundbreaking importance. But I have to say, I feel a bit of the weight of history on my shoulders today. I think I'm the only member who was also in the bill committee for the original sanctions and anti money laundering bill, the same bill as was and referred to previously. So obviously that was being worked on at the end of 2017 into 2018. Back then, the opposition was trying to persuade the government at the time to take on Magnitsky sanctions, as they were known then.
Now, we didn't get very far for a long time, but I'm very pleased that Baron Benyon came to our rescue, who had been put on the bill committee, possibly by mistake, actually. But anyway, he helped us and he managed to get us there. And I'm very, very pleased that the government, the now opposition, the Conservative Party, did then take that on and I must pay tribute to them, because I think they did try and make a success of that regime. But I'm really proud that it's now being expanded. It's so important that it is, and I'm very, very proud that that's happening under a Labour government.
And I do think that we should now take a moment to remember the people who pushed for those Magnitsky sanctions in the first place, not least Bill Browder in memory of Sergei Magnitsky and his truly disgusting treatment by the Russian regime. But we do need to be seeing change here. So I'm very pleased with what the minister said. I was pleased to see the round of sanctions that he mentioned earlier this week, in the one year anniversary of the fall of El Fasher, particularly focused on conflict related sexual violence, which I think is not not often common in sanctions regimes, but absolutely right.
The UK is taking a stance on this. And in relation to that question about the direct consequences of sanctions, obviously, the Minister provided a great example. But we saw with the previous round of Sudan focused sanctions how one of the worst perpetrators of truly horrific violence in the Sudan conflict, who was sanctioned by the UK, named and shamed, then appeared to be removed from the command structure of one of the warring parties. There is a direct impact from these measures and I am really pleased that our scope is going to be expanded because, again, we see in so many contexts, as others have talked about, the manipulation of life saving aid as a weapon of war over and over again.
And sadly, that has only become more common. So it's right that we're taking this action now, and I really hope the government will keep this under review in relation to Sudan. I hope they will also be focused on the fact that we see many external actors involved in Sudan. We've seen that through the UN's fact finding mission report, particularly in relation to the UAE, but other countries as well. I was pleased that the government reaffirmed its commitment to that report in the House yesterday, and I hope they will bear that in mind in everything they do sanctions, but also their actions at the UN, too.
I should mention also in this regard that some representatives from South Sudan were in the House this week, and they said that they thought it was important that our sanctions regime should notice the connections between what is happening in Sudan and South Sudan, particularly also given that the US, for example, has used visa bans on South Sudanese individuals who have been responsible for violations of human rights. And I would associate myself with the remarks made by my friend for Oldham East and Saddleworth as well. When it comes to the West Bank and Gaza, and I'll.
I'll just end by saying, I really think this legislation represents our values as a country. You know, the UK supports international humanitarian law. We have done since the end of the Second World War, and I think we should be really proud about our principles, not just in rhetoric, but obviously with hard action hitting those perpetrators of violations where it hurts. So very, very pleased to see this today. Thank you Malthouse. Oh.
Now, we didn't get very far for a long time, but I'm very pleased that Baron Benyon came to our rescue, who had been put on the bill committee, possibly by mistake, actually. But anyway, he helped us and he managed to get us there. And I'm very, very pleased that the government, the now opposition, the Conservative Party, did then take that on and I must pay tribute to them, because I think they did try and make a success of that regime. But I'm really proud that it's now being expanded. It's so important that it is, and I'm very, very proud that that's happening under a Labour government.
And I do think that we should now take a moment to remember the people who pushed for those Magnitsky sanctions in the first place, not least Bill Browder in memory of Sergei Magnitsky and his truly disgusting treatment by the Russian regime. But we do need to be seeing change here. So I'm very pleased with what the minister said. I was pleased to see the round of sanctions that he mentioned earlier this week, in the one year anniversary of the fall of El Fasher, particularly focused on conflict related sexual violence, which I think is not not often common in sanctions regimes, but absolutely right.
The UK is taking a stance on this. And in relation to that question about the direct consequences of sanctions, obviously, the Minister provided a great example. But we saw with the previous round of Sudan focused sanctions how one of the worst perpetrators of truly horrific violence in the Sudan conflict, who was sanctioned by the UK, named and shamed, then appeared to be removed from the command structure of one of the warring parties. There is a direct impact from these measures and I am really pleased that our scope is going to be expanded because, again, we see in so many contexts, as others have talked about, the manipulation of life saving aid as a weapon of war over and over again.
And sadly, that has only become more common. So it's right that we're taking this action now, and I really hope the government will keep this under review in relation to Sudan. I hope they will also be focused on the fact that we see many external actors involved in Sudan. We've seen that through the UN's fact finding mission report, particularly in relation to the UAE, but other countries as well. I was pleased that the government reaffirmed its commitment to that report in the House yesterday, and I hope they will bear that in mind in everything they do sanctions, but also their actions at the UN, too.
I should mention also in this regard that some representatives from South Sudan were in the House this week, and they said that they thought it was important that our sanctions regime should notice the connections between what is happening in Sudan and South Sudan, particularly also given that the US, for example, has used visa bans on South Sudanese individuals who have been responsible for violations of human rights. And I would associate myself with the remarks made by my friend for Oldham East and Saddleworth as well. When it comes to the West Bank and Gaza, and I'll.
I'll just end by saying, I really think this legislation represents our values as a country. You know, the UK supports international humanitarian law. We have done since the end of the Second World War, and I think we should be really proud about our principles, not just in rhetoric, but obviously with hard action hitting those perpetrators of violations where it hurts. So very, very pleased to see this today. Thank you Malthouse. Oh.
16:58
16:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I to support these sanctions, it seems sensible to me and I would imagine any patriot would support something that seeks to make us more powerful in the world in pursuit of not only our national interests, but our national values. As the honourable lady said, I do, though have I know, she said, we often talk about technical questions. I do, though, have just three short technical questions, if I may, for the Minister. First of all, within the Bill, it seeks to differentiate between citizens of the rest of the world and those of the United States, European Union, Australia and Canada.
