I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. On 13 November, we published an implementation road map setting out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases.

The first phase, which entailed the introduction of the new tenancy regime, was implemented on 1 May this year. We are now progressing with the second phase of our reforms. That entails establishing a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution, settling issues between tenants and landlords without costly court proceedings, and introducing our innovative database of PRS properties to bring together key information for landlords, tenants and councils.

The regulations we are considering today concern the latter. They set out the registration framework for the database and are essential to enabling its roll-out, which will commence regionally from 15 December. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities with enforcement. The service will be known publicly as the “Register your rental property” service, but I will refer to it as the database for the purposes of the Committee.

The regulations determine how registering for the database will work in practice. They cover who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. Landlords will be required to make a landlord entry, which will include their name and contact information. Entries for organisational landlords will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will share the dwelling entry for the property, but each will need their own landlord entry.

Landlords will be required to make a dwelling entry for each property, which will contain information including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it must include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance information. Landlords will be legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance. Under regulations, they may, however, delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager to reduce administrative burden.

The regulations also allow entries to be made, updated or renewed by certain third parties in discrete circumstances—for example, where a landlord lacks capacity or where a possession restriction is in place when a mortgage provider requires a court order possession of an unregistered property. Entries will need to be kept up to date for an entry to be deemed active. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position. It must generally be updated within 28 days. Regulations give the database operator the ability to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. We will issue guidance on the operational detail, including on the verification of entries by local authorities.

The regulations require landlords to pay a fee to make or renew a dwelling entry. The instrument does not set the fee, but it does delegate that to the database operator. The operator is required to set the fee by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Renters’ Rights Act. We have separately announced the fee of £65 per property per year, pro-rated during the initial roll-out to ensure that costs remain fair and that those registering first are not paying more.

This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement the database. Following parliamentary approval of this first instrument, roll-out of the database will commence on 15 December. Each region will be rolled out in one-month intervals. When a region’s registration window goes live, landlords will have three months to register properties in the region. We have issued guidance showing the order and timings for that. All relevant entries are required to be made by the end of 14 November 2027.

A second statutory instrument will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. We will commence that as soon as possible following completion of the initial roll-out. It will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are not in the scope of these regulations.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the operational requirements needed to begin the roll-out of the PRS database. They are a critical step toward a more transparent and enforceable PRS system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart—in this case, I think it is my first time. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made in this debate. I also welcome this opportunity to address the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.

A fair, honest and accountable private rented sector is important for landlords, agents and tenants alike—I think there is no dispute on that. Indeed, any system concerning people’s homes and property must be transparent. From what I have heard, providers in the private rented sector are broadly united in agreement on that point. The National Residential Landlords Association said,

“If designed well, the Database should make it easy for landlords to demonstrate compliance with their obligations…whilst empowering tenants to distinguish between the responsible majority and the rogue and criminal minority of landlords.”

The Large Agents Representation Group said:

“With the correct design, it would make compliance easier to demonstrate for landlords and their agents…give tenants greater confidence about the homes they rent and provide local authorities with better information to target enforcement against those who fail to meet the required standards.”

However, the NRLA has described these regulations as “a costly mess”. The idea of a national register is not in itself disagreeable, but the proposed implementation and structure of this database is alien to any common-sense approach. First, and most strikingly, the Government have designed the database with barely a fifth of the providers in mind. Landlords with a single property are responsible for just 21% of tenancies in England, according to the 2024 English private landlord survey. The other roughly four fifths of tenancies are managed by landlords with more than one property, including some with thousands. Indeed, around one in five landlords hold nearly half of all tenancies.

It is 2026. Advanced technology is available, yet the Government’s proposals envisage the manual uploading of each individual property. The regulations as they stand make no provision for bulk uploads, forcing landlords to upload properties one by one—Noah processed more animals on to the ark at a time than that. Each property requires around 70 data points, so that is an awful lot of admin with huge time implications, and much of the information required is already submitted to councils through existing licensing schemes.

The Large Agents Representation Group, which represents some of the largest portfolios in the country through clients such as Chestertons, Hamptons, Knight Frank, Savills and Foxtons, calculates that if it takes 10 minutes to register an individual property, as the Government’s estimate apparently shows, that means over 1,600 staff hours for a 10,000 property portfolio—or about 3,300 hours for the 20 minutes it actually expects it to take.

On that point, larger providers disagree with the Government’s estimate of the time it will take to upload data, so the associated costs of uploading per property could be even higher. Assuming that it takes 30 minutes per property and there are seven productive working hours in a day, that amounts to 214 working days for a 3,000 property portfolio and 714 days for a 10,000 property portfolio.

That is a long way from being the only problem with the proposed database. The regulations stipulate that landlords must start and end the registration themselves, and agents can supply only certain information. That directly contradicts the Government’s impact assessment, which assumed that agents would register on the landlord’s behalf.

Then there is the lack of an audit trail. Because of the system favoured by the Government, landlords have no ability to verify and validate data on a portfolio basis. They have no access controls nor an audit trail for data uploads, changes or deletions. The consequence of that is obvious: a heightened risk of exposure to administrative errors, consequent fines, which can range from £7,000 to £40,000, and a host of compliance and audit risks.

Then we come to the subject of cost. The Renters’ Rights Act included in its impact assessment an estimated data registration fee of £28.85 per property every three years. Now the Government have confirmed a fee of £65 per property every single year, as the regulations require entries to be renewed every 12 months. For the 80% of landlords in the market who care for more than one property, that represents a significant and unplanned recurring cost, and no one in the sector knows where the £65 figure came from nor how it can be justified. Perhaps the Minister can provide a clear explanation in his closing remarks of how that £65 has been calculated.

Although the providers in the private rented sector are in broad agreement with the concept of a database, they are also united in viewing the approach of this Government as a total disaster. None of the concerns that I have outlined should come as news to the Government, because they have all been raised directly with Government officials by industry representatives. Many of those who I have spoken to thought that the Government had heard their concerns and were making adjustments, only to discover later that they had been ignored entirely. How do the Government expect to earn or maintain the trust of the whole sector when they ignore its concerns and blindside it with extra financial and labour costs?

The Large Agents Representation Group has summed up the Government’s proposals:

“Instead of making best use of data already held across Government and other established systems…the proposed approach required landlords and agents to manually and repeatedly input and maintain information that in most cases is already available elsewhere…creating unnecessary duplication, administrative burden and risk of inaccuracy for all stakeholders. The decisions being made now about its underlying architecture risk embedding unnecessary bureaucracy and practical problems from the outset. This is concerning when significant fees are being imposed and non-compliance carries substantial and lasting penalties.”

The significant additional costs and administrative burdens imposed by this approach are likely to have damaging repercussions. Voices in the build-to-rent sector, a sector vital to assisting in the delivery of new homes, have said

“This will inevitably deter much-needed investment in new homes…particularly at this time of ‘viability crisis.’”

These are just a few of the significant issues shared with me by industry. The database, as proposed by the Government, is not fit for purpose. It is not good enough to impose something that everyone knows is not going to work just so that the Government can claim that they are taking action. The regulations represent the very worst of a Government hellbent on regulating first and worrying about the consequences later. Empty promises of continuing improvements do not cut the mustard. The sector, already saddled by over-regulation and tax hikes, needs efficiencies, not even more constraints.

