Finance (No. 2) Bill
When the Chancellor looked at these measures for her first Budget, she said that they would breach her manifesto commitments. Does the Minister believe that they breach the manifesto commitments?
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
The other point is: what is a small tax? What is the definition? Are we talking about £100, or £1,000? The Government have not even set that out. The Chancellor has just come up with a term that we have no reference for, no use for, and no understanding of when setting tax policy for this country.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
It is a shame that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is not still in the Chamber, because he hit the nail on the head. He asked the question that I am keen to get answered and that is the reason why I have come to this debate. It is about the freezing of the thresholds and what the impacts will be on pensioners. I too am worried about pensioners suddenly being brought in to pay tax and having to do a tax return. I am glad that the Minister saw the interview with Martin Lewis, because the Chancellor was very clear, so he has to try to answer the questions. When Martin Lewis put this case to the Chancellor, she said: “If you just have a state pension…we are not going to make you fill in a tax return” at any time. That is great, but how does that work? What does it look like? Where is that written down? The Chancellor went on to say: “In this parliament, they won’t have to pay the tax…we’re looking at a simple workaround at the moment.” That was back in November, so my curiosity was pricked to think, “Maybe it will be in the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee.” Yet, as pointed out by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), the Bill has 535 pages, and there is no answer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Minister on behalf of my constituents how he will answer that question. What is the workaround in play? If it is there, we should like to see it. Is there an impact assessment that goes with it to help us to understand whether people will have to do a tax return? How many people will have to do a tax return? If they will not have to do a tax return, how will we know whether they need to pay the tax? Will it simply be part of PAYE? That is a solution; it could be moved, and adjustments are already made. Will we simply say that it is an easement and write it off? We then get to the problem of the Chancellor talking about small tax. We have no definition of what small tax looks like. This Government’s definition of it is as close to a definition as their definition of “working people” is, and we all know what the definition of “working people” is under this Government—well, actually, we do not, and that is the problem. I am here asking the question on behalf of my constituents: what does the workaround look like? How will it take place? How will it affect my constituents? That is why I support new clause 15, which would go at least part of the way to understanding the assessment of this decision taken by the Government, but I appreciate that that is outside of the Bill. If the Government turn around and say that they do not need to do primary legislation—the best protection for my pensioners—the Minister can find another way to do it, but I look forward to hearing what that will look like in statements to the House.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I know that my right hon. Friend has been a stalwart in making that point. That leads on to the wider point of thinking about social care and how we will fund it. These sticky points are really important, so we need to ensure that we have this debate. The fact is that we are dealing with the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee. When the Government are making these choices, I am really keen to try to understand the direct impact they will have on my constituents. At the last general election, the last Government—now the Opposition—had a solution in our manifesto to deal with this issue, which was the “triple lock plus”. That would have negated the issue at source. There is a ready-made solution if the Government would like to go for it, but I understand the difficulties of the associated cost, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has pointed out. That brings us full circle to where the hon. Member for Poole started. How exactly are we going to solve this issue for pensioners? Do the Government just need to be up front with them and say that they will have to do a tax return? Will they be pulled into this tax? If they will not, how?
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am about the fact that plan 2 student loans seem to be particularly impacted by the thresholds? I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the way in which people will have to make their repayments.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I think the Chancellor knows that, given her statement at the first Budget that changing the thresholds would be a tax on working people.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
The delay in the DIP and the procurement of these helicopters has been unexplained and is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency, which is heavily dependent in the south on Yeovil and Yeovilton. Will the Minister do everything in his power to get a move on? A Government who want growth cannot afford this kind of delay. Will he confirm or refute the rumour going around that the one of the reasons for the delay is that he is descoping the number of AW149 airframes that he originally envisaged under this contract, and that there will now be significantly less than the figure of 24 that was originally booted about?
- Hansard source
Leasehold Reform
Leaseholders, like renters and prospective homeowners, have been made big promises by this Government. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of botched local government reorganisation, cuts to the budgets of two thirds of England’s local authorities, delays to elections and the wholesale abolition of housing and planning authorities in England’s shires on the delivery of those promises? This is just another promise that the Government are not going to deliver, is it not?