Could you explain why those territories or countries get special treatment compared to anybody else? The second issue I had was about transparency of consideration. He will know that one of the frustrations that the House has expressed on many occasions over the last 3 or 4 years has the unwillingness of the government to share its legal advice in consideration of its position under lots of international treaties and agreements, and if, say, for example, a member of Parliament or anybody else, frankly, was to bring a particularly egregious case for consideration under these designation sanctions, how would that person understand how the government has reached the conclusion that it has, either for or against?
Obviously, there are a huge amount of discretion in here with regards to the to the Secretary of State's powers, but I think the credibility of these sanctions and their deployment stands very much in in the contemplation of how those decisions are reached. And, you know, it may be that the government has to fess up to the fact that it's making decisions on on basic politics, right? That there's somebody who under any other guys would love to designate. But actually, there's something else we're getting around the back from them that we need to be cognisant of.
But I just think the government loses credibility if it starts to take inconsistent decisions that are being illustrated. And then my final question was really, when can we expect the first wave of sanctions, assuming this goes through today?
Could you explain why those territories or countries get special treatment compared to anybody else? The second issue I had was about transparency of consideration. He will know that one of the frustrations that the House has expressed on many occasions over the last 3 or 4 years has the unwillingness of the government to share its legal advice in consideration of its position under lots of international treaties and agreements, and if, say, for example, a member of Parliament or anybody else, frankly, was to bring a particularly egregious case for consideration under these designation sanctions, how would that person understand how the government has reached the conclusion that it has, either for or against?
Obviously, there are a huge amount of discretion in here with regards to the to the Secretary of State's powers, but I think the credibility of these sanctions and their deployment stands very much in in the contemplation of how those decisions are reached. And, you know, it may be that the government has to fess up to the fact that it's making decisions on on basic politics, right? That there's somebody who under any other guys would love to designate. But actually, there's something else we're getting around the back from them that we need to be cognisant of.
But I just think the government loses credibility if it starts to take inconsistent decisions that are being illustrated. And then my final question was really, when can we expect the first wave of sanctions, assuming this goes through today?
17:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Imran Hussain Thank you, Mr. Sterling. And of course, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I, of course, welcome, like other colleagues, these very important regulations today. And it's really the commitment to strengthen our firm commitment to international humanitarian law and make clear that there will be consequences for those who breach these laws. I also want to welcome the wider change in direction announced by the Foreign Secretary recently. But as has been made clear, Mr. Slinger, these are only. These regulations are only enabling powers. They do not in themselves sanction a single individual or company.
So the real test is how ministers will how effectively ministers will use these regulations. And as we've seen in the case of the pre predecessor regulations to these, they were used very effectively and continue to be . With regards to the widespread sanctions against Russia. What we must see is these regulations, with the widened scope now used for widespread sanctions against Israel, with its war crimes and breach of international humanitarian law. And again, I welcome the government has acknowledged the unlawful occupation, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank by settler terrorists, and increasing evidence of war crimes in Gaza.
We must now act to prevent the war crimes, and it is clear we cannot continue to allow people, companies and institutions sustaining them to retain access to British finance and markets without consequences. And to be clear, what we. We cannot stop with a handful of sanctions against violent settlers or apply only to future expansions. The existing settlement system is unlawful, unlawful and sustained by a wider machinery. Ministers and state bodies, banks, construction and property companies and technology companies providing surveillance used daily against Palestinians. So I have a number of questions for the minister. Will the minister make clear that these powers target those maintaining existing settlements, as well as those expanding them?
The E one bids can be opened from 19th November, yet no e one related designations had been announced as of yesterday. So will the Minister confirm that designation cases are being prepared by the government and the government will act before the tender advances any further? Will he also confirm that banks, contractors, technology companies and others involved in supporting the E one project and the wider settlement enterprise will be included? Will he confirm that these new powers will be used against those responsible and involved in obstructing humanitarian aid into Gaza? Will he also confirm, as stated by my honourable friend for Liverpool, that the new powers will be used against those who are involved in the serious and arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention of Palestinian children.
And can he set out where the timetable for all of the above. Once again, I'm very grateful, Mr. Slinger. Thank you very much, Richard Burgon.
So the real test is how ministers will how effectively ministers will use these regulations. And as we've seen in the case of the pre predecessor regulations to these, they were used very effectively and continue to be . With regards to the widespread sanctions against Russia. What we must see is these regulations, with the widened scope now used for widespread sanctions against Israel, with its war crimes and breach of international humanitarian law. And again, I welcome the government has acknowledged the unlawful occupation, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank by settler terrorists, and increasing evidence of war crimes in Gaza.
We must now act to prevent the war crimes, and it is clear we cannot continue to allow people, companies and institutions sustaining them to retain access to British finance and markets without consequences. And to be clear, what we. We cannot stop with a handful of sanctions against violent settlers or apply only to future expansions. The existing settlement system is unlawful, unlawful and sustained by a wider machinery. Ministers and state bodies, banks, construction and property companies and technology companies providing surveillance used daily against Palestinians. So I have a number of questions for the minister. Will the minister make clear that these powers target those maintaining existing settlements, as well as those expanding them?
The E one bids can be opened from 19th November, yet no e one related designations had been announced as of yesterday. So will the Minister confirm that designation cases are being prepared by the government and the government will act before the tender advances any further? Will he also confirm that banks, contractors, technology companies and others involved in supporting the E one project and the wider settlement enterprise will be included? Will he confirm that these new powers will be used against those responsible and involved in obstructing humanitarian aid into Gaza? Will he also confirm, as stated by my honourable friend for Liverpool, that the new powers will be used against those who are involved in the serious and arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention of Palestinian children.
And can he set out where the timetable for all of the above. Once again, I'm very grateful, Mr. Slinger. Thank you very much, Richard Burgon.
17:04
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. These regulations are important. These regulations are important in their potential and, of course, in their application. I very much welcome the government's recognition that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the International Court of Justice's historic 2024 opinion. I also welcome the associated sanctions package, including these regulations before us today, as an important first step towards meeting our obligations under the ICJ ruling. These regulations are grounds for sanctions, including for serious violations of international humanitarian law, for serious breaches of liberty and security, and for aid obstruction used effectively and quickly.