I implore the Minister to pause the impending roll-out of the regulations, which are due for implementation in just a couple of weeks’ time, scrap the current proposals and produce new ones after proper consultation with industry. I say that more in hope than expectation, so the Opposition will seek to divide and vote against the measures.

It is a pleasure to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I declare an interest as a registered social landlord.

The Liberal Democrats come at this from a somewhat different starting point than the official Opposition, in that we supported the Renters’ Rights Act and we strongly supported the introduction of a database of landlords as a source of really important basic information that tenants should be able to have. We have been consistent in supporting the concept of what is in front of us.

The system that has been devised, however, is nothing short of a fiasco and will undermine the whole purpose of the database. As well as being harmful—or challenging, to say the very least—to landlords and damaging to their business operations, it will frustrate tenants if landlords need to spend that amount of time updating the register one property at a time. Let us imagine that someone is an institutional landlord with 4,000 dwellings. If only one can be entered at a time, it will take weeks and months, by which time the database will be completely out of date for tenants looking at it. The problems of the database will affect not only landlords, but tenants.

We desperately need more build-to-rent landlords to build more rented accommodation. There is a debate going on about the Renters’ Rights Act and whether landlords have withdrawn from the market. I do not intend to get into that debate in detail—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation takes a different view and says that there is a certain amount of churn—but one thing is absolutely clear: the Act is challenging the sector to a huge degree and causing a great deal of change and churn. The last thing that it needs right now is a database that, for our biggest landlords, is completely impossible to complete in any economic or efficient way.

I am grateful to Real Estate:UK for its briefing, and I make no apologies for reading out parts of what it has told me. For example, it says that

“a single employee working through a 5,000-home portfolio would need 2,500 hours or around 312.5 working days”

to upload. That has to be done every year. It continues:

“Without any fee discount or integrative information provision process, a BTR landlord with a 5,000-unit portfolio can expect to spend c.£378,000 a year on registering their properties.”

Furthermore, it says:

“To comply both with selective licensing and the Service, a BTR landlord can expect to pay over £4,000,000 across a 5,000-home portfolio.”

As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, pointed out, the costs are above what was expected at the time of Act’s passage.

It is surely not beyond the wit of Government to produce a database where someone can make multiple uploads and does not need to upload one at a time, and a database that is more efficient than the one we have at the moment where someone cannot even copy data across from one property to the next—even if they have 250 properties that are exactly the same, they have to enter each one individually without copying across any of the data. If the official Opposition press the measure to a Division, which they clearly will, we Liberal Democrats will also vote against it. It is bad for the Renters’ Rights Act, bad for tenants, bad for landlords and bad for the build-to-rent sector that we need to support our housing market.

I will not detain the Committee for long. I just want to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has made some excellent points drawing on some of the information supplied by the organisations representing landlords with multiple premises, as has the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I would like to declare that I am a landlord of a single small one-bedroom flat in Westminster. It already falls within the Westminster city council selective property licensing scheme, which costs in the order of £1,000 and requires me to upload a great deal of information, all of which, as I understand it, is now going to be duplicated in this system. I would like the Minister to explain how that will provide additional information to tenants in areas where it is already available through the local authority.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman referred to the effect of the Renters’ Rights Act, which I think has already increased the disincentives for landlords to go into the private rented sector. I have just listened to the Chancellor explain to us at some length why he is going to bring in better regulation, and at the same time commit to getting rid of homelessness, both of which are admirable objectives that I share, but I am not sure this measure will help deliver either of them.

I think it is the first time in this Parliament that I have seen the Liberal Democrats and Conservative party in unison. [Interruption.] But if they will let me finish, given that His Majesty’s Opposition opposed the Act outright, I am not surprised by their opposition to this measure, although I am somewhat surprised by the Liberal Democrats’ opposition. I take the challenges on the various points in good faith, however, so let me try and reassure hon. Members about what we are trying to achieve here.

First, on how the data is uploaded, I will make it clear that it is not the case that each landlord needs to log on and upload the same information each year starting from scratch. They need to update the information only if the information they have already entered has changed. Once the initial information has been uploaded, they will not need to change it if it remains unchanged.

We have explored options for enabling bulk uploads—something I have pushed officials on. I started from the same position that Opposition Members did: “Can’t we just allow bulk uploads?” We have concluded, after looking into the issue in some detail, with quite a significant amount of sector engagement, that due to significant challenges with data validation and error handling, traditional solutions such as uploading Excel files—one of the options put to us—would add complexity for the user. We are designing the service to be as straightforward as possible for landlords, including those with larger portfolios. To meet their needs, we will enable organisations to add multiple employees to their accounts, enabling easier administration.

We are looking at how to make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing property management systems directly with the service and to create some efficiencies in that respect. We will look to provide a secure digital connection that landlords and their technology providers can choose to integrate with, reducing the need to enter the information manually to register their properties. We will continue to explore opportunities to improve functionality and reduce burdens as the service develops. I hope that that has answered some of the points about bulk data entry.

Not at all!

Well, we are going to look to integrate the management systems of large portfolio holders. I was asked, “Does each large portfolio holder have to sit there and add in each entry every year?” That is not the case. I am trying to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been put to me.

On selective licensing, as we debated at length through the passage of the Act, selective licensing and the database have different purposes. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licensing. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement.

We will, however, continue to review how selective licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses, with a specific view to reducing duplication. I very much agree that, in terms of the information currently held when a selective licensing scheme is put in place, there are ways to reduce the amount of that required once the database is in place.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability. Responsibility for ensuring that registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through the service. Requiring landlords to initiate registration ensures that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset.

We do, however, recognise that letting and property agents play an important role in supporting landlords to meet these responsibilities. To reflect that, agents will be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Again, I come back to the importance of the initial registration in this first phase of the roll-out. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy and health and safety information to them.

A series of points were put to me about the fee. The fee is set at £65 to fund a national service. It is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. I think the shadow Minister has put to me on several occasions, as has the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, the need to properly fund local authority enforcement in the private rented sector—here we are with the means to do so. Every landlord is required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. As the fee is charged per property, landlords must pay each time they register a different property.

The fee has been set in that way to balance fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the service and tackling non-compliance in the private rented sector. The shadow Minister is absolutely right that the NRLA and other organisations support the database in principle, because it will allow us to bear down on the unscrupulous landlords in the market who do much to colour the reputation of the good landlords out there.

In my constituency of Bridgwater in Somerset, there is a chronic shortage of rented accommodation. I am concerned that this expensive and cumbersome system will deter further private landlords from renting their properties. If the Minister does not have a system that can process bulk uploads, he should tell his officials to think again—to go out into the private market and get a system that works. He should scrap these regulations and tell his civil servants to think again.

I do not think we need to think again, because we are already thinking about this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that we are exploring how we can make it easier for landlords, particularly those managing large portfolios, to connect their existing management systems directly with the service and integrate them.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, but if landlords have a way of integrating their service and of providing that faster upload, that is precisely what we are trying to look at already.