- Hansard source
Local House Building Targets: Affordability Assessment
1. If he will review the methodology for assessing housing affordability used to set local house building targets.
- Hansard source
Local House Building Targets: Affordability Assessment
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. The housing formula has resulted in huge increases for parts of rural England, including a doubling of the number in my East Hampshire constituency, and it should be reviewed overall. However, this question is about one specific aspect, whereby in an unintended way, the mix of housing that is being delivered might be skewed. I have written to the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, and all I ask is that the Department looks at that with an open mind and considers it fully.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
Thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 1,892 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for expounding why this is an important debate. I am in my fifth Parliament now, and I do not recall the Petitions Committee having to call as many debates on calling another general election in any other Parliament. This debate follows last January’s, when 3 million people had signed the petition. Why are we seeing this appetite among our constituents to re-litigate the general election of 2024 so soon after it happened?
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
That is probably 4 million people who have, in that length of time, signed the petition. I encourage the hon. Member to dream on. Why have we seen the robust signing of these petitions over the past two years? It boils down to the fundamental principle of our democracy, which is based around peoples’ manifestoes. We need to rely on political parties to set out a direction of travel in their manifesto and then to try to deliver it. The problem that has led to all these signatures is to do with not having been told in the manifesto about the Government’s plans for change. I could go on for the whole of this debate about the tax changes alone because we were told in the general election that if they were to win, the Government had no plans to raise taxes beyond what was outlined in their manifesto. Within months, in the first Budget the Chancellor raised taxes by an astonishing £40 billion a year for the duration of this Parliament and public spending by a further £30 billion. In total, that is a £70 billion a year increase in public spending—something that was deliberately not stated during the general election campaign.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
The hon. Member needs to be careful about what he says on that front, frankly. On taxes specifically, I do not think he can point to a single time in history where, in three months, there has been such a dramatic change from what was promised to the public in a general election campaign and what actually happened in the Budget. I am going to focus on the non-tax matters. We have lots of votes on taxes over the next few days; I am going to raise some of the other things that this Government have chosen to do in their first 18 months that were decisively not in the manifesto. Giving away the Chagos islands and paying Mauritius to take them was a particularly egregious example of something not set out in the Labour manifesto. On multiple occasions, incredibly important local elections are being cancelled; that was certainly not in the Labour manifesto. A feature of this Government will be the proposed curtailing of jury trials—I notice silence now on the Government Benches, but that, again, was not in the Labour manifesto. I suppose one could grudgingly accept that purging political opponents from the other place was somewhat in the manifesto, but I do not think that stuffing it with political supporters to replace them was. I do not think cutting press access was in the Labour manifesto, I do not think introducing digital ID was in the Labour manifesto and I do not think rolling out an extensive increase in facial recognition on our streets was in the Labour manifesto. If all those things were happening in another country, one might think they were the route to totalitarianism. These are the kind of things the public are very concerned about: it is not just the huge increase in taxes but the reduction in the freedoms we have taken for granted in this country for years that is causing so many of my constituents to call for another general election.
- Hansard source
Call for General Election
On a point of order, Dr Huq. Could you clarify whether it is in order for so many Government speakers in the debate to have left the Chamber before the Front-Bench speeches to listen to their beleaguered Prime Minister at the parliamentary Labour party meeting?
- Hansard source
Leasehold Reform
18. What steps he is taking to strengthen the rights of leaseholders.
- Hansard source
Leasehold Reform
So many of my Gosport constituents are locked into lousy leaseholds, and are so tired of seeing service charges rise while the quality of service falls. Bills are often eye-watering, and are quite often completely opaque. As the Minister said, the Conservatives passed the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, which gave leaseholders more powers to better scrutinise and challenge those costs. However, on the Minister’s watch, implementation is painfully slow. Why the delay? When will leaseholders begin to see the benefits of legislation that was designed to put an end to a practice that he himself has described as “unfair and unreasonable”?