These powers can help prevent further crimes and can help ensure accountability for those crimes already committed. So I've got four key points for the minister, and I'd welcome a response. Firstly, what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Will the Minister confirm that as a minimum, the definition will follow that the International Committee of the Red cross, the International Committee of the Red Cross's role under the Geneva Conventions makes it an authoritative voice on the rules of war. The ICRC states that serious violations of international humanitarian law are war crimes. The two are interchangeable.
So will these regulations apply when an occupying power transfers its civilians into occupied territory, forcibly transfers an occupied population or deliberately attacks civilians or civilian infrastructure? War crimes Israel has repeatedly carried out? And will these powers cover international humanitarian law violations across all Israeli settlements, not just new ones, and also be applicable to those financing such violations? Secondly, on aid here, as with E. One, urgent designations against those meeting the legal tests can make a real difference. Regulation four four creates new grounds regarding aid obstruction. With winter approaching, aid is again being blocked when it comes to Gaza.
Last week, Israeli political figures joined a blockade of aid trucks bound for Gaza. Without naming individuals here, will the minister confirm that the government is preparing sanctions against those obstructing or supporting the delivery of aid to Gaza this winter? And will the minister confirm that these regulations can apply to officials, politicians and private entities, including UK charities, responsible not only for physical blockades but administrative obstruction of aid, including decisions on permits and crossings, and to those financing aid obstruction. Thirdly, these powers must apply to those funding and supporting violations. Regulation eight makes it clear that an involved person includes those supporting violations as well as direct perpetrators.
Back in March 2022, the government targeted six banks in a package aimed at key industries supporting Russia's illegal invasion. We need the same determination to stop money flowing from or through the UK to sustain illegal Israeli settlements or the wider unlawful occupation. So will the Minister today make clear that banks, charities, financiers, contractors, insurers and technology companies supporting these international humanitarian law violations, risk sanctions? And finally, these regulations will need to be accompanied by additional Fcdo resources to tackle Israeli war crimes. Will the government provide the staff the legal expertise and the resources on a scale matching its work on sanctions against Russia?
These powers can help prevent further crimes and can help ensure accountability for those crimes already committed. So I've got four key points for the minister, and I'd welcome a response. Firstly, what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Will the Minister confirm that as a minimum, the definition will follow that the International Committee of the Red cross, the International Committee of the Red Cross's role under the Geneva Conventions makes it an authoritative voice on the rules of war. The ICRC states that serious violations of international humanitarian law are war crimes. The two are interchangeable.
So will these regulations apply when an occupying power transfers its civilians into occupied territory, forcibly transfers an occupied population or deliberately attacks civilians or civilian infrastructure? War crimes Israel has repeatedly carried out? And will these powers cover international humanitarian law violations across all Israeli settlements, not just new ones, and also be applicable to those financing such violations? Secondly, on aid here, as with E. One, urgent designations against those meeting the legal tests can make a real difference. Regulation four four creates new grounds regarding aid obstruction. With winter approaching, aid is again being blocked when it comes to Gaza.
Last week, Israeli political figures joined a blockade of aid trucks bound for Gaza. Without naming individuals here, will the minister confirm that the government is preparing sanctions against those obstructing or supporting the delivery of aid to Gaza this winter? And will the minister confirm that these regulations can apply to officials, politicians and private entities, including UK charities, responsible not only for physical blockades but administrative obstruction of aid, including decisions on permits and crossings, and to those financing aid obstruction. Thirdly, these powers must apply to those funding and supporting violations. Regulation eight makes it clear that an involved person includes those supporting violations as well as direct perpetrators.
Back in March 2022, the government targeted six banks in a package aimed at key industries supporting Russia's illegal invasion. We need the same determination to stop money flowing from or through the UK to sustain illegal Israeli settlements or the wider unlawful occupation. So will the Minister today make clear that banks, charities, financiers, contractors, insurers and technology companies supporting these international humanitarian law violations, risk sanctions? And finally, these regulations will need to be accompanied by additional Fcdo resources to tackle Israeli war crimes. Will the government provide the staff the legal expertise and the resources on a scale matching its work on sanctions against Russia?
17:08
17:08
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Mr. Springer. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I draw members attention to my role as co-chair of the all party parliamentary group on Britain and Palestine, but I very much welcome these regulations, and I congratulate the Minister for bringing them forward. These powers, of course, apply globally, and colleagues have rightly cited the heinous crimes in in Sudan and in Ukraine. But I want to focus on their potential application to Israel's conduct in the occupied state of Palestine, where recent events demonstrate the urgency of translating these new powers into action. Earlier this month, more than 100 humanitarian human rights organisations, including Save the Children and the Norwegian Refugee Council, warned that Israeli restrictions on aid, essential equipment and reconstruction materials continue to prevent Gaza's recovery.
Meanwhile, the UN reports at least 160 settler attacks associated with the West Bank olive harvest in the first fortnight of October alone, sometimes involving Israeli forces, the World Health Organization reports median approval approval delays of 74 days for medical supplies, with 40% of laboratory and diagnostic equipment awaiting approval. The UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has similarly documented continuing obstacles affecting the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies and equipment. So against that background, I too have a number of questions for for the minister. First is the is the government currently assessing whether these documented actions in Gaza and the West Bank meet the new grounds for designation, including the responsibility of ministers, military commanders, senior officials and those involved in the arbitrary detention of Palestinian children.
Second, will the humanitarian assistance provisions be applied to those responsible for decisions or omissions? Obstructing food, medicines, essential equipment and the operation of humanitarian organizations wherever the statutory criteria are met. And third, how will the government assess financiers, companies and commercial interests supporting or facilitating qualifying violations, including those associated with the maintenance and expansion of illegal settlements? And as my hon. Friend the member for Oldham East and Saddleworth had referred to the great Israeli real estate event earlier this year. I've also been made aware that at Sunday's Medex UK event in London, an organisation was distributing leaflets advertising medical vacancies in illegal Israeli settlements, while another exhibitor was reportedly offering to help British people relocate to what it described as awesome settlements.