Would it not, then, be better for the Minister to pause these regulations now, explore that fully and come back once he has adapted the system, so that that can be incorporated? This comes back to the point I was making about regulating now and trying to fiddle with it later. It is not going to work, as large landlords are telling the Minister. Why not pause, work it out and then come back?

We are not going to pause—I say this to the shadow Minister quite plainly—because we want the database in place. It has benefits for landlords in understanding their legal responsibility, and it has benefits for tenants. This is the first of two statutory instruments, as I have made clear. We think we can do that work, working with the sector to understand how we might integrate their management systems.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way, and then I am going to make some progress, because the same points continue to be raised.

I was formerly a commercial property lawyer, so I want to bring up a practical point about enforcement. The ambition behind the regulations—to make sure that everybody, including tenants, has the information that they need—is positive, but the practical reality is that if they cannot be enforced properly, it will cause problems and delays in the rental sector. I advocate for a pause—that is essential. If information needs to be gathered and uploaded for potentially up to 10,000 properties—an extremely large number—it will probably take a year or more to get that information up. Have we thought through the knock-on impacts? I encourage exercising caution, having seen the practical reality of being on the other side when I was a lawyer back in the day.

We have thought through the timetable and the implementation, and we are confident that we can proceed as we intend to.

Will the Minister give way one more time?

No, I will make some progress.

Fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the reforms in the Renters’ Rights Act. The funding will support councils, ensuring that they have the staff and skills required to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. Fees will be pro-rated during the initial roll-out, ensuring that landlords in regions required to register early are treated fairly. To go back to my opening remarks, we will roll-out the measure on a regional basis from December. I think I have answered all the points put to me.

As always, the Minister is being very generous with his time. He has answered a number of the points raised—I will give him that—but if institutional landlords are paying millions of pounds in fees, the least they should expect is to have a database that works. I welcome the Minister saying that he is continuing to look at the issue, but could he go a smidgen further and commit, on the record, that the Government will ensure that bulk uploads can be achieved? That is the huge failure of the system.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. The Government have looked into the practicality of bulk uploads, and we do not think it is, in the terms he has put it to me, a workable solution. As I have tried to make clear at several points, we are looking at how we can integrate the management systems of larger landlords into the database in a way that does not require them to manually input each of their properties, as has been put to me in this debate. We are looking for those efficiencies—why would we not look for those efficiencies?

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about fees, to be clear, it is not the Government’s intention to use the fees to fund wider costs that are not connected to the private rented sector, but some of the fees will go towards local authority enforcement. As we have debated previously, it is incredibly important that local authorities have the resources to properly enforce the Act.

To conclude, the regulations set out the practical steps required to deliver the PRS database, and set the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will follow. In commencing the roll-out of the database, the regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes that they rent. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I will set out to hon. Members what this draft statutory instrument will do in broad terms before turning to the why. The regulations are made under section 36(8) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. They specify the meaning of “purposes related to policing”.

The draft regulations enable the Secretary of State for Transport—in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency acting on her behalf—to share trailer registration information with the police for use for policing purposes. Where the 2025 Act permits, the regulations also enable the onward disclosure of trailer registration information by police and Home Office recipients to a person exercising public functions for use in connection with the same policing purposes. In short, the instrument gives full effect to the information-sharing framework established by Parliament, enabling trailer registration information to be shared and used for the full range of specified policing purposes.

I now turn to the wider context in which the draft regulations sit. The overarching aim underpinning them is to strengthen the use of data in support of policing and border security. In 2018, Parliament enacted the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, establishing the trailer registration scheme administered by the DVLA on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. For the avoidance of doubt, the trailer registration scheme does not collect biometric information.

Hon. Members will recall the tragic deaths of 39 Vietnamese nationals who were found in a lorry in Essex in October 2019. The police faced challenges in their response, because of obstacles to identifying who the trailer belonged to. Subsequently, the 2025 Act created an information-sharing gateway for trailer registration information to be supplied to specified law enforcement bodies. The Act allows the DVLA to supply trailer registration information to the police for specified purposes related to policing, and its onward disclosure by the police and the Home Office for the same purposes. However, Parliament also required the meaning of “purposes related to policing” to be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That requirement has brought this draft instrument before the Committee.

Before I get into the specifics, I will make two important points. First, without the draft regulations, the relevant provisions that I referred to would not be fully operable. Secondly, in practice, police use of trailer registration information would remain confined to law enforcement and national security purposes.

Let me now turn to the detail. The draft regulations define “purposes relating to policing” by reference to well-established policing functions. They specify that the purposes include: first, protecting life and property; secondly, preserving order; thirdly, preventing the commission of offences; fourthly, bringing offenders to justice; and, finally, any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law. That means that trailer registration information can be used where it is operationally necessary, ensuring that the DVLA can give forces timely access when they need it to carry out their vital functions. That might, for example, be in a safeguarding context. Other potential uses include roads policing or the response to serious incidents, as well as criminal investigations.

I should clarify what the regulations do not do: they do not create new powers, nor do they expand the categories of information that may be shared. They simply define the scope within which existing statutory powers may be exercised. Clearly, the sharing and use of information must be supported by appropriate safeguards. I therefore say to the Committee that the draft regulations are limited and proportionate. They do not impose new duties on the police or the Home Office. They do not alter the wider legal framework in which they sit. Existing protections continue to apply, including under the Data Protection Act 2018, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the relevant public law principles. The Information Commissioner’s Office has been consulted and has expressed no concerns in respect of this legislative change. Taken together, the safeguards are there to ensure lawful and proportionate use of trailer registration information.

Under section 36(9) of the 2025 Act, the Home Office consulted Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and policing bodies across the UK. Responses indicated broad agreement that the proposed definition reflects all policing functions. Where consultees suggested refinements, the Government concluded that these matters were already encompassed within the proposed definition, and that the approach aligns with the established policing codes of practice and information-handling frameworks. In Scotland, the Scottish policing principles will continue to apply and did not need to be separately referenced in the draft regulations. The draft regulations will apply across the UK, and they are expected to be implemented through existing operational and IT processes without the need for new systems or additional funding.

The draft regulations are necessary to give full effect to the trailer registration information-sharing provisions in the 2025 Act. They are designed to bring clarity and consistency to processes that, subject to appropriate safeguards, will support the police and the Home Office in their vital work. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for those detailed opening remarks. The protection and enforcement of our laws protecting our borders must be an absolute priority for Government. Whether individuals are coming across the channel in small boats or concealed in trailers, we must do all we can to prevent and deter these dangerous journeys.

Unfortunately, the tragic consequences of people smuggling in trailers are all too clear. It is right that the people who previously committed these crimes are now in prison, but that should not prevent us from remaining vigilant and taking steps to stop such tragedies from happening again. During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, the Government received our support for the clauses that underpin the draft regulations. Therefore, they will continue to receive our support for them today.

The specified purposes related to policing that are set out in the legislation are very sensible and will rightly enable the lawful sharing of trailer registration information held by the DVLA with policing bodies. Allowing the police and the Home Office to share that information where it is used for the same purposes is also an entirely appropriate measure. I hope the Government will utilise these powers effectively to identify and arrest anyone responsible for illegally bringing individuals into our country.

