Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Callanan
Main Page: Lord Callanan (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Callanan's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, when the Government announced these sanctions, the Government and the Official Opposition reasserted our commitment to the two-state solution and Israel’s right to defend itself. We all want to see sustainable, long-term peace in the region. I know there is a broad consensus in the House on that matter. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, we all condemn settler violence, and I hope that the Israeli authorities will clamp down on many of the abuses we have seen.
However, as I said in September, the test by which the Government’s sanctions will be judged is whether they bring us closer to a sustainable two-state solution. We on these Benches are far from satisfied that the Government’s approach is any closer to achieving that. We were particularly concerned by the Government’s decision to announce these sanctions, which will take months to be implemented, surprisingly close to the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, which, incidentally, meant creating a further political row during the lead-up to the elections in Israel. This was a serious misjudgment, leading many of us to suspect that domestic political considerations were at the forefront of the Government’s consideration.
I share many of the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House today, including on the government Benches. I hope the Minister will be able to give full answers to the many serious questions that have been put to him today. If he needs to write to noble Lords to provide detailed replies, I would be grateful if he would commit to sharing those detailed answers with all Peers for the information of the House and laying copies of his replies in the Library.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I add some questions to his extensive list. On religious freedom, the Government have said that these regulations would not affect freedom of religion. What assessment have they made of the impact on Jewish religious observance, including acts of worship, religious visits, religious goods and related payments; and of compatibility with Article 9, on freedom of religion, and Article 14, on prohibition of discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Government keep telling us they are committed to, as given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998? Will they publish objective criteria distinguishing support for worship and religious institutions from financing settlement expansion before charities, donors and banks are expected to apply them?
Will the Government report annually to Parliament on designations and decisions not to designate by country and build an annual review or sunset clause into the operation of the regulations, so that their efficacy, fairness and proportionality can be assessed every year by all of us? Will the regulations be applied in a manner proportionate to their stated aims and consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law? Can the Minister tell us whether the Treasury, BIST, DHSC and relevant financial regulators were consulted on the wider effects, and will the Government publish a summary of their assessments?
Finally, on the necessity of these regulations, what specific conduct could not be addressed adequately under the 2020 regime, and what evidence led Ministers to conclude that these additional 2026 designation grounds were necessary, beyond domestic political considerations? I look forward to the Minister’s response, but should my noble friend Lord Leigh put his amendment to the vote, I will certainly support him.