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
The Secretary of State promised long-term partnerships with our domestic defence industry, but when the Government dither and delay in giving primes confidence with their big contracts, that directly impacts the ecosystem of brilliant British subprimes across our country. Those include StandardAero at Fleetlands in Gosport, which has the opportunity to provide the assemble and inspect test on the GE motor in Leonardo’s AW149. Fleetlands has been a key player in our country’s defence rotary wing history for 100 years. Does the Minister see how delay in that decision is not only holding back our world-class industry, but delivering uncertainty to key companies across our country and all the people they employ?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
The Secretary of State has given very clear message on this, and I thank her for that. She is right to say that this is not only about X and Grok; many generative AI platforms are facilitating this illegal and dehumanising behaviour. I gently say to her that although she is absolutely right that AI has enormous potential to reshape our lives, over a year since the Government attempted to sacrifice our world-beating creative industries and individuals’ intellectual property on the altar of AI, we are still waiting for news of the AI Bill. However, I am pleased that she has drawn the line here that she will not sacrifice the safety of women and children. I agree that there are gaps in the legislation—of course there are—but there is a lot of legislation out there and, since the Online Safety Act came into force in March, Ofcom has taken so very little legal action against illegal content, which is so prolific. How confident is the Secretary of State that Ofcom has not only the resources, but the willpower—the stomach—to take on these big tech companies?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
I am not sure that I did give the Secretary of State a look, but I am going to run this statement for only an hour in total, so Members need to ask much shorter questions. I call Sir Jeremy Wright.
- Hansard source
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
Order. May I suggest to everybody who is yet to ask a question that second parts are not required?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes
The hon. Member will know that that is not a point of order. I made it very clear that the statement would run for an hour. The Secretary of State seems to be itching to respond, but perhaps she could do so in writing. It is very unfair on Members who have not had the chance to get in that we should seek to extend the statement via a point of order.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I remind the House that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair and Chair are also acceptable. Clause 1 Income tax charge for tax year 2026-27 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Finance (No. 2) Bill
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clauses 2 to 6 stand part. Schedule 1 stand part. Clauses 7 and 8 stand part. Schedule 2 stand part. New clause 2—Review of the impact of section 7 on rent prices— (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of implementation of section 7 of this Act on rent prices. (2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must— (a) estimate the proportion of the increase in income tax on property income that is passed on to renters through higher rents, (b) analyse the impact on renters by— (i) region, an (ii) income decile, and (c) set out the methodology used to reach those estimates.” New clause 10—Statements on increase in dividend ordinary and upper rates— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the increase in dividend ordinary and upper rates introduced by section 4 of this Act. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on— (a) household saving decisions; (b) the domestic equity market; (c) institutional investors; and (d) outcomes for all British savers and pensioners.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make a statement on the impact of increase in dividend ordinary and upper rates. New clause 11—Statements on saving rates of income tax for tax year 2027-28— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the saving rates of income tax for the tax year 2027-28 introduced by section 5 of this Act. (2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on— (a) household saving decisions; and (b) outcomes for all British savers and pensioners.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make a statement on the impact of the saving rates of income tax for tax year 2027-28. New clause 12—Sections 6 to 8 and Schedules 1 and 2: impact on private rental sector— “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by sections 6, 7, and 8 of this Act on the private rental sector in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. (2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider - (a) the effects of the provisions of sections 6, 7, and 8 on the cost of private rent in each region within England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, (b) the effects of the provisions of sections 6, 7, and 8 on the supply of private rental properties in each region within England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, (c) any other implications of the changes introduced by sections 6, 7, and 8 of this Act.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of imposing new rates of income tax on property income.
- Hansard source
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Rotary is obviously a vital element of military logistics. I know from my own experience in Afghanistan how much operations can be hampered by the inability to field a full suite of rotary assets in order to move troops around. With that in mind, and following the retirement of Puma for obvious reasons, can the Minister outline the rotary requirements for the armed forces at present and confirm whether the new medium helicopter is still a military requirement?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Rutland’s council could have submitted its own proposals for local government reform, but it has left our fate in the hands of others. The council submitted a proposal to join North Leicestershire, but this is in opposition to the wishes of residents. The council knows that, and purposely did not ask residents what we wanted. Stamford residents want to join Rutland; Rutlanders want to join Stamford. Will the Minister meet me to make sure that all residents are consulted on the Rutland and Stamford model, which the council has taken off the table?