Given the time available to scrutinise the Government’s approach to border security in the ongoing Immigration and Asylum Bill Committee, which the Minister and I are enjoying session after session, I will not belabour the broader issues with this approach. However, I hope the Government will acknowledge that if we are to stop illegal migration, which should be the overall aim, we must not only seek to smash the gangs, as this legislation aims to do, but deter all forms of illegal entry.

Illegal entry to the UK is both incredibly dangerous and damaging to the British population, and we owe it to both parties to remove the incentives that encourage illegal migration. To overcome the failures that we have seen in tackling illegal migration, measures such as the draft regulations need to be accompanied by a message that anyone who comes to the UK illegally will not be allowed to remain in this country. I fear that without such changes, this well-meaning legislation, while an improvement, will prove unable to address the much broader problems.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a message to the Whips: if they put the Chair of the relevant Select Committee on a Delegated Legislation Committee, they may find that it takes slightly longer than they were expecting—[Interruption.] I am fine for now, but the Whips might want to think about that.

I want to take the opportunity put a few questions to the Minister. First, will this measure be used purely for immigration offences? When I was invited by the Metropolitan police to join the policing operation for Notting Hill carnival, I was very struck that the majority of the offenders who were picked up by the facial recognition technology being deployed were actually wanted for sexual and domestic abuse offences.

I thought that such an event was a very good way to attract those offenders, as it is one where people are scantily clad and therefore might attract those who are more inclined that way—[Interruption.] I can see Members’ looks of shock, but that is the point the police made to me. The Notting Hill carnival is an occasion that people want to attend purely for the opportunity to offend and sexually abuse those taking part, which is absolutely wrong. The facial recognition technology was picking up sexual offenders, not drug offenders or the other things that we might think of with Notting Hill carnival. This legislation could be used beyond just immigration enforcement—for violence against women and girls and other offences—and I hope the Minister can confirm that it will be.

I am also curious to know whether “policing” will include immigration enforcement. Again, from the work we have done in the Select Committee I have been struck by the number of people who have arrived, claimed asylum and do not have the right to work but do continue to work, and immigration enforcement should be able to share information on trailers and other vehicles if people who are here without the right to work are trying to work, so that we can stop that and remove that incentive.

My final point is wider. I wonder whether the Government are looking at extending the registration scheme to boat engines, perhaps in a Europe-wide scheme. If we had a Europe-wide register of boat engines, law enforcement across the continent might have more traceability of those boats that are trying to leave northern France, Belgium and other places. I wonder whether there may be scope to further the measure.

4.41 pm

I thank all Members for their thoughtful consideration of the statutory instrument. I welcome them—that is why we are here. I will start by mentioning some of the broader context, which I hope will address some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands.

The statutory instrument is in the context of our broader work to strengthen border security and tackle organised crime, which we take extremely seriously. I am grateful to Opposition Members for their engagement through the Immigration and Asylum Bill Committee. We are looking through the border security plan to target the whole criminal model, as the right hon. Lady says, from smugglers to the supply of boats, engines, international routes used, criminal finance and online advertising.

We know that by the time people get to the beaches of France, it is almost too late. We are working throughout the whole process to try to address the causes, the supply chains and the organised crimes behind this. International co-operation is central to that effort, and we are strengthening co-ordination with France and other European partners while disrupting organised criminal networks, equipment and facilitators further upstream. To reassure the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, that effort is producing results, as he knows: small boat arrivals down by over 40%, more than 6,500 organised immigration crime disruptions and over 80,000 removals. But these gangs are highly adaptable; they change launch locations, vessels, supply routes and operating methods when pressure is applied. We are therefore ensuring the system can identify those changes quickly, assign responsibility and respond when new methods become established.

In response to the question from the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, I can confirm that the instrument will apply to all relevant policing purposes, which include immigration enforcement operations, the issue that she mentioned of sexual offending and other policing uses. Its purpose is far broader than purely immigration. It is to support the police to have access to trailer information that, by some anomaly, they have not had access to historically.

I am grateful to colleagues for their thoughtful and constructive questions and points, and for their support for the draft regulations. They are proportionate and focused, and do not introduce new powers to collect information, nor do they create new policing functions. They provide clarity and consistency, ensuring that trailer registration information can be used in support of legitimate policing activity, subject to the safeguards and protections that Parliament has already put in place. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026 No. 1071).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer, and to be with the members of the Committee. The regulations revoke and re-enact with expanded purposes and designations criteria the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020. This statutory instrument was laid on 13 October under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument are subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. They entered into force on 15 October.

Since coming to office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action and relentless in pursuing alliances with partners in human rights efforts across the world. 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 for violations, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour. We do it to send a clear message, far beyond those whom we target, about the values that the UK will stand up for, and wherever possible we try to do that alongside partners to maximise the impact of any sanctions that we impose. I often talk about the three Ds: deter, disrupt and demonstrate. Those are the principles at the heart of any of our sanctions regimes and of our individual designations under those regimes.

The global human rights sanctions regime, now the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime, is particularly vital in that endeavour. Since the regime began in 2020, the UK has delivered more than 180 designations, and this Government have used the global human rights sanctions regime to tackle issues from forced labour in south-east Asian scam centres to extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the west bank and those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia.

The global human rights sanctions regime is not our only tool. We 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 suspected of perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular conflict-related sexual violence. As we mark the anniversary of the horror that we saw after the fall of El Fasher, those designations remind perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching and that their actions will have consequences. There is no impunity.

Those recent designations were only possible, however, because our Sudan sanctions regime, our geographic regime, permits designations on the grounds of violations of international humanitarian law. Before we laid this instrument before the House, the Government did not have the flexibility to respond in this fashion to similar atrocities and situations taking place in countries for which we did not happen to have a geographic sanctions regime. Now we do.

As the Minister with responsibility for sanctions for the past two and a bit years, it has been a frustration at times that when we have wanted to take action in different places, we have not had the powers to do so. We now have those powers. That was a commitment that the Government made. These things take time to put into practice, as I am sure the Committee understands, but we now have the powers. They will allow us to act in a wider range of circumstances to have that impact of deterring, disrupting and demonstrating.

The new instrument expands our ability to stand up for our values and to 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 it gives the Government powers to respond with sanctions when aid, for example, has been deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations.

With your indulgence, Mr Stringer, I will now turn to each measure in the regulations in more detail. To be clear, first, 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 of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. I assure the Committee that the amended regulations allow all pre-existing sanctions imposed under the powers that we had to remain in force, and they give 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. This will strengthen the United Kingdom’s ability to respond to serious conduct that arises during armed conflicts, such as the targeting or mistreatment of civilians, where international humanitarian law provides the most relevant legal framework. As the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on 8 September, when he committed to laying the regulations, this legislation gives the UK powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, for example, and those who are participating in the E1 settlement. Of course, this allows us to act in a wide range of circumstances.