What is the government's response to that? Will the government issue new guidance to the Charity Commission, banks and other financial institutions and relevant businesses, making clear their obligations and the risks of financing or facilitating qualifying violations associated with illegal settlements. And fourth, the E1 settlement tender continues concerns 1234 homes, with bids not due to be opened before the 19th of November. So will the government seek to make its first evidence based designations before the 19th of November. While there is still an opportunity to deter further commitments to the E1 development, and will the Minister provide Parliament with a timetable for implementation of these powers and the wider promised action on settlement goods and services?
Mr. Springer, I very much welcome these regulations, but their effectiveness will be judged by whether they deliver timely and meaningful accountability, not simply by the powers they place on the statute book. I'd welcome some comment by the minister and hopefully some reassurance on these matters. Thank you.
Meanwhile, the UN reports at least 160 settler attacks associated with the West Bank olive harvest in the first fortnight of October alone, sometimes involving Israeli forces, the World Health Organization reports median approval approval delays of 74 days for medical supplies, with 40% of laboratory and diagnostic equipment awaiting approval. The UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has similarly documented continuing obstacles affecting the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies and equipment. So against that background, I too have a number of questions for for the minister. First is the is the government currently assessing whether these documented actions in Gaza and the West Bank meet the new grounds for designation, including the responsibility of ministers, military commanders, senior officials and those involved in the arbitrary detention of Palestinian children.
Second, will the humanitarian assistance provisions be applied to those responsible for decisions or omissions? Obstructing food, medicines, essential equipment and the operation of humanitarian organizations wherever the statutory criteria are met. And third, how will the government assess financiers, companies and commercial interests supporting or facilitating qualifying violations, including those associated with the maintenance and expansion of illegal settlements? And as my hon. Friend the member for Oldham East and Saddleworth had referred to the great Israeli real estate event earlier this year. I've also been made aware that at Sunday's Medex UK event in London, an organisation was distributing leaflets advertising medical vacancies in illegal Israeli settlements, while another exhibitor was reportedly offering to help British people relocate to what it described as awesome settlements.
What is the government's response to that? Will the government issue new guidance to the Charity Commission, banks and other financial institutions and relevant businesses, making clear their obligations and the risks of financing or facilitating qualifying violations associated with illegal settlements. And fourth, the E1 settlement tender continues concerns 1234 homes, with bids not due to be opened before the 19th of November. So will the government seek to make its first evidence based designations before the 19th of November. While there is still an opportunity to deter further commitments to the E1 development, and will the Minister provide Parliament with a timetable for implementation of these powers and the wider promised action on settlement goods and services?
Mr. Springer, I very much welcome these regulations, but their effectiveness will be judged by whether they deliver timely and meaningful accountability, not simply by the powers they place on the statute book. I'd welcome some comment by the minister and hopefully some reassurance on these matters. Thank you.
17:13
17:13
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. First, I'd like to pay tribute to Father Bashir, who was a a Palestinian priest who spoke so movingly this afternoon about his experience as a settler, violence and his time to be here in the West Bank. It was it was it was extremely moving. What he what he had to say and what they were actually living to do, I. Well, I really welcome the government's new regulations to extend that to extend sanctions framework to serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary rightly warned businesses on the 19th of October to not accept tenders relating to the expansion of illegal settlements in the one area of the West Bank.
Yet, as I understand that, Minister, the UK sanctions list shows no new designations connected to this warning since the regulations came into force. These warnings will only be as strong as the action that follows. The regulations we are discussing today. Give the Foreign Secretary the power to enforce his calls, and I raised this in the context of charities. There's been reported that a UK charity gave around 5.7 million between 2017 and 2021 to a school in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. Further reporting has identified UK charitable funds reaching organizations that pursue settlement expansion.
The British public gives to charity in good faith. They do not expect their generosity to finance the occupation of the West Bank that the British government itself recognises was unlawful. So can I ask the Minister for three clear commitments if the government will issue guidance, working with the Charity Commission to ensure the trustees know what due diligence is expected to avoid funding organisations or people directly or indirectly involved, or that enforce the illegal occupation of the West Bank. Second, confirm UK individuals, businesses and charities. Financing or supporting settlement activity can be considered for designation where the legal criteria are met.
And thirdly, set out how the government will investigate evidence of charitable funding, supporting serious violations and act on that evidence and report this back to Parliament. Every designation must meet the legal test, but under the standard procedure, that test is reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved. A criminal conviction is not required. So, chair, we cannot condemn illegal settlements while failing to confront the money that sustains them. The government has rightly strengthened its powers. What parliament, charities, businesses and above all the Palestinian people now need to know is when these powers will be used.
Thank you.
Yet, as I understand that, Minister, the UK sanctions list shows no new designations connected to this warning since the regulations came into force. These warnings will only be as strong as the action that follows. The regulations we are discussing today. Give the Foreign Secretary the power to enforce his calls, and I raised this in the context of charities. There's been reported that a UK charity gave around 5.7 million between 2017 and 2021 to a school in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. Further reporting has identified UK charitable funds reaching organizations that pursue settlement expansion.
The British public gives to charity in good faith. They do not expect their generosity to finance the occupation of the West Bank that the British government itself recognises was unlawful. So can I ask the Minister for three clear commitments if the government will issue guidance, working with the Charity Commission to ensure the trustees know what due diligence is expected to avoid funding organisations or people directly or indirectly involved, or that enforce the illegal occupation of the West Bank. Second, confirm UK individuals, businesses and charities. Financing or supporting settlement activity can be considered for designation where the legal criteria are met.
And thirdly, set out how the government will investigate evidence of charitable funding, supporting serious violations and act on that evidence and report this back to Parliament. Every designation must meet the legal test, but under the standard procedure, that test is reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved. A criminal conviction is not required. So, chair, we cannot condemn illegal settlements while failing to confront the money that sustains them. The government has rightly strengthened its powers. What parliament, charities, businesses and above all the Palestinian people now need to know is when these powers will be used.
Thank you.
17:16
17:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I certainly would, Mr. Stringer. And can I start by thanking members for their support for these regulations, but also the powerful and passionate speeches. They've set out a wide range of concerns and issues, both in relation to how the sanctions regimes can be used effectively, but also a number of circumstances in which we may choose to use those regimes as chair. And obviously, as I never tire of saying I don't comment on future designations, we don't comment on future designations. But what I can assure you of is that I've heard very, very clearly a number of the examples, both the themes that members have raised, but also the specific examples they've raised.