- Hansard source
Local Bus Services
Young people in my constituency have already seen the promised Aldridge train station scrapped by Labour, so will the Minister join me in calling on Mayor Parker to back young people by introducing a £1 bus fare cap for under 22s, like the one that Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen has already delivered in Teesside?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
When we lost our police station in Aldridge, we were told that the choice was between bobbies and bricks. Now, under Labour’s police and crime commissioner, there is a £41 million funding gap, which means that there will be 80 fewer officers on our streets next year. Can the Leader of the House explain how cutting police numbers in my constituency delivers Labour’s promise to get more police into our communities?
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. He has long been a determined and principled advocate for human rights, and it is entirely fitting that he brought this important issue before the House for debate. I thank Members from across House for their many contributions. The debate is not about whether Magnitsky-style sanctions are justified—they are—but about whether they are being used as effectively as they should be, and whether the Government are doing enough to ensure that they deliver real consequences for those responsible for the gravest human rights violations. The UK has one of the most developed autonomous sanctions regimes in the world. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, introduced by the last Conservative Government, gives Ministers the power to impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses and corruption. That framework was designed to give the UK the ability to act decisively, in co-ordination with allies and without delay. Ministers spoke of a regime capable of reaching from Xinjiang to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and to the persecution of the Rohingya. Those ambitions were right, but the test is how the regime is applied in practice, because sanctions that are slow, inconsistently applied or weakly enforced do not deter abusers; they signal hesitation. Much of today’s debate has understandably focused on Russia, and rightly so. Since launching its illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been responsible for widespread and systematic abuses, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UK’s response has been significant. It was under the last Conservative Government that the framework for these measures was put in place; as a result, around £28.7 billion in Russian-linked assets have been frozen, but freezing assets is only part of the picture. How is this sanctions regime being enforced? How many investigations has the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation opened in the last year? How many enforcement actions have been taken, and how many penalties have been imposed? Without visible and credible enforcement, there is a real risk that sanctions become something that can be managed, worked around or even absorbed as a cost of doing business. Several Members have raised the issue of Russia’s so-called shadow fleet—the vessels and networks used to evade sanctions and to continue exporting oil. The Government have sanctioned a number of ships, which is welcome, but, as others have said, the shadow fleet is consistently adapting. It relies on complex ownership structures, opaque insurance arrangements and ship-to-ship transfers designed to obscure origin and destination. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has made clear from this Dispatch Box, enforcement needs to be relentless, not only identifying vessels but targeting the wider networks that enable this activity. That brings me to a recent example that raises important questions about enforcement. Recent reporting has suggested that sanctioned Russian crude oil was delivered to a refinery part-owned by Lakshmi Mittal, a UK-resident businessman, using vessels that had already been blacklisted by western authorities. Those shipments reportedly involved ship-to-ship transfers and other practices commonly associated with sanctions evasion. Those reports may ultimately lead to enforcement action, and I have written to the director of OFSI to seek clarification, but they underline a wider point: if sanctions are to be effective, they must follow all those involved in enabling sanction busting, not just the ships themselves. That includes those who benefit from, facilitate, finance, or fail to exercise proper oversight over, the continued flow of Russian oil revenues. When credible concerns are raised about potential sanctions circumvention involving UK-linked individuals or businesses, there must be confidence that those concerns are examined rigorously and without hesitation. Does the Minister know whether OFSI is actively assessing the activity reported in connection with Mr Mittal’s refinery? How does OFSI approach cases where supply chains are deliberately complex, span multiple jurisdictions and are designed to obscure accountability? How are the Government ensuring that enforcement action keeps pace with increasingly sophisticated attempts to evade sanctions in the energy sector? It is also reasonable to ask whether the Government are prepared to apply the same level of scrutiny where individuals with UK links hold influential positions, such as directorships in major international institutions, banks and multinational companies, while also being connected to sectors implicating Russian energy flows. Can the Minister confirm that no individual, however prominent, and no corporate structure, however complex, is treated as being