Secondly, on the right to liberty and security of person, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations to the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The regulations now add the right to liberty and security of person to that list, ensuring that under this regime we have the powers to act and better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct, which I am sure the Committee will agree is an important power for us to take.

The next area where we have expanded the powers is in relation to the obstruction of humanitarian assistance. The new sanctions regime adds a new ground of the obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance. In addition, it reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations. I am sure we can think of many horrendous examples of this in a whole range of current situations, including those that Members of this House—indeed, Members present for this Committee—regularly raise with me and other Ministers. The regulations give us that new power.

Lastly, the amended regime adds the power to designate by description, meaning that the UK can designate where a specific name is not available and capture all members of a specific group or organisation, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime. This provision allows us to target a greater range of actors who may be responsible for these violations and to take action against them.

The Minister said the purpose of sanctions was to deter, disrupt and demonstrate. Would he like to give the Committee the two best examples he has 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?

I can give the hon. Gentleman a very specific example, although—for the sake of argument—it is one that could actually be done under the existing powers. It is one that colleagues may perhaps be less familiar with, but it is very important and has had a very significant impact. The example is the actions taken in relation to south-east Asian scam centres, which is an issue that has a direct impact on the streets of this country, with people being defrauded and having money taken off them. People are also effectively being held in servitude in these centres in south-east Asia. Not only did we disrupt these networks through the designation, but we actually deterred further action. We also encouraged other countries involved to take domestic action with their own legal processes. That is a very clear example of the two purposes that the hon. Gentleman asked about.

To conclude, the regulations provide the Government vital new powers with which to stand up for British values and respond to serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law around the globe. At this stage, we are not making specific designations, which will come in due course. As Members will know, I do not comment on future designations or when they may come about, but we clearly take powers for the purpose of using them. These regulations give us a new set of tools and levers in our armoury to respond, in a range of contexts, to some of the worst atrocities and violations of the principles that we stand up for in this country, which it is important to emphasise. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I would like the Minister to know from the outset that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not oppose the Regulations.

It is 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; the regulations provide it, but asset freezes, director disqualifications and travel bans are serious measures, and the regulations considerably widen the range of conduct for which they can be imposed. Such powers must be used fairly, consistently and on the basis of sound evidence. I therefore request clarification from the Minister in four areas—I also thank him for his in-depth opening remarks.

First, on the scope, the regulations add three new grounds for designation: serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person, serious violation of international humanitarian law, and obstruction of humanitarian assistance. How do the Government intend to apply those grounds, and what process will govern their use and review? In particular, how will the powers interact with the separate settlements regime that the Government announced in September?

Secondly, on safeguards, in areas of humanitarian crisis, legitimate commercial and humanitarian activity can sit close to conduct that might trigger designation. Under regulation 8, anyone who provides finance or goods to a person responsible for abuses can be treated as “involved”, and that limb contains no requirement of knowledge. What protections will there be for British people and businesses acting legitimately and in good faith?

Thirdly, on the impact, I understand that no specific consultation or formal impact assessment was carried out. Given that British nationals and companies are bound by the regulations wherever they operate, what assessment have the Government made of the consequences for British businesses, and what guidance will the Government provide?

Fourthly, on consistency, designation requires only “reasonable grounds to suspect”. What evidence will the Government require in practice, particularly for designations “by description”, whereby a whole class of people can be designated at once? How will the Minister ensure that those standards are applied consistently across different conflicts and countries?

As I stated, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose the regulations. We ask only that Ministers put on record how the powers will be used, where their limits lie and what safeguards will protect legitimate activity and ensure consistency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. 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 designations. Will the Minister therefore set out how the new ground will be applied in practice to evidence concerning the detention of Palestinian children? For many years, human rights organisations and international bodies have 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 process and legal protections.

As we know, Israel is the only country in the world that systematically and automatically tries children through military courts. Such courts have a conviction rate of 99% for Palestinian defendants. Of course, we are all alarmed by the introduction of the death penalty in Israel, 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 has led leading human rights organisations, including B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch, to declare Israel an apartheid regime.

If the Government receive evidence that such practices meet the threshold established under the 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 at those who enable and sustain such 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 on the use of the new sanctions power, given the significance of the liberty ground? It is important that Members understand how evidence is being assessed and whether potential cases, including the detention of children, are being actively considered. The creation of this new sanctions ground is welcome. The test will be whether it is applied consistently and robustly wherever credible evidence of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty exists.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I, too, welcome these regulations on global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions. We know that sanctions are a vital tool for the Government to use to promote our British values, particularly 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 such as Vladimir Putin. Sanctioned persons face penalties including director disqualification in this country, asset freezes and being prevented from travelling to Britain. Those are significant penalties, and those who are designated to face them are designated only on reasonable grounds.

Although the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 was certainly an important piece of legislation, recent events have shown the incompleteness of its implementation. Of course, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, which the regulations that we are debating replace, were correct to punish those who perpetrate violations of human rights. However, it was clearly an oversight to punish those acts while not taking equivalent action for serious breaches of international humanitarian law.

What do these new, expanded regulations mean? As the name sets out, the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026—I will just call them the new regulations—expand the former regulations so that serious breaches of international humanitarian law around the world now constitute designate-able activity. Previously, that was not a consistent policy of the British Government. Such breaches could be designated in countries that face their own UK geographic sanctions—regimes such as Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is a common-sense change. Some examples of serious breaches include armed actors targeting defenceless civilians, performing public executions and a state deporting or transferring parts of its own 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 they intend to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state, and with it the two-state solution, through illegal settlement expansions, particularly in the case of the E1 project. That breaches the rights of Palestinians to self-determination. Israel always had the right to defend itself in a proportionate manner after the heinous terror attacks of 7 October 2023. However, what we have seen in both Gaza and the west bank has gone far beyond that. This Government have thankfully accepted the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was exactly right to say in his statement on 8 September:

“If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 887.]

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 the creation of illegal settlements through financing and construction originating in the UK. The previous regulations, while a good step, were inadequate for the Government to deliver on their obligations under international humanitarian law.

Although 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 that may make them liable to designation? How swiftly will we act on reliable reports of such acts? I am sure that, in the case of the Government’s ambition with its allies to stop E1 being built and protect the two-state solution, the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on 8 September and the joint statement from this and other Governments on how we will take action against settlement expansion were a meaningful factor in the Israeli Attorney General delaying the opening of construction and financing tenders to mid-November.

To support the Government’s action, the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, which I co-chair with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), has written to over 150 financial and business entities, trade associations and regulators to inform them of the obligations that these regulations place on them, their members and those under their regulatory purview. Currently, we have had a response from 27 of those entities. It is evident that the Government’s initial announcement on 8 September was a good warning for them to avoid involvement in E1. Nevertheless, that response rate suggests that people have not quite got the message.

We cannot afford to march to the edge of action, only to falter when we have 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 is his Department undertaking to ensure that this unity of purpose, particularly between those who are co-signatories of the joint Foreign Ministers’ statement on the two-state solution of 8 September, translates into unity of action? 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 that is the case?