And what I would say is that they should always feel free, as indeed should other organisations, to make representations, to provide evidence, to provide information. I cannot always be able to say that how we will use that, but it is gratefully received and is hugely impactful in in the government in deciding on both which designations to make, but also which will have the biggest impact, because ultimately , that's what we're trying to do here. I'll try and respond. I think we've got a reasonable bit of time. I'll try and respond to as many of the comments made as I as I can.
But firstly , thank the opposition shadow minister for his his comments and welcome that the opposition won't oppose these regulations and. He asked a number of questions about the the way in which we reach designations and the. The process. How do we ensure that it's fair, proportional due process and so on? I can assure him that it's it's an incredibly rigorous process, and it has to be because, of course, these designations and regulations have to stand the test of, of challenge both within this place, but also fundamentally in the courts, Mr. Chair. And it's very reassuring to me that our sanction regimes, which are wide and broad and have many, many thousands of designations, have survived the rightful challenge that they're able to be put under through due process in the in the courts.
And I think that is a reflection of the the effort that is put into ensuring the lawfulness, the proportionality, the accuracy of the evidence. And there are a number of processes you asked about review and how we ensure that things are done rightly. We have a ministerial review process. We have reviews by officials and those can go to ministers . And we do occasionally revoke or vary designations. If we're found to have made a mistake, or where there is, for example, an evidence of a significant change of behaviour and therefore the regulation is not is not needed.
It's also very important, Mr. Stringer, that we look at the issues around compliance and enforcement. This is an issue I took on quite substantially when I became the minister in 2024, and worked closely with colleagues across government and colleagues to understand this is a responsibility of multiple departments to ensure that we have good compliance and enforcement. And part of that, of course, is working with businesses, with the legal sector, with those who might be impacted by sanctions. Ultimately, they are responsible for complying with the law, but we want to ensure they have the right information, and we've tried to I certainly will.
Thank you.
And what I would say is that they should always feel free, as indeed should other organisations, to make representations, to provide evidence, to provide information. I cannot always be able to say that how we will use that, but it is gratefully received and is hugely impactful in in the government in deciding on both which designations to make, but also which will have the biggest impact, because ultimately , that's what we're trying to do here. I'll try and respond. I think we've got a reasonable bit of time. I'll try and respond to as many of the comments made as I as I can.
But firstly , thank the opposition shadow minister for his his comments and welcome that the opposition won't oppose these regulations and. He asked a number of questions about the the way in which we reach designations and the. The process. How do we ensure that it's fair, proportional due process and so on? I can assure him that it's it's an incredibly rigorous process, and it has to be because, of course, these designations and regulations have to stand the test of, of challenge both within this place, but also fundamentally in the courts, Mr. Chair. And it's very reassuring to me that our sanction regimes, which are wide and broad and have many, many thousands of designations, have survived the rightful challenge that they're able to be put under through due process in the in the courts.
And I think that is a reflection of the the effort that is put into ensuring the lawfulness, the proportionality, the accuracy of the evidence. And there are a number of processes you asked about review and how we ensure that things are done rightly. We have a ministerial review process. We have reviews by officials and those can go to ministers . And we do occasionally revoke or vary designations. If we're found to have made a mistake, or where there is, for example, an evidence of a significant change of behaviour and therefore the regulation is not is not needed.
It's also very important, Mr. Stringer, that we look at the issues around compliance and enforcement. This is an issue I took on quite substantially when I became the minister in 2024, and worked closely with colleagues across government and colleagues to understand this is a responsibility of multiple departments to ensure that we have good compliance and enforcement. And part of that, of course, is working with businesses, with the legal sector, with those who might be impacted by sanctions. Ultimately, they are responsible for complying with the law, but we want to ensure they have the right information, and we've tried to I certainly will.
Thank you.
17:19
17:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So I guess there are two two things. One is that firstly, we already have in place a actions that we've improved the way we do enforcement and work across government departments. That came in as a result of the review that we did. Those are now being taken forward. They're making a significantly successful impact in in both the information we give externally and how people can report breaches, the information we provide to businesses, to legal advisers and others to ensure compliance. But he did ask more broadly that point about consistency as well across topics and I guess across geographies as well.
And in the existing regime, it had already been used for Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, the West Bank, the designation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, Georgia. There are many, many examples. And of course, this is one part of our overall sanctions legislation. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend previously served on the actual legislation, and of course, there are many different regimes under that legislation geographic regimes, thematic regimes, they are all tools in that armoury, and we are using them in a wide range of geographic and and thematic contexts. But I'm also very, very happy. At any point, should he or any other colleagues want to have more detailed briefings with officials about how the processes work?
I've greatly valued, actually, the cross-party input that there's been on these issues, and we've had a number of sessions with our detailed technical teams, and I think he asked a specific question as well about the new power, about designation by description, and how that's used effectively. And as I said, it provides additional flexibility in circumstances where we can't possibly identify every relevant person individually by name. And similar powers exist actually elsewhere in the sanctions architecture. But of course, Mr. Stringer, any use of the power would have to meet the requirements in the legislation. It doesn't remove the need for designations to satisfy statutory tests.
And that's absolutely right. And that's how we maintain the legitimacy and the functioning of the overall sanctions regime. There were many, many helpful comments by colleagues, and I thank my friend from Liverpool, Riverside. She she raised a very, very important issue about the detention of children and many, many harrowing cases that she has rightfully spoken out on, but also that I am aware of. We're horrified by the reports of mistreatment or abuse of children in detention, many reportedly without charge for for months. And children must always be protected. I'm sure we would all absolutely agree.
And we have called repeatedly on the Israeli authorities to investigate urgently. I cannot comment on future designations, but she can be absolutely assured that this is an issue we take incredibly, incredibly seriously and I'm very happy to discuss that further with her. And a number of other colleagues raised that as well. She asked about how we use evidence. She'll appreciate that. I can't always go into that process and she'll understand why not. But what I can assure of is that it is considered absolutely rigorously. We have to satisfy through our own tests because ultimately that is evidence that has to satisfy courts if necessary, if designations are challenged and otherwise.
So it's an incredibly rigorous process. And I'll be quite honest, Mr. Stringer, I know there are sometimes frustration about speed in these processes, but it is that question of sometimes balancing speed against the solidity of our designations and our and our regimes, and ensuring that they stand the test of time and the test of the courts. We'll keep Parliament obviously informed, and we regularly do, in terms of specific designations that we may choose to make under these new expanded powers will, of course, be keeping colleagues informed on on that. My honourable friend from from Oldham, Saddleworth, she was asking a range of questions, making very passionate points about the situation in in Palestine.
But I think she was also touching on this issue of why didn't we necessarily have some of these powers originally given actually, the much wider range of abuses that we're aware of? And obviously it was a previous government and which the original regime was introduced. But my understanding was that, particularly as we were developing our new sanctions regime after Brexit and having to develop a system from scratch, we hadn't yet been tested by the courts. We wanted to make sure that what we did was effective, was going to stand up. And that's why, actually some of the original powers were perhaps more narrower than we would all wanted to see.
But I'm really pleased that the welcome that there has been, that we are now expanding, that we are taking more powers, that we are encompassing a wider range of issues. Mr. Stringer, I think that's very important. I'll happily give way.
And in the existing regime, it had already been used for Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, the West Bank, the designation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, Georgia. There are many, many examples. And of course, this is one part of our overall sanctions legislation. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend previously served on the actual legislation, and of course, there are many different regimes under that legislation geographic regimes, thematic regimes, they are all tools in that armoury, and we are using them in a wide range of geographic and and thematic contexts. But I'm also very, very happy. At any point, should he or any other colleagues want to have more detailed briefings with officials about how the processes work?
I've greatly valued, actually, the cross-party input that there's been on these issues, and we've had a number of sessions with our detailed technical teams, and I think he asked a specific question as well about the new power, about designation by description, and how that's used effectively. And as I said, it provides additional flexibility in circumstances where we can't possibly identify every relevant person individually by name. And similar powers exist actually elsewhere in the sanctions architecture. But of course, Mr. Stringer, any use of the power would have to meet the requirements in the legislation. It doesn't remove the need for designations to satisfy statutory tests.
And that's absolutely right. And that's how we maintain the legitimacy and the functioning of the overall sanctions regime. There were many, many helpful comments by colleagues, and I thank my friend from Liverpool, Riverside. She she raised a very, very important issue about the detention of children and many, many harrowing cases that she has rightfully spoken out on, but also that I am aware of. We're horrified by the reports of mistreatment or abuse of children in detention, many reportedly without charge for for months. And children must always be protected. I'm sure we would all absolutely agree.
And we have called repeatedly on the Israeli authorities to investigate urgently. I cannot comment on future designations, but she can be absolutely assured that this is an issue we take incredibly, incredibly seriously and I'm very happy to discuss that further with her. And a number of other colleagues raised that as well. She asked about how we use evidence. She'll appreciate that. I can't always go into that process and she'll understand why not. But what I can assure of is that it is considered absolutely rigorously. We have to satisfy through our own tests because ultimately that is evidence that has to satisfy courts if necessary, if designations are challenged and otherwise.
So it's an incredibly rigorous process. And I'll be quite honest, Mr. Stringer, I know there are sometimes frustration about speed in these processes, but it is that question of sometimes balancing speed against the solidity of our designations and our and our regimes, and ensuring that they stand the test of time and the test of the courts. We'll keep Parliament obviously informed, and we regularly do, in terms of specific designations that we may choose to make under these new expanded powers will, of course, be keeping colleagues informed on on that. My honourable friend from from Oldham, Saddleworth, she was asking a range of questions, making very passionate points about the situation in in Palestine.
But I think she was also touching on this issue of why didn't we necessarily have some of these powers originally given actually, the much wider range of abuses that we're aware of? And obviously it was a previous government and which the original regime was introduced. But my understanding was that, particularly as we were developing our new sanctions regime after Brexit and having to develop a system from scratch, we hadn't yet been tested by the courts. We wanted to make sure that what we did was effective, was going to stand up. And that's why, actually some of the original powers were perhaps more narrower than we would all wanted to see.
But I'm really pleased that the welcome that there has been, that we are now expanding, that we are taking more powers, that we are encompassing a wider range of issues. Mr. Stringer, I think that's very important. I'll happily give way.
17:24
17:24
17:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And this was a point that was made actually by a number of members. Our position on settlements is very, very clear. They are all unlawful. They are all legal. The occupation is unlawful. That will be what guides our approach. I'm not going to get into the specifics, but she can be assured that our view is about all settlements. But obviously there is a particular challenge that we all accept, and a number of members raised about the particular, the E1 project and the expansion of particular actions that are going on at at the moment. And again, thank her for her work on the the Appg.
A number of members actually, in that regard, asked why we haven't yet announced any designations to prevent the development of E1M you know, we've obviously tried to move as fast as we can in terms of these new powers. You members will note that we, of course, set out on the 8th of September, we'll be introducing a specific settlement trade related regime as well that will take longer. This was important to get these powers in place. Now we now, hopefully, with the permission of this committee and the other place will have powers secure and in place.
I won't comment on when we might choose to use them, how we will use them. But I'm very conscious of the the very specific things that are, are going on and we are building designations. I do want to assure colleagues in relation to that, and we will ensure that they're effective as a part of a wider strategy, which is aimed at isolating, restricting, changing the behaviour of those targeting, sending a clear message about our position on this, I can also assure colleagues that even the fact that we have announced these measures is already impacting on behaviour, and I hope he's focusing the minds, and I say this very sincerely.
I hope he's focusing the minds of those who might consider being involved in the expansion of these legal settlements, and particularly the E1 project. We've set a very clear message. I've sent a clear message to Foreign Secretary, sent a clear message to the Prime Minister, sent a clear message. Businesses and others, including those in the provision of services, should hear that message. They should heed that message because we will not be hesitating to act. And I also want to assure colleagues that although the Foreign Secretary is very clear that we can take up to 6 to 9 months for the wider settlement regime, we will be seeking every opportunity to accelerate that whilst ensuring it's properly viable and has a very, very strong legal basis.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson I want to thank her again for her for her contribution and indeed the the the welcome for the legislation and the passion she set out and also the challenge. And we welcome that scrutiny. And it's good to be able to work across party on these. My right hon. Friend from Oxford East. I already commended for her work originally on the the Samler Bill, and she rightly pointed out others who who have who have stood up actually on a range of regimes. And she mentioned sir Bill Browder and indeed Baron Bennion and others.
And there have been many, many strong advocates across the House for powers to act in a wide range of circumstances. I am very, very glad that we are taking more, more powers. I thank her for a welcome about the measures we announced in relation to Al-fashir and you know my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa spoke very passionately yesterday about some of the testimony that she'd heard about the absolute horrors that were seen in Al-fashir. We are all, I can assure her, resolutely focused on preventing a further deterioration of the situation in Sudan. And indeed, she rightly mentioned South Sudan as.
As well, we will be looking at every single way in which we can do that, including, of course, through sanctions and designation regimes. And she quite rightly pointed out a way in which our regime has already had an impact on a particular individual. The member from North West Hampshire asked a very particular question about citizens and encouragement. I will make sure we write to him about that and get him a technical answer on that. He asked about when? I'm afraid I can't, I can't reveal that today in the committee, Mr. Stringer, but I can assure him we don't take powers without intending to use them.
There will be a range of measures that are laid before this House in due course, and I hope members will be reassured when they see those, but also that they will apply to a wide range of contexts. We've heard a number of those mentioned today. I appreciate, you know, there is a desire from those who perhaps provide information or raise concerns. They want an explanation about why and things are decided or not decided and consistency and so on. He'll understand. We we don't normally put forward obviously legal advice or the individual circumstances and why we decide or not.
What I can tell them is we're always looking at with the constraints of resource, of legal capacity. And there is a huge amount invested in this in the department. And we've ensured that that is protected and further invested in. We also want to have the biggest impact, and there are many, many thousands of people that I would like to take sanctions action on every single day, but I want to have the impact that is the biggest impact, and that is is disrupting, deterring, changing the behaviour of those actors that we're seeking to, to influence the my honourable friend from Bradford East thank him for his his welcome for this and also for his reference to the government's wider policies in relation to settler violence and terrorism on the West Bank.
And I and I can assure him that it won't just be sanctions, sanctions. You know, we are taking every action we can, including, of course, raising the concerns directly with the Israeli government. I made very, very clear, you know, settlements, you know, illegal settlements. They are unlawful. So is the occupation. We've been absolutely clear about that. We absolutely made it very clear that we will be taking action on services as well and on those obstructing aid. And of course, that can apply in a wide range of contexts. And indeed, I referred already to the detention issues that I think so horrify members on on this committee.
I thank my hon. Friend from Leeds East as well, and he asked specifically what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Mr. Stringer International humanitarian law seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict to protect people who are not, or who are no longer participating in hostilities. Colleagues will know this and limits the methods and means of warfare and the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to those familiar with the Geneva Conventions, and other parts of international humanitarian law will know that well. And so the expanded regime allows us to take action where we have reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law have taken place, and a designation can be made where there are reasonable, reasonable grounds to suspect that.
That's the key. The key point here, obviously, this is a lower standard that would be applied in a civil or a criminal court. And I think that allows us the the necessary latitude to be able to to act and to act robustly where we have very clear evidence that's taking place. I hope that that helps him. I've answered the question, I think, about settlements and obstruction. He asked also about resources, and I do want to praise the fantastic teams . Mr. Stringer in the Fcdo who work on these issues. They're an incredible team. They work night and day to make sure not only that, we're able to respond to developing situations and challenges, but also, as I said, to ensure that those designations that we make are evidence based, they're proportional, they're lawful, and they stand the test of scrutiny.
And that requires an immense amount of very, very detailed technical work. Colleagues will appreciate, and I thank them every day for the work that they the work that they do and the impact that it has. And genuinely it has had a very, very substantial impact. My honourable friend from Middlesbrough, I was just thinking, I can scarcely be 14 years since we first came into this place, almost to the to the, to the week, a couple of weeks time anniversary, and he's been an assiduous champion on these issues throughout his time in this House and thank him for his work on the Appg as well.
And, you know, he shared and reflected powerful testimony from NGOs and humanitarian organisations. He also spoke of issues relating to delays in medical supplies, diagnostics and so on. And I can absolutely assure him that all of that sort of evidence is the sort of thing that informs who we will choose to act on. And again, he raised the issue about services, which we've made clear we will take action on, and I hope very much, as I said, the fact we've announced this, Mr. Stringer, is already having a deterrent effect. I'm very confident of that. But people should be in no doubt that we will seek to act against specific individuals and organisations.
And my honourable friend from Liverpool, West Derby, also spoke with great passion and he raised specific issues around charities. He'll know that obviously, regulation of charity for the Charity Commission, but we do look at these matters very seriously. He'll be aware of a number of ongoing investigations and processes, but I. In conclusion, Mr. Stringer, I do want to thank all colleagues for the very comprehensive contributions they've made. It's incredibly helpful for the government to have heard them to have this genuine scrutiny and challenge, and helps us develop and expand these regimes and do so effectively.
We are acting. We're acting on the basis of our values. We're acting because we want to see impact. And I can assure colleagues that further measures will be laid in due course before the House. And again, thank all members of the committee and commend the regulations to the committee.
A number of members actually, in that regard, asked why we haven't yet announced any designations to prevent the development of E1M you know, we've obviously tried to move as fast as we can in terms of these new powers. You members will note that we, of course, set out on the 8th of September, we'll be introducing a specific settlement trade related regime as well that will take longer. This was important to get these powers in place. Now we now, hopefully, with the permission of this committee and the other place will have powers secure and in place.
I won't comment on when we might choose to use them, how we will use them. But I'm very conscious of the the very specific things that are, are going on and we are building designations. I do want to assure colleagues in relation to that, and we will ensure that they're effective as a part of a wider strategy, which is aimed at isolating, restricting, changing the behaviour of those targeting, sending a clear message about our position on this, I can also assure colleagues that even the fact that we have announced these measures is already impacting on behaviour, and I hope he's focusing the minds, and I say this very sincerely.
I hope he's focusing the minds of those who might consider being involved in the expansion of these legal settlements, and particularly the E1 project. We've set a very clear message. I've sent a clear message to Foreign Secretary, sent a clear message to the Prime Minister, sent a clear message. Businesses and others, including those in the provision of services, should hear that message. They should heed that message because we will not be hesitating to act. And I also want to assure colleagues that although the Foreign Secretary is very clear that we can take up to 6 to 9 months for the wider settlement regime, we will be seeking every opportunity to accelerate that whilst ensuring it's properly viable and has a very, very strong legal basis.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson I want to thank her again for her for her contribution and indeed the the the welcome for the legislation and the passion she set out and also the challenge. And we welcome that scrutiny. And it's good to be able to work across party on these. My right hon. Friend from Oxford East. I already commended for her work originally on the the Samler Bill, and she rightly pointed out others who who have who have stood up actually on a range of regimes. And she mentioned sir Bill Browder and indeed Baron Bennion and others.
And there have been many, many strong advocates across the House for powers to act in a wide range of circumstances. I am very, very glad that we are taking more, more powers. I thank her for a welcome about the measures we announced in relation to Al-fashir and you know my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa spoke very passionately yesterday about some of the testimony that she'd heard about the absolute horrors that were seen in Al-fashir. We are all, I can assure her, resolutely focused on preventing a further deterioration of the situation in Sudan. And indeed, she rightly mentioned South Sudan as.
As well, we will be looking at every single way in which we can do that, including, of course, through sanctions and designation regimes. And she quite rightly pointed out a way in which our regime has already had an impact on a particular individual. The member from North West Hampshire asked a very particular question about citizens and encouragement. I will make sure we write to him about that and get him a technical answer on that. He asked about when? I'm afraid I can't, I can't reveal that today in the committee, Mr. Stringer, but I can assure him we don't take powers without intending to use them.
There will be a range of measures that are laid before this House in due course, and I hope members will be reassured when they see those, but also that they will apply to a wide range of contexts. We've heard a number of those mentioned today. I appreciate, you know, there is a desire from those who perhaps provide information or raise concerns. They want an explanation about why and things are decided or not decided and consistency and so on. He'll understand. We we don't normally put forward obviously legal advice or the individual circumstances and why we decide or not.
What I can tell them is we're always looking at with the constraints of resource, of legal capacity. And there is a huge amount invested in this in the department. And we've ensured that that is protected and further invested in. We also want to have the biggest impact, and there are many, many thousands of people that I would like to take sanctions action on every single day, but I want to have the impact that is the biggest impact, and that is is disrupting, deterring, changing the behaviour of those actors that we're seeking to, to influence the my honourable friend from Bradford East thank him for his his welcome for this and also for his reference to the government's wider policies in relation to settler violence and terrorism on the West Bank.
And I and I can assure him that it won't just be sanctions, sanctions. You know, we are taking every action we can, including, of course, raising the concerns directly with the Israeli government. I made very, very clear, you know, settlements, you know, illegal settlements. They are unlawful. So is the occupation. We've been absolutely clear about that. We absolutely made it very clear that we will be taking action on services as well and on those obstructing aid. And of course, that can apply in a wide range of contexts. And indeed, I referred already to the detention issues that I think so horrify members on on this committee.
I thank my hon. Friend from Leeds East as well, and he asked specifically what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Mr. Stringer International humanitarian law seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict to protect people who are not, or who are no longer participating in hostilities. Colleagues will know this and limits the methods and means of warfare and the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to those familiar with the Geneva Conventions, and other parts of international humanitarian law will know that well. And so the expanded regime allows us to take action where we have reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law have taken place, and a designation can be made where there are reasonable, reasonable grounds to suspect that.
That's the key. The key point here, obviously, this is a lower standard that would be applied in a civil or a criminal court. And I think that allows us the the necessary latitude to be able to to act and to act robustly where we have very clear evidence that's taking place. I hope that that helps him. I've answered the question, I think, about settlements and obstruction. He asked also about resources, and I do want to praise the fantastic teams . Mr. Stringer in the Fcdo who work on these issues. They're an incredible team. They work night and day to make sure not only that, we're able to respond to developing situations and challenges, but also, as I said, to ensure that those designations that we make are evidence based, they're proportional, they're lawful, and they stand the test of scrutiny.
And that requires an immense amount of very, very detailed technical work. Colleagues will appreciate, and I thank them every day for the work that they the work that they do and the impact that it has. And genuinely it has had a very, very substantial impact. My honourable friend from Middlesbrough, I was just thinking, I can scarcely be 14 years since we first came into this place, almost to the to the, to the week, a couple of weeks time anniversary, and he's been an assiduous champion on these issues throughout his time in this House and thank him for his work on the Appg as well.
And, you know, he shared and reflected powerful testimony from NGOs and humanitarian organisations. He also spoke of issues relating to delays in medical supplies, diagnostics and so on. And I can absolutely assure him that all of that sort of evidence is the sort of thing that informs who we will choose to act on. And again, he raised the issue about services, which we've made clear we will take action on, and I hope very much, as I said, the fact we've announced this, Mr. Stringer, is already having a deterrent effect. I'm very confident of that. But people should be in no doubt that we will seek to act against specific individuals and organisations.
And my honourable friend from Liverpool, West Derby, also spoke with great passion and he raised specific issues around charities. He'll know that obviously, regulation of charity for the Charity Commission, but we do look at these matters very seriously. He'll be aware of a number of ongoing investigations and processes, but I. In conclusion, Mr. Stringer, I do want to thank all colleagues for the very comprehensive contributions they've made. It's incredibly helpful for the government to have heard them to have this genuine scrutiny and challenge, and helps us develop and expand these regimes and do so effectively.
We are acting. We're acting on the basis of our values. We're acting because we want to see impact. And I can assure colleagues that further measures will be laid in due course before the House. And again, thank all members of the committee and commend the regulations to the committee.