beyond scrutiny? Sanctions must be applied consistently and without exception, because their credibility depends on it. Magnitsky-style sanctions were never intended to apply to Russia alone; they were designed to target serious human rights abuses wherever they occur, so let me turn to a number of other areas. First, there is Sudan, which has been mentioned today. We welcome the sanctions already imposed on individuals associated with the RSF, but the situation on the ground remains dire. Civilians continue to suffer, particularly in Darfur, so what more is being done? Are further designations under active consideration? How are sanctions being used alongside diplomatic efforts at the UN and with regional partners to press for a ceasefire and accountability? Secondly, let me turn to people smuggling and human trafficking. These crimes, which have been mentioned today, involve exploitation, violence and abuse on a large scale, often facilitated by corruption and financial secrecy. In 2025 alone, more than 41,000 illegal migrants crossed the channel in small boats—nearly 5,000 more than in the previous year. Have the Government considered whether Magnitsky-style sanctions could be used more systematically against the leaders of those criminal networks, particularly where there is evidence of corruption or serious human rights abuse? What assessment has been made of that option? There are a number of long-standing and deeply concerning situations in which Magnitsky sanctions remain highly relevant. In Hong Kong and China, the UK has sanctioned some officials for abuses in Xinjiang and for undermining rights and freedoms. That was the right decision, but serious concerns remain; for instance, not a single Chinese or Hong Kong official has been sanctioned in connection with the dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms, despite more than 200,000 Hongkongers relocating to the UK. The recent guilty verdict against Jimmy Lai is a stark reminder of the continued assault on the rule of law, press freedom and judicial independence in Hong Kong. Are the Government actively considering Magnitsky-style sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that case, including those responsible for political interference in the judicial system? I also ask the Minister what action is being taken against those responsible for placing bounties on the heads of activists—including individuals now living here in the UK—in acts of clear transnational repression. The US has already sanctioned officials linked to those bounties; why has the UK not followed suit? More broadly, these issues sit alongside growing concerns about foreign influence and intimidation here in the UK, including through the proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, and the need for the effective implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme. How confident is the Minister that the UK’s sanctions policy, its approach to foreign influence, and its response to transnational repression are properly aligned? Turning briefly to Iran, as we have seen, the regime’s response to peaceful protest has been brutal. Arbitrary detention, torture and executions continue, so what further steps are being taken to sanction those responsible for repression, and how is the UK working with partners to ensure that Iranian officials involved in those abuses cannot move or hide assets abroad? In Myanmar, nearly four years after the coup, the military junta continues to carry out widespread abuses against civilians, so are additional designations being prepared, and how is the UK ensuring that sanctions remain targeted, relevant and effective over time? Finally, I turn briefly to Venezuela, where decisive action taken by the US against the Maduro regime has once again underlined the seriousness of the human rights and democratic crisis facing that country. Against that backdrop, can the Minister set out clearly the Government’s current approach to Venezuela sanctions, how human rights considerations are being reflected in policy, and whether Magnitsky-style sanctions remain firmly on the table?
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
I am happy to respond. I refer the hon. Gentleman and his colleague who also raised that question, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), to a letter that Lord Wolfson, the shadow Attorney General, has published. That letter sets out the position very clearly. Returning to the subject of the debate, when we step back, a clear pattern emerges: sanctions only work if they are enforced rigorously, applied consistently and backed by the political will to follow the evidence wherever it leads. As such, I will close with a few final questions for the Minister. How are the Government strengthening enforcement against sanctions evasion, particularly in complex sectors such as energy and shipping, and where do they see as the next priority for designations? What steps are being taken to improve transparency and accountability to Parliament? If sanctions are to serve their purpose, they must be more than symbolic; they must be enforced, credible and consistent. That is what victims of human rights abuses deserve, and that is what the UK’s reputation as a serious and principled actor on the world stage requires.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I wonder whether the Secretary of State could update the House on the plans to connect Tonbridge to Gatwick through the rail network. As she knows, there have traditionally been links in that direction and it requires only a very minor change to the timetable to make it work. If she wanted, she could even connect it to the rest of the kingdom of Kent at the same time.