Only yesterday, I was approached by a journalist who had evidence of jobs in medical clinics in illegal settlements being advertised in this country at an event in London last weekend. I know that the Government were outraged by the advertisement of illegal settlement properties at the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, which took place a few months ago in London, so what action can they take to ensure that these activities cannot happen again? As I said, I fully support these new regulations. However, I would be interested to know whether creating a set of activity-based regulations applying to all existing settlements, not just the new ones, would be a better approach. I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak, Mr Stringer, and I thank the members of the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. These regulations are a very welcome step forward. The Liberal Democrats have long pushed for greater use of the UK’s sanction regime to target those whose actions are actively undermining human rights, by targeting the most vulnerable and perpetrating war crimes. It is important and right that the regulations more fully provide for a response to egregious violations of international humanitarian law. That 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 the regulations and will back them, but in setting out our support for them, it is also vital to note that, while they are an important step forward, they are not the final step. They furnish the Government with the framework needed to stand up for human rights and international humanitarian law around the world. They are a powerful tool that allows the UK to take targeted measures to stand up for the most vulnerable people around the world.

What matters now is the Government’s willingness to use the tool given to them by the House to stand up for the values they have articulated and to take on, with our support, those powerful forces who believe that they can act with impunity. The Government must have the courage of their convictions and, in the light of these regulations, they must evaluate without fear or favour the actions of all those, friend or foe, who are fuelling and carrying out violence, displacement, famine and human rights abuses around the world. The regulations open the door to further sanctions and greater accountability. The Government must grasp that opportunity, and Members across the House must demand it.

Often in these Delegated Legislation Committees, we think we are just going to be talking about technical issues and maybe not covering matters of groundbreaking importance, but I have to say that I feel a bit of the weight of history on my shoulders today.

I think I am the only Member here who was on the Public Bill Committee for the original Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill—the SAML Bill, as it was referred to previously. Obviously, that was being worked on at the end of 2017, into 2018. Back then, the Opposition were trying to persuade the Government of the time to take on Magnitsky sanctions, as they were known then. For a long time we did not get very far, but I am very pleased that Baron Benyon, as he now is—who had possibly been put on the Bill Committee by mistake—came to our rescue. He managed to get us there, and I am very pleased that the Conservative party—the then Government, now the Opposition—took that on. I must pay tribute to them, because they did try to make a success of that regime, but I am really proud that it is now being expanded. It is so important that it is, and I am very proud that that is happening under a Labour Government.

We should take a moment to remember the people who pushed for Magnitsky sanctions in the first place—not least Bill Browder—in memory of Sergei Magnitsky and his truly disgusting treatment by the Russian regime. We need change, so I am very pleased with what the Minister said. I was pleased to see the round of sanctions that he mentioned earlier this week on the one-year anniversary of the fall of El Fasher, particularly the focus on conflict-related sexual violence; that is not common in sanctions regimes, but it is absolutely right that the UK is taking a stance on that.

The Minister has obviously provided a great example of the direct consequences of sanctions, but we also saw with the previous round of Sudan-focused sanctions that one of the worst perpetrators of truly horrific violence in the Sudan conflict, who was sanctioned by the UK and named and shamed, then appeared to be removed from the command structure of one of the warring parties. These measures have a direct impact, and I am really pleased that their scope will be expanded.

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. Sadly, that has only become more common, so it is right that we are taking this action now. I 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 have seen that through the UN’s fact-finding mission report, in relation to the United Arab Emirates in particular, but also other countries. I was pleased that the Government reaffirmed their 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.

I should also mention that some representatives from South Sudan were in the House this week. 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 given that the US, for example, has used visa bans on South Sudanese individuals who have been responsible for violations of human rights. I also associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) when it comes to the west bank and Gaza and IHL.

This legislation really represents our values as a country. The UK supports international humanitarian law, and we have done since the end of the second world war. We should be really proud of our principles, not just in rhetoric but through hard action that hits the perpetrators of violations where it hurts.

I, too, support these sanctions. They seem sensible to me, and I would imagine that 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 right hon. Member for Oxford East said. I know she said that we often talk about technical questions; I do, though, have three short technical questions for the Minister.

First, the regulations seek to differentiate between citizens of the rest of the world and those of the United States, European Union, Australia and Canada. Could the Minister explain why those territories or countries get special treatment compared with everybody else?

The second issue is about transparency of consideration. The Minister will know that one of the frustrations that the House has expressed on many occasions over the past three or four years is the unwillingness of the Government to share their legal advice in consideration of their position under lots of international treaties and agreements. If, say, 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 had reached their conclusion, either for or against? Obviously, there is a huge amount of discretion with regard to the Secretary of State’s powers, but the credibility of these sanctions and their deployment stands very much on the contemplation of how those decisions are reached. The Government may have to fess up to the fact that they are making decisions on basic politics—that is to say, there is somebody whom, under any other guise, we would love to designate, but there is also something else, which we are getting round the back from them, that we need to be cognisant of. I think the Government lose credibility if they start to take inconsistent decisions without that being illustrated.

My final question is: when can we expect the first wave of sanctions, assuming that this measure goes through today?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Like other colleagues, I welcome these important regulations. They strengthen our firm commitment to international humanitarian law and make it clear that there will be consequences for those who breach those laws. I also welcome the wider change in direction announced by the Foreign Secretary recently.

However, as has been made clear, the regulations are only enabling powers. They do not in themselves sanction a single individual or company. The real test will be how effectively Ministers use the regulations. The predecessor regulations were used very effectively, and continue to be, with widespread sanctions against Russia. We must now see these regulations, with their widened scope, used for widespread sanctions against Israel for its war crimes and breach of international humanitarian law.

Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged the unlawful occupation, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the west bank by settler terrorists, and the increasing evidence of war crimes in Gaza. We must now act to stop the war crimes. It is clear that we cannot continue to allow the people, companies and institutions sustaining them to retain access to British finance and markets without consequences. To be clear, we cannot stop at a handful of sanctions against violent settlers or apply them only to future expansions. The existing settlement system is 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.

I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he make it clear that these powers target those maintaining existing settlements, as well as those expanding them? The E1 bids can be opened from 19 November, yet no E1-related designations had been announced as of yesterday. Will he confirm that designation cases are being prepared by the Government and that the Government will act before the tender advances any further? Will he confirm that banks, contractors, technology companies and others involved in supporting the E1 project and the wider settlement enterprise will be included?

Will the Minister also confirm that the new powers will be used against those responsible for and involved in obstructing humanitarian aid to Gaza? Will he confirm—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson)—that the new powers will be used against those who are involved in the serious and arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention of Palestinian children? Can he also set out the timetable for all of the above? Once again, I am very grateful to you, Mr Stringer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. 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 the regulations before us today, as an important first step towards meeting our obligations under that ICJ ruling.

These regulations add 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 to prevent further crimes and can help to ensure accountability for those crimes already committed.

I have four key points for the Minister, and I would welcome a response. First, what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Will the Minister confirm that, as a minimum, the definition will follow that of the International Committee of the Red Cross? The ICRC’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 terms are…interchangeable”.

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? These are war crimes that Israel has repeatedly carried out. Will these powers cover international humanitarian law violations across all Israeli settlements, not just new ones, and be applicable to those financing such violations?

