Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

At end to insert “but this House, while recognising the importance of effective targeted sanctions, regrets that the Regulations permit designation on suspicion of indirect involvement, benefit or association without clearly defining those terms; notes the absence of safeguards to protect lawful trade with Israel within its pre-1967 lines; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to (1) confirm that such trade will not be affected by these Regulations, (2) publish clear designation criteria and an evidence-based framework to ensure consistent global application, and (3) provide an impact assessment and annual report to Parliament on the operation of the regime”.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I am happy to place them in the Library.

In recent years, the UK has transformed its use of sanctions and continues to lead internationally in their implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime gives us a stronger and more flexible means of promoting accountability and responsibility, and responding to some of the gravest abuses seen around the world. I therefore respectfully urge noble Lords not to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is motivated by things that are not the substance of today’s regulations, which concern the global human rights regime rules.

To conclude, I once again thank the House for the many insightful contributions and the continued cross-party support for our sanctions regime. We continue to lead internationally on sanctions implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime will give the UK a powerful tool to respond to human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations across the world.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the very many noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I listened to some extremely powerful, passionate and very well-informed comments from all sides of the House, and I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who took the time and trouble so to do.

There were some 40 to 50 questions asked, and I think the Minister answered about 10. The purpose of our Chamber is to look at things in more detail and express reservations, and there are clearly enormous reservations about these statutory instruments. The protections we have asked for and the concerns we have raised have not been answered. It is therefore more than appropriate that the opinion of this House is tested, and I wish to do that.

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor: Citizenship

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am a “Fauda” fan, and I have not got to the fifth season yet, but I will do; I appreciate the pointer. On establishing freedom for artistic expression and freedom of speech in the West Bank and Gaza, there is, unfortunately, limited ability for us to influence what is happening at the moment in Gaza, but in the West Bank we are working with the Palestinian Authority to help cement reforms and support the development of democracy and the rule of law.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am non-affiliated, so it is my turn. Notwithstanding the due process referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, does the Minister agree that, when a senior member of a Government threatens to withdraw citizenship, that can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and, indeed, artistic expression? I would like to widen this slightly further: will he now take action against the Turkish Government for arresting LGBT activists and LGBT people merely for expressing their right to live and exist?

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am generally not in favour of diplomacy by declaration. I think that the right way to go about this is negotiation, and we encourage all parties who either involve themselves directly or may have influence over the parties who are involved to encourage the reinstatement of the ceasefire and peace and negotiations to proceed, as the noble Lord says.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Jerusalem Foundation in the UK, and, as such, that I was in Jerusalem earlier this month. To pre-empt an answer the Minister might give me: yes, I have been to Ramallah; yes, I have talked to the Palestinian Authority; and yes, I have talked most recently to east Jerusalemites. The east Jerusalemites I have talked to specifically state that they have no confidence in the Palestinian Authority, many of whom voiced support for Hamas’s actions. Was this raised with the Prime Minister at the meeting? Likewise, they have no confidence in a PA that have lost control over large parts of the West Bank—we now find that Jenin is, in effect, controlled by Iranian support. Was this raised with the Prime Minister, and what assessment have HMG made of its impact?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

These issues are raised. I do not think anybody is trying to pretend that the Palestinian Authority are functioning as a normal Government would like to—how could they? We are not naive about this. The point is, if not the Palestinian Authority, then who? If you believe in a two-state solution, there will need to be some form of governance at some point—we hope in the near future. The assessment of this Government, His Majesty’s Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and many others in both Houses is that working to build a relationship with the Palestinian Authority—to increase their capacity and make them into the competent Government that we want them to be—is the best option that we have at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend asks about the capacity and capability of the Palestinian Authority. It is fair to say that it does not today have the capability that he describes, and I do not think it would claim to. That is why we have set about this work on long-term security in the region and the understanding that the Palestinian Authority needs reform. Our support is designed to help it address the very real challenges, which I think we all recognise, through concrete reforms. That includes democratic renewal, widening civic space, improving accountability and transparency and fighting corruption. He is right to make that point; that is why we are undertaking the work that we are.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