- Hansard source
Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I have come along to learn more about the situation, which is, frankly, puzzling. Is the regime motivated by some form of extreme religion of its own? Is it just ultra-nationalism? Is it doing all this persecution to repress the people and keep them in a form of captivity, or to drive people whom it does not like because of their identity out of the country completely?
- Hansard source
Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution
The Minister mentioned the UN Security Council, and we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) about what he perceives to be a potential weakness in the regime, which is being propped up by outside forces. Is it true that Russia has been most supportive of the regime, has supplied most of its aerial capability to bomb, strafe and kill civilians, and has been blocking moves against the regime on the Security Council? What assessment have the Government made of the survivability of the regime without military support from Russia?
- Hansard source
Subsea Telecommunications Cables: Resilience and Crisis Preparedness
I congratulate the Committee on its report, and I know that it took evidence from authoritative experts, such as the excellent Elisabeth Braw. Can the Chair explain to the House whether his findings were compatible with the alarming headline in today’s Daily Mail about another report from the Council on Geostrategy think-tank, which claims that cutting just 60 cables going in and out of the UK could affect 99% of our data? Is there more resilience in the system than that would seem to suggest?
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House who actually does the research that leads to people being identified for sanctioning, whether there is resistance in such places as the City of London, which no doubt could make enormous financial profits from having illicit money deposited there, and whether such places are incentivised to turn a blind eye when attempts are made to camouflage the real sources of the dirty money flowing in?
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
In support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, does he agree that it is significant how important even a single ship of this fleet is to the Russian authorities that in desperation yesterday, in a final attempt to stop it being seized, they allowed the Russian flag to be put on one of the vessels, in the hope that that would deter the Americans from gaining control of it? Fortunately, it did not.
- Hansard source
Economic Growth: Transport System
Being able to commute to work easily is vital for economic growth, but my constituents using Ash Vale station have to climb the equivalent of two storeys of stairs, making it virtually impossible for people in wheelchairs, older people or young parents with prams to get up and get on to the main line to London. There is an excellent proposal under Access for All on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will my constituents find out whether there will be a happy new year for them?
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
I beg to move, That this House is concerned that serious human rights abuses, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, together with widespread grand corruption, continue to escalate in an increasingly unstable global environment; notes that global human rights and anti-corruption sanctions, commonly known as Magnitsky sanctions, remain an essential mechanism for accountability and redress, yet their implementation by the United Kingdom is inconsistent and insufficient, and lacks oversight; regrets that numerous individuals credibly implicated in serious abuses and corruption remain unsanctioned, that enforcement and transparency around decision-making remains inadequate, and that sanctioned individuals continue to exploit evasion methods while victims receive limited support; further notes the absence of a long-term strategy for the management of frozen assets and a lack of clear criteria for delisting, alongside growing concerns that sanctions are becoming politicised internationally; urges the Government to strengthen the credibility of the Magnitsky sanctions regime through consistent and impartial application, enhanced enforcement, and by ensuring greater Parliamentary oversight and expanded measures to support victims, including developing pathways for compensation; and holds that, relevant to this, those involved in the arbitrary detention of British nationals should face Magnitsky sanctions, including those involved in the detention of Ryan Cornelius, Jagtar Singh Johal and Jimmy Lai. I rise to speak to the motion in my name, which is supported by 17 hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, I welcome the advent of the growing use of Magnitsky sanctions as a major development in accountability for human rights abuse and corruption. These sanctions are named after Sergei Magnitsky, a tax adviser killed in a Russian prison after exposing fraud by Russian Government officials. Magnitsky sanctions freeze perpetrators’ assets and stop them travelling internationally, and they are now used by the UK, the US, the EU and Canada, which together represent over one third of global GDP. In the UK, Magnitsky sanctions stop perpetrators accessing London, the world’s second largest financial centre and the world’s largest luxury property market. Sanctions are most effective when the various jurisdictions work together to close perpetrators off from, and drive them away from, financial markets. Looking at the comparative picture, the US has sanctioned 608 individuals and entities under its Magnitsky-style regime, though 20 have been delisted. Of those designations, 17 relate to Russia, with one since delisted, and 34 are against China and six against the United Arab Emirates for corruption. By contrast—and this is the point I really want to make—since introducing Magnitsky sanctions in the legislation passed in 2020, the UK has imposed 164 designations under its global human rights regime and 65 under the global anti-corruption regime. That makes a total of 229 Magnitsky-style designations, of which 60 relate to Russia, eight to China and none to the UAE.