Secondly, on aid, here—as with E1—urgent designations against those meeting the legal tests can make a real difference. Regulation 4(4) 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 are preparing sanctions against those obstructing or supporting the delivery of aid to Gaza this winter? 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, crossings and those financing aid obstruction?

Thirdly, these powers must apply to those funding and supporting violations. Regulation 8 makes it clear that an “involved person” includes those supporting IHL 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 of Ukraine. We need the same determination to stop money flowing from or through the UK to sustain illegal Israeli settlements or the wider unlawful occupation. Will the Minister make it clear today that banks, charities, financiers, contractors, insurers and technology companies supporting these international humanitarian law violations risk sanctions?

Finally, these regulations will need to be accompanied by additional Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office resources to tackle Israeli war crimes. Will the Government provide the staff, the legal expertise and the resources on a scale matching their work on sanctions against Russia?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I draw Members’ attention to my role as co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. I welcome these regulations and congratulate the Minister on laying them before Parliament. These powers apply globally. Colleagues have rightly cited the heinous crimes in Sudan and 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 Organisation reports median approval delays of 74 days for medical supplies, with 40% of laboratory and diagnostic equipment awaiting approval.

The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has similarly documented continuing obstacles affecting the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies and equipment. Against that background, I, too, have some questions for the Minister. First, are the Government currently assessing whether the 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?

Secondly, will the humanitarian assistance provisions be applied to those responsible for decisions or omissions obstructing food, medicines, essential equipment and the operation of humanitarian organisations wherever the statutory criteria are met? Thirdly, 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?

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) referred to the Great Israeli Real Estate Event earlier this year. I have 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 to 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?

Fourthly, the E1 settlement tender concerns 1,234 homes, with bids not due to be opened before 19 November. Will the Government seek to make their first evidence-based designations before 19 November while there is still an opportunity to deter further commitments to the E1 development? Will the Minister also provide Parliament with a timetable for the implementation of these powers and the wider promised action on settlement goods and services?

I very much welcome the 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 would welcome some comment by the Minister and hopefully some reassurance on these matters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. First I want to pay tribute to Father Bashar, a Palestinian priest who spoke so movingly this afternoon about his experiences of settler violence in his town of Taybeh in the west bank. What he said about what people were living through was extremely moving.

I welcome the Government’s regulations to extend our sanctions framework to serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary rightly warned businesses on 19 October not to accept tenders relating to the expansion of illegal settlements in the E1 area of the west bank. Yet, as I understand it, the UK sanctions list shows no new designations connected to that warning since the regulations came into force. The 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.

I raise that in the context of charities. It has 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 organisations that pursue settlement expansion. The British public give to charity in good faith and do not expect their generosity to finance the occupation of the west bank, which the British Government recognise as unlawful.

I ask the Minister for three clear commitments. First, will the Government work with the Charity Commission to issue guidance so that trustees know what due diligence is expected, to avoid funding organisations or people directly or indirectly involved in enforcing the illegal occupation of the west bank? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that UK individuals, businesses and charities financing or supporting settlement activity can be considered for designation where the legal criteria are met? Thirdly, will he set out how the Government will investigate evidence of charitable funding supporting serious human rights violations, and will he act on that evidence and report back to Parliament?

Every designation must meet the legal test, but under the standard procedure, the test is reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved. A criminal conviction is not required. We cannot condemn illegal settlements while failing to confront the money that sustains them. The Government have rightly strengthened their powers. What Parliament, charities, businesses and, above all, the Palestinian people now need to know is when the powers will be used.

Minister, would you care to respond to the debate?

I certainly would, Mr Stringer.

I thank Members for their support for these regulations and for their powerful and passionate speeches, in which they set out a wide range of concerns and issues about how the sanctions regimes can be used effectively and about the circumstances in which we may choose to use them. I never tire of saying that we do not comment on future designations, but I assure Members that I have heard clearly the themes and examples that they raised. They should always feel free—as should other organisations—to make representations and provide evidence and information. I am not able to say how we will use it, but it will be gratefully received. It is hugely impactful when the Government are deciding which designations to make and which will have the biggest impact. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to do.

I think we have a reasonable amount of time, so I will respond to as many of the comments as I can. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East for his comments, and I am grateful that the Opposition will not oppose these regulations. He asked a number of questions about the way in which we decide a designation and how we ensure that the process is fair and proportionate, and that it follows due process and so on. I assure him that the process is incredibly rigorous—it has to be, because the designations and regulations have to be able to withstand challenge, both in this place and in the courts. It is reassuring that our sanction regimes, which are broad and encompass many thousands of designations, have survived the challenge that they have rightly been subjected to through due process in the courts. That is a reflection of the effort that is put into ensuring the lawfulness, proportionality and accuracy of the evidence.

There are a number of processes. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East asked about review and how we ensure that things are done in the right way. We have a ministerial review process and reviews by officials—most designations go to Ministers. We do occasionally revoke or vary designations if it is found that we have made a mistake or if there is evidence of a significant change of behaviour, and therefore the regulation is not needed.

It is also important that we look at compliance and enforcement. I took on that issue substantially when I became the Minister in 2024, and I have worked with colleagues across Government. Multiple Departments are responsible for ensuring good compliance and enforcement. Part of that is working with businesses, the legal sector and those who might be impacted by sanctions. Ultimately, they are responsible for complying with the law, but we want to ensure that they have the right information.

The regulations before us expand the scope quite significantly. Will the FCDO be using existing frameworks to ensure consistency or will those be expanded to reflect the expanded powers?

There are two points. First, we already have in place action to improve how we do enforcement and work across Departments, which came in as a result of the review. Those are now being taken forward and are having a significant and successful impact on the information we give externally on how people can report breaches and the information we provide to businesses, legal advisers and others to ensure compliance.

The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East asked more broadly about consistency across topics and geographies. The existing regime had already been used for south-east Asia, Sri Lanka, the west bank, the designation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, Georgia—there are many examples. Of course, this is one part of our overall sanctions regulations. I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East was involved in the previous legislation. There are many different regimes—geographic and thematic—under that legislation. They are all tools in the armoury and we are using them in a wide range of geographic and thematic contexts. Should the hon. Member or any other colleagues want more detailed briefings with officials on how the process is working, I am very happy at any point to arrange that. I have greatly valued the cross-party input on these issues. We have had a number of sessions with our detailed technical teams.

The hon. Member also asked a question about the new power on designation by description and how that is used effectively. It provides additional flexibility in circumstances where we cannot possibly identify every relevant person individually by name. Similar powers exist elsewhere in the sanctions architecture, but of course any use of the power would have to meet the requirements in the legislation; it does not remove the need for designations to satisfy statutory tests. That is absolutely right and is how we maintain the legitimacy and functioning of the overall sanctions regime.

Colleagues have made many helpful comments. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who raised an important issue on the detention of children. She has rightfully spoken out about many harrowing cases, which I am also aware of. We are horrified by the reports of mistreatment or abuse of children in detention, many reportedly without charge for months.

