Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

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?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to him for the persistence that he has shown in campaigning on this issue over many years, and for his work in this place helping to make and win the argument for deploying Magnitsky-style sanctions.

I would like to start by welcoming three successes of the Government regarding our sanctions regime: namely, decisive action against Putin’s regime, action against people-smuggling gangsters, and action against kleptocrats the world over. The Government have shown that they are prepared to make bold and decisive use of sanctions to crack down on serious human rights abuses, corruption and breaches of international law.

First, I welcome the Government’s sustained tough action against the Kremlin, introducing the largest package of sanctions since the early days of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I firmly believe that this county must never again act as a safe haven for Russian dirty money, and the City of London must never again be seen to be a secure, out-of-the-way piggy bank for Putin’s cronies to stash their wealth. It is only right that we continue to expose and disrupt every enabler of Russia’s war machine, which has been terrorising the Ukrainian people for close to four years now. That must include ramping up the pressure on Putin’s energy revenues.

The Government’s sanctions measures have also gone a long way toward sinking Russia’s shadow fleet, which we all know is a vital source of funding for Putin’s war in Ukraine. Since the start of the invasion, Russian oil companies have established a shadow fleet of cargo ships charged with transporting sanctioned crude oil to third countries. Those vessels are usually owned by anonymous shell companies to shield the ships from scrutiny and sanctions. The fleet is then used to perform illegal ship-to-ship oil transfers at sea, making it much more difficult to monitor the final destination of Russian crude oil. This decaying and dangerous shadow fleet risks oil spills, which could then cause damage on the UK’s shores—spills that, I remind the House, the British taxpayer would be liable to clean up.

The sanctions designations brought forward by the Government mean that a total of 545 ships have been sanctioned by the UK. Almost half the Russian shadow fleet’s overall capacity has been forced off the seas by sanctions from the UK and our partners, with many ships now dead in the water.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

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.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I agree with the right hon. Member’s remarks. I think that the actions of the previous Government and this Government to tackle the shadow fleet are starting to bite. The measures are hitting the Kremlin war machine and will slash the revenues that Putin desperately relies upon to continue to wage war in Ukraine.

Secondly, I welcome sanctions against organised criminal gangs that are currently perpetrating the vile trade of people-smuggling. This action by the Government is a world first, and it targets ringleaders, key intermediaries and the suppliers of people-smuggling equipment. The sanctions help to disrupt the flow of money and materials, including by freezing property, bank accounts and other assets. It will help to disrupt a range of different activities—from supplying small boats for smuggling to sourcing fake passports, middlemen facilitating illicit payments, and people-smuggling via lorries and small boats. It also sanctions the very gang leaders themselves. The people-smuggling gangs operating on the English channel are attempting to make a small fortune. It is essential that this Government continue to use sanctions and every lever at our disposal to disrupt and destroy the gangs.

Thirdly, the Government have made innovative use of sanctions against kleptocrats and their enablers. Notably, the Magnitsky-style sanctions deployed against Isabel dos Santos, the daughter of Angola’s former president, for corruption and stealing public funds marked a pivotal moment in the fight against kleptocracy in Angola and helped to address long-standing corruption that had hindered development and worsened inequalities in the country. I welcome that action, as I am sure do Members on both sides of the House, but we must now look to deploy similar sanctions against other kleptocrats and those who