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We have a tool here that can be used to drive back those who act badly—in this particular case, against a country illegally invading a neighbouring democratic state—so we should use this ability to sanction those involved and to increase such sanctions dramatically. I know Labour Members will be raising this issue, but they will have noted what he has said. The UK and the US have imposed extensive additional sanctions on Russian individuals and entities under the Russia-specific sanctions regimes. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) may want to note, those regimes use broader designation grounds and, crucially, do not usually acknowledge an individual’s direct involvement in human rights abuses in Ukraine or elsewhere. That distinction matters, and this should be rectified by the UK Government. The symbolic and moral force of the Magnitsky sanctions is precisely to name perpetrators and link consequences directly to human rights abuses, and that is what sets them apart. In sheer volume, the contrast is stark. The US has imposed well over 5,000 such Russia-related non-Magnitsky designations, and the UK about 2,900. Yet despite this scale, the absence in most cases of any explicit human rights attribution in such regimes means an important opportunity for accountability is being missed. As a mechanism in the Government’s foreign policy toolkit, Magnitsky sanctions have a huge potential. However, important gaps remain in their implementation, raising serious concerns about their overall effectiveness. There is no publicly available information on the number of Magnitsky sanctions evidence dossiers received by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. However, based on estimates since the inception of the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, the FCDO receives on average about two or three dossiers of evidence per month from civil society organisations, which often identify between three and 15 individuals or entities alleged to be implicated in human rights violations. This means that since July 2020, the FCDO has received evidence on anywhere between 360 and 3,000 alleged perpetrators of serious human rights violations. In stark contrast, only 229 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under the global human rights regime and global anti-corruption regime, to date. The limited number of Magnitsky sanctions imposed undermines their effectiveness. Designations tend to overlook broader command structures, instead focusing on isolated actors, excluding key backers or enablers and failing to adopt when sanctioned entities rebrand. For example, Chen Zhi is one of the many leaders of scam networks with bases in south-east Asia trafficking and torturing vulnerable individuals to compel them to scam citizens here in the UK and abroad. The news that the UK and the US sanctioned some of those responsible is always welcome, but those sanctions fail to target Cambodian Government figures who are themselves implicated in the practice, or who turn a blind eye to those violations.
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
It has two effects. First, anything to do with any finance or movement or visitations to the United Kingdom are immediately ruled out and the seizure of financial entities can take place. Secondly, it influences other countries to do the same. America may work with us on that, too. Two of the greatest financial markets are then shut to an individual, who may be part of a Government, thus making it highly difficult for them to operate, or to come and enjoy themselves—a lot of that is done. They become pariahs internationally and that has a huge effect, because it influences what others near them will do when they realise they are about to lose their access to very important areas—cities and financial markets. It has already shown to have had a massive knock-on effect.
- Hansard source
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
Many groups are doing that research at the moment, some of them private and voluntary organisations, but the Foreign Office itself is meant to be doing it. I am struck by the fact that it does not always check everybody’s backgrounds. The reality is that it must be much more intense and we must start going after these people. The City of London had a bad reputation for dirty money. A lot of that has stopped now as a result of the Russian sanctions. More importantly, individual sanctions also helped to end that. We need to be much more particular about where that money is coming from and how, and who are the individuals who are behind the use of that money. My right hon. Friend is quite right about that.