Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

Lord Gold Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, the new sanctions purport to be global, but in reality they apply only to Israel. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, there have been no designations over Northern Cyprus, which has been occupied by Turkey since 1974. The Xinjiang settler corporation in China is unsanctioned. Ministers have not said that the powers will be used against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza or the Iran-backed Houthis, who are detaining UN aid workers.

Failure to take any action over Cyprus is particularly heinous. As guarantor under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, the UK has a particular responsibility. The UN Security Council declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus “legally invalid”, the Council of Europe has condemned the “colonisation” by Turkish settlers, and the European Court of Human Rights has found that Turkey violated the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots. Indeed, homes continue to be built and sold on their land, including to British buyers, but no sanctions have been imposed. Yet the Government claim that the sanctions regime is global. If so, why has no action been taken in these other cases?

If the Government’s view is that settlement activity in occupied territory constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, presumably that view rests on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies equally to every alleged occupying power. The Government speak out loudly against antisemitism, but singling out the one Jewish state for sanctions raises serious doubts as to the sincerity of such a claim. Does the Minister accept that a decision not to apply the regime to comparable conduct elsewhere could be open to judicial review if it rests on a different legal test? Will the Government undertake to publish the criteria that they apply? Will the Government also now confirm that action will be taken against those responsible for these other violations? If not, how will the Government show that it is not being applied to Israel alone?

West Papua

Lord Gold Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The issue here is that we support self-determination but recognise the territorial integrity of Indonesia. There are many cases where there are independence movements, including, it should be noted, here in the UK. It is usually wise for international partners to raise these sorts of issues in a very careful way. We have raised issues of human rights, but we respect, as I have said, the integrity of the borders of Indonesia.

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, the deliberate abuse going on is terrible. If the Government are going to be consistent with their policy, should they not be doing something more than talking to the ambassador for Indonesia? We have seen elsewhere that they are prepared to stop trade. There is £3.5 billion-worth of trade going on with Indonesia each year. Perhaps the Government should stop some of it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have a range of options, as the noble Lord indicates, and these judgments can be very finely balanced around how to have influence and how to become an irrelevant voice on the sidelines. We encourage Indonesia to co-operate with the United Nations. I do not think that all we are doing is talking to the Indonesian ambassador —although of course we do that. These issues have been raised by the Foreign Secretary and by the Minister for Development, Minister Dodds, in person, in Indonesia, at ministerial level.

Middle East Update

Lord Gold Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right in what he says about the brutal murder in cold blood by Hamas, and we deplore it. The timing of this was purely a consequence of the legal process that the Foreign Secretary completed, yesterday being the first day that Parliament sat. He was obliged to report his decision to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, why do His Majesty’s Government not understand that imposing an arms embargo on Israel plays into Hamas’s hands? Indeed, as has just been said, announcing this on the day when it was discovered that six Israeli hostages had been brutally murdered shows the Government’s total insensitivity and lack of care for the democratic state they claim to befriend. This follows the Government’s wholly wrong withdrawal of their challenge to the decision of the ICC to issue a warrant for the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister and their restoration of funding to UNRWA even though UNRWA employees took part in the 7 October massacre. All this is a powerful message to Hamas that that its terrorism will be rewarded. This is not the way the UK should treat its friends and allies. Will the Minister let me know whether this is just poor judgment, ineptitude or something more sinister?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I should make it clear to the noble Lord that this is not, as he suggests, an embargo. It is a restriction on a very small number of pieces of equipment and it is in order for us to comply with international law. That is the extent of it. UK-Israel co-operation on defence and security remains vital. We will work together to deter malign threats from Iran, protect mutual security interests and develop capabilities, ensuring critical national infrastructure and mutual resilience in cyberspace. We will work together. Israel is our ally. We support its right to defend itself. This is not an embargo.