Children must always be protected—I am 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 my hon. Friend can be assured that this is an issue that we take incredibly seriously. I am very happy to discuss that further with her and other colleagues, a number of whom also raised the issue.

My hon. Friend also asked about how we use evidence. She will appreciate that I cannot always go into the process—she will understand why—but I assure her that evidence is considered absolutely rigorously. We have to satisfy through our own tests, because ultimately it is evidence that has to satisfy courts if necessary, if designations are challenged. It is an incredibly rigorous process. I will be quite honest: I know there is sometimes frustration about the speed of these processes, but it is the question of balancing speed against the solidity of our designations and our regimes, and ensuring that they stand the test of time and the test of the courts.

We will keep Parliament informed, as we do regularly, on specific designations that we choose to make under these new expanded powers. We will, of course, keep colleagues informed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked a range of questions and made very passionate points about the situation in Palestine, including why we did not include some of these powers in the original legislation, given the much wider range of abuses that we are aware of. The original regime was introduced under a previous Government, but my understanding is that, as we were developing our new sanctions regime after Brexit from scratch, it had not yet been tested by the courts and we wanted to make sure that what we did was effective and was going to stand up; that is why some of the original powers were perhaps narrower than we all wanted to see. I am really pleased with how they have been welcomed, and we are now expanding, taking more powers and encompassing a wider range of issues.

Will the Minister also respond on why our regulations would not incorporate existing settlements as well?

This point was made by a number of hon. Members. I assure them that our position on settlements is very clear: they are all unlawful, they are all illegal and the occupation is unlawful. That will guide our approach. I will not get into the specifics, but my hon. Friend can be assured that our view is about all settlements. There is obviously a particular challenge, which a number of Members raised and which we accept, about the E1 project and the expansion and particular actions that are going on at the moment. Again, I thank her for her work on the Britain-Palestine APPG.

A number of Members asked why we have not yet announced any designations to prevent the development of E1. We have tried to move as fast as we can with these new powers. Members will note that we set out on 8 September that we will be introducing a specific settlement and a trade-related regime; that will take longer, but it is important to get these powers in place now. Hopefully, with the permission of this Committee and the other place, we will have the powers secure and in place. I will not comment on when we might choose to use them or how, but I am conscious of the specific things that are going on. I want to assure colleagues that we are building designations and we will ensure that they are effective as part of a wider strategy that is aimed at isolating, restricting and changing behaviour of those targeting, and sending a clear message about our position on this.

I can also assure colleagues that the fact that we have announced these measures is already impacting on behaviour. I say this very sincerely: I hope it is focusing the minds of those who might consider being involved in the expansion of these illegal settlements, particularly the E1 project. We—the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I—have sent a clear message. Businesses and others, including those in the provision of services, should hear that message and heed it, because we will not be hesitating to act. I also want to assure colleagues that although the Foreign Secretary was very clear that the wider sanctions regime may take six to nine months, we will be seeking every opportunity to accelerate that while ensuring that it is properly viable and has a very strong legal basis.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, again for her contribution, for welcoming the legislation, and for her passion but also her challenge. We welcome that scrutiny; it is good to be able to work cross-party on these regulations.

I already commended my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for her work on SAML Bill, and she rightly pointed out others who have stood up on a range of regimes—Sir Bill Browder, Baron Benyon and others. Across the House there have been many strong advocates for powers to act in a wide range of circumstances, and I am glad that we are taking more powers. I thank her for welcoming the measures we announced in relation to El Fasher. The Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), spoke passionately yesterday about some of the testimony she heard about the horrors that were seen in El Fasher. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East that we are resolutely focused on preventing a further deterioration of the situation in Sudan. She rightly mentioned South Sudan as well, and we will be looking at every single way in which we can do that, including through sanctions and designation regimes. She quite rightly pointed out a way in which our regime has already had an impact on a particular individual.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked a particular question about citizens. I will make sure we write to with a technical answer to that. He asked when the sanctions will happen, but I am afraid that I cannot reveal that in the Committee today. I assure him that we do not take powers without intending to use them, and a range of measures will be laid before the House in due course, and I hope that Members will be reassured when they see them. They will apply to a wide range of contexts, a number of which have been mentioned today.

I appreciate that those who provide information or raise concerns want an explanation why things are decided or not and about consistency; the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not normally put forward legal advice, individual circumstances and why we make a decision. I can tell him that we are always looking, within the constraints of resource and legal capacity, and there is a huge amount invested in this in the Department. We have ensured that that is protected and further invested in. We also want to have the biggest impact. There are many thousands of people I want to take sanctions action on every single day, but I want to have the biggest impact that disrupts, deters and changes the behaviour of the actors that we are seeking to influence.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for welcoming these regulations and for referencing the Government’s wider policies on settler violence and terrorism in the west bank. I assure him that it will not just be sanctions; we are taking every action we can, including raising concerns directly with the Israeli Government. We have been very clear that the settlements are unlawful, and so is the occupation. We also made it clear that we will be taking action on services and on those obstructing aid, and that action can apply in a wide range of contexts. I have already referred to the detention issues that I think horrify Committee members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked specifically what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict to protect people who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities, which colleagues will know, and to limit the methods and means of warfare. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to IHL. Those familiar with the Geneva conventions and other parts of international humanitarian law will know that well.

The expanded regime allows us to take action where we have reasonable grounds to suspect that serious violations of international humanitarian law have taken place. A designation can be made where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that—that is the key point here. Obviously, this is a lower standard than would be applied in a civil or criminal court, and that gives us the necessary latitude to act robustly, where we have very clear evidence that that is taking place. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

I think that I have answered my hon. Friend’s questions about settlements and obstruction. He also asked about resources. I want to praise the fantastic teams in the FCDO who work on these issues; they are incredible. They work night and day to ensure not only that we can respond to developing situations and challenges, but that the designations we make are evidence-based, proportional and lawful and can stand the test of scrutiny. That requires an immense amount of very detailed, technical work, which colleagues will appreciate. I thank them every day for their work and the genuinely very substantial impact that it has.

I can scarcely believe that it has been 14 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and I first came into this place—the anniversary is in a couple of weeks’ time. He has been an assiduous champion of these issues throughout his time in this House, and I thank him for his work on the Britain-Palestine APPG. He shared and reflected on powerful testimony from non-governmental and humanitarian organisations, and he spoke of issues relating to delays in medical supplies, diagnostics and so on. I absolutely assure him that all that evidence is the sort of thing that informs who we choose to act on. He also raised the issue of services, and we have made it clear that we will take action on that. I am very confident that the fact we have announced the measures is already having a deterrent effect, but people should be in no doubt that we will seek to act against specific individuals and organisations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) spoke with great passion and raised specific issues around charities. He will know that regulation of charities is for the Charity Commission, but we do look at these matters very seriously, and he will be aware of a number of ongoing investigations and processes.

I thank all colleagues for their comprehensive contributions. It is incredibly helpful for the Government to have heard them and to have that genuine scrutiny and challenge; it helps us to effectively develop and expand these regimes. We are acting on the basis of our values and because we want to see impact. I assure colleagues that further measures will be laid before the House in due course. I again thank all Committee members, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026 No. 1071).