My Lords, within our mutual aspiration for a two-state solution at some time—and it will be a long time in the future—clearly a big key is education. One of the things that really vexes and troubles the Jewish community in the United Kingdom is evidence of Palestinian textbooks that incite violence and encourage antisemitism. There are schools in Jerusalem which are the reverse of this. For example, there is the Hand in Hand school, financed by British financiers, in which half the pupils are Arab and half are Jewish, and they work together. Was the issue of these textbooks discussed in the meeting with the Prime Minister and, if not, can it be raised, because it is so important?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am familiar with this issue. I do not know if it was specifically mentioned at the meeting, but I do know that it is raised regularly by Ministers because we recognise the concern around it.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, can the Minister elaborate on reconstruction in Gaza? We were all horrified by the videos that we saw when the hostages were released, which showed us that Hamas is in control and has a presence and military arms. I cannot see how there can be a long-term peace if Hamas is in control of Gaza. It will do everything it can to take the aid that we are giving. Does the Minister agree that it is impossible to imagine the long-sought two-state solution if Hamas is in control? So what steps will the Government take to create a democratically elected and governed Gaza and the West Bank?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What is important is that the reconstruction of Gaza is led by the people of Gaza—yes, with support. There is a huge difference between the people of Gaza and Hamas. We want to work with international agencies to make sure that the people of Gaza are given the support that they need. Let us be under no illusions about how difficult that will be, partly because of the issues that the noble Lord alluded to, but also because the majority of the homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. The extent of the work needed means that it will take many years; we will have to support this work for quite some time.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think I batted it away. I gave an accurate description of the Government’s position. It is not unprecedented for two pieces of law to cut across each other. The right way to resolve this is through the courts. Unlike some Members opposite, although happily by no means all, we accept our obligations under international law.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, like the decision not to supply arms to Israel, this was a political decision, not a legal decision. Does the Minister agree that the decision taken in respect of the ICC is simply weaponising international justice and confirms many people’s opinion that the ICC is more a political tool than an international arbiter?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

On both questions, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord. That is not how we view the ICC. We respect the ICC and our obligations as a signatory to it. As for the decisions on export licences, those were made in compliance with UK law.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My noble friend the Foreign Secretary set out five objectives—which I fully agree with—one of which was the elimination of Hamas from Gaza. I went to Kerem Shalom twice, once before 7 October and once after. Many of the people we met before 7 October who were delivering aid to Gaza have been killed by Hamas. The people who were left told us that one of their biggest problems was distributing aid because it was being taken by Hamas before it could be distributed. Do His Majesty’s Government still have the objective of the elimination of Hamas from Gaza?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s position has always been that we need all sides who come to the negotiating table to recognise the other side’s right to exist. Therefore, we have been very clear as part of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary’s conditions, and as my noble friend Lord Leigh has laid out, that Hamas can no longer be in control in Gaza.

Gaza: Hunger Alleviation

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the projections of famine, the report says that one in five households faces an extreme food shortage and one in three children is acutely malnourished. Famine is projected to occur in the northern part of Gaza

“anytime between mid-March and May 2024”.

The issue of food insecurity is very clear. Previous assessments of compliance with IHL have been documented in your Lordships’ House. We regularly review advice about Israel’s capability and commitment to IHL and will act in accordance with that advice.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I visited Kerem Shalom, as disclosed in my register of interests. All the operatives we met have either been killed or abducted and the equipment destroyed. However, Israel—which has never denied Gaza humanitarian aid—now has the capacity to pass 44 trucks per hour into Gaza. On 10 March, 150 lorries passed through, supplying 3,750 tonnes of food, equivalent to four pounds per person. If we are to seek peace, reconciliation and a ceasefire, does the Minister not agree with me that it is very important not to have disinformation, particularly about Israel? It has always sought to ensure that humanitarian aid is supplied wherever it can. The problem has been the UNRWA distribution thereof.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we have been very clear about the importance of aid entering Gaza unimpeded. There have been claims and counterclaims. The United Kingdom has been very clear that Israel is not letting enough trucks through the crossing. The number that my noble friend quotes is factual, but it is also true that 500 trucks were entering before the war. Some statements have been made that commercial items were included within that. Yes, they were, but there was also food grown in Gaza, which is no longer possible. That is why there is an acute need. The 500 that is consistently stated is not a high threshold but the minimum threshold, and it is needed now.

Foreign Affairs

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ahmad, and express some sympathy to my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that, when he received the call from the Prime Minister inviting him to be Foreign Secretary, his mind must have turned to trips to the Arctic, rainforests in Brazil and white tie receptions in Washington as the Ferrero Rocher was handed around—perhaps not a six-hour debate that some would say reminds them of a radio station phone-in without even the break of adverts in the middle. However, here we are. I hope I can add to the sum of knowledge with some thoughts. I refer to my register of interests in respect of Israel, as I will speak on that topic.

First, let us remind ourselves why we have this horrific situation in Gaza. As today’s United Nations report by Pramila Patten finally admitted and confirmed, it is because a horde of people, including UNRWA employees, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lady Altmann explained, committed the most deplorable and evil of crimes against civilians. They were targeting civilians, who suffered not as innocent bystanders but as victims. They raped young girls so violently that they broke their pelvises. They tied and burned whole families together, ensuring that family members witnessed the death of their siblings, parents and children, and committed such evil atrocities as putting babies in ovens.

