Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Antrobus and Lord Leigh of Hurley

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving the regret amendment in my name, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

Sanctions, precisely targeted and founded on clear evidence, are a legitimate instrument of British foreign policy and have my support. But these regulations do not meet that test. They seem, to many, to be there to satisfy the local domestic political objectives of the Foreign Secretary and his Government.

This is a major change in British foreign policy, made without consultation, without an impact assessment and without a vote in either House. Parliament is being asked to approve powers already in use. That is not scrutiny; it is ratification. I move this amendment because I believe this policy is a mistake.

The Explanatory Note makes no reference to Israel, but the Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place makes it clear, as has the Minister, that his concern is about settler violence in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, and that is driving this legislation through. Let me be quite clear: I condemn such violence, by either side. Those who break the law should be arrested and punished. But I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary made no mention whatever of the numerous attacks on Jewish people in that area. Violence by terrorists against any civilians must be condemned. The Government already have the tools to act: 38 people have been sanctioned for settler violence, and the Government’s relentless and unequal focus on measures against Israel has left many Jews in this country fearful.

The regulations came with three promises: that they would be targeted, that they would not touch Israel inside the green line, and that they would be global. Not one of them survives a reading of the text.

The first promise was that they would be targeted. But a person can be designated not for committing an abuse but for providing “support” for it, obtaining “any other benefit” from it, or being “associated with” someone involved. That is not a scalpel; that is a net, and the Government know it. They have said themselves that these powers

“widen the net … to anyone who facilitates, promotes, incites, or funds”

the conduct in question, including the banks that finance settlement growth. So, what does “associated with” mean? A relative? An accountant? A customer? When the penalty is seven years in prison, a British business is entitled to know where the line is drawn. It is a fundamental feature of the rule of law that the law, especially a law with criminal penalties, should be clear, so that everyone knows what they can and cannot do.

The second promise was on the green line. On 8 September, the Foreign Secretary told the other place that the Government would

“absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]

They would “absolutely ensure” that. So, where is it? These regulations contain no safeguard for trade inside the green line, and no definition of where that line runs.

And what of Jerusalem? Two weeks ago, I was in east Jerusalem, as the UK chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, for the opening of the Beit Hanina sports complex. It is the first ever swimming pool in east Jerusalem. It was paid for in part by the city, and in no small part by international Jewish donors, and it will be handed as a gift to the local community to run. It has been so successful that we would like to build a second swimming pool in east Jerusalem, to match the many in west Jerusalem. But donors have now told us they are not prepared to consider such a proposal, because they may be caught under this legislation. Can the Minister assure British charities that their work will not be caught by this instrument, when their trustees face the real possibility of criminal penalties?

The Government treat east Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, as occupied territory, so I ask the Minister: is the Western Wall within the scope of this regime—yes or no? Could a British citizen who buys a flat in the Jewish quarter of the old city from a Jewish seller be at risk when, if they made the same purchase from an Arab seller, they would not be? The Government, and every party to negotiations, have always said that the status of Jerusalem must be settled in negotiations, not in regulations.

The real cost is trade between Britain and Israel, which is worth some £5.9 billion a year, and at the heart of it sit Israel’s major banks. Those banks lend across the country because Israeli law forbids them from refusing customers due to where they live. Under these regulations, a mortgage in a settlement could be “support”, the interest on it a “benefit” and, on suspicion alone, the bank could be designated.

Anyone who has worked in the City knows how compliance departments work. They will face undefined tests and a seven-year criminal sentence. They will not ask, “Is it lawful?”; they will ask, “Is it worth the risk?”, and they will say no. That is how a boycott of Israel begins: not by decree but by deterrence. The Government say they oppose the BDS campaign, yet they have written its sharpest element into British law.

So who pays? I am afraid that we in the UK pay. British banks pay and firms with US operations pay: US federal law treats measures against any territory controlled by Israel as a boycott, so compliance with these regulations would expose them to US penalties. The NHS pays. One in seven generic medicine packs prescribed here comes from an Israeli company, Teva. British business pays: firms with American operations now risk anti-boycott penalties. Palestinians pay: some 30,000 depend on jobs with settlement-linked employers. This smacks of collective punishment. I ask the Minister: will the Treasury issue general licences to protect the NHS’s medicine supply?

The third promise was that this regime is global. Take Northern Cyprus. Turkey has occupied the north of Cyprus since 1974. The UN Security Council has ruled the self-declared republic as legally invalid, and this country is one of Cyprus’s three guarantor powers. How many designations have the Government made? None. How many restrictions on trade? None. One rule for Turkey, one rule for Israel.

Then there is Xinjiang. Its settler corporation has been sanctioned in full by the US since 2020. Here, goods from the region enter without restriction. Then there is Hamas’s and the Iran-backed Houthis’ hostage-taking, diversion of aid and detention of UN staff, yet Ministers have given no indication that these powers will be used against them. That is not a global regime; it is a regime with a global title and a single target.

The cost is not hypothetical. Within a day of the announcement, Israel ordered the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem, expelled British personnel from the centre co-ordinating—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)]

I respectfully remind the noble Lord that the limit for this is six minutes.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I was graciously given a minute by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, but thank you.

There were 1,962 antisemitic incidents over the past six months in the UK. These regulations do nothing to reduce the tensions in the UK.

I conclude by asking the Minister five questions. Will he confirm that trade with Israel inside the green line will not lead to designation? Will he assure British banks that they will not be penalised for continuing to deal with Israel’s banks? Will the Government define the terms on which people can be sanctioned and report annually to Parliament on how this regime is used, country by country? Will the Government assess the impact, particularly on charities, before going further? Will the Government refrain from designations while Israel forms a new Government at this crucial time? I beg to move.