I am sorry to have to repeat this in graphic detail in your Lordships’ House, but I am afraid I feel I have to, as Hamas has vowed to repeat this again and again. It still holds innocent hostages in what must be unimaginably horrendous conditions. So we need a constant reminder as to why we cannot have an unconditional ceasefire in isolation. Given this report, will my noble friend now push the United Nations to confirm Hamas as a terrorist organisation? He might do likewise with the BBC, but we have tried that.

What option is there now other than to take every step to ensure that this does not happen again? If UK citizens, members of any of our families in this Chamber, were abducted on our soil, I would want to be sure that my Government pursued the perpetrators to the ends of the earth, even if on the way there were civilian losses that, while deeply regrettable, are, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia, the distinguished military expert historian, and many others have pointed out, much lower than one might expect in this type of challenging and terrible urban warfare.

To suggest that the IDF is carrying out a genocide is hugely insulting to the genuine victims of a genocide and to the IDF, which has been commended by our own military as the most humane army on the planet. It consists largely of civilian conscripts and has taken more steps than any other army in the history of human armed conflict to try to reduce harm to innocent civilians.

I applaud my noble friend’s valiant attempts to try to find a way through the current situation. He has set out his five clear objectives and I, for one, would like to support them. However, I will focus on one of his objectives that I believe needs some clarification: his horizon of an irreversible pathway to a state of Palestine. That needs much further thought. I am inclined to support it, and I believe that the citizens of Palestine deserve a free state of their own, but it needs some clarity. Perhaps a conference needs to be secured by my noble friend to address the issues of genuine concern. For example, to ensure that a free Palestine is freed from Hamas, will that state be a democracy or an autocracy? Will it be demilitarised? Will Jewish people be allowed to visit, work, study and pray, as Arabs from the West Bank are and should be? Will inspections be allowed to ensure that there are no tunnels? Will there be no treaty allowing funding or other arrangements with Iran? Will a border be created, such as the one in Cyprus, with international protections? In this new state, will the rights of gays, women, minorities and those with other religious practices be protected in the way that they are in Israel?

There are many other concerns—this is a first list. There is much work to be done now if a state is to be possible and not collapse into violent civil war, as in Sudan. We need to start work now, as there is just the possibility that after Hamas and its military infrastructure are destroyed, there might be a way forward to the peaceful co-existence we all seek.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate has illustrated my point. Faith does provide a solution, as we have just seen in practical terms.

In all seriousness, I am aware of those plans. The position is very clear: settlements are illegal, whether they are in east Jerusalem, the West Bank or elsewhere in the Occupied Territories. The United Kingdom’s position is very clear on this. What must prevail is the real sense that Jerusalem itself is a beacon for three important faiths, which is an important opportunity to seize. We need to recognise rights of access, and the reverence attached to that, but, equally, central to that is ensuring security and stability for Israelis and Palestinians, for Arabs, Jews, Christians and Muslims. That is the way in which we will find a solution. Inshallah, that is what we are focused on.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

As chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation UK, I agree with my noble friend’s last remarks. I point him to the letter in the Financial Times today, which explains that a two-state solution was imposed on Sudan, where there is now the most vicious civil war. Will the Foreign Office, in calling for a two-state solution, now start talking to interested parties about the nature of it—specifically, whether it will be a democracy, whether there will be a military, and whether there will be access to ensure that there are no tunnels? All these issues must be first addressed before calling for a two-state solution.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My noble friend charts a particular process item. That is why my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been clear that, first and foremost, we must stop the current fighting. That will allow aid to go in and hostages to be released. However, where I disagree with my noble friend is that I think that a two-state solution is the viable option. The rights of people need to be protected and the rights of Palestinians need to be recognised. This is enshrined in international law through the UN Security Council, which of course created the State of Israel. It is important that we work directly with all partners, including Israel and the Palestinians. Democracy is a fundamental objective to ensure that the rights of all citizens—Israelis and Palestinians—are strengthened and protected.

Situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend the Foreign Secretary met the President of the Occupied West Bank Territories, Mahmoud Abbas, and will continue to talk to him to find, I hope, precisely that solution. On the noble Lord’s first point, on UNRWA, as I said, we have given to UNRWA what we were going to give this financial year, and the additional sums that we are promising will still get, in aid, to the people of Gaza through a variety of sources that I listed earlier.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister clarify his last remarks? When he said that my noble friend Lord Cameron has had discussions with the Prime Minister of Palestine, can we be crystal-clear that the United Kingdom will not recognise a state of Palestine that is led by the current Palestinian Authority and the Fatah organisation, which has been so involved in terror, and will not recognise a Gaza-led Government where Hamas has either control or power?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, and allow me to clarify. We will recognise a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution at the time that is right and with the leadership in place. We have already talked about needing a technocratic Government who will resolve the issues that exist within Gaza in particular, and we want to make sure that that Government do not have Hamas anywhere near them, or as part of them, and that they are trusted in those territories but also by the people of Israel, who want to live in peace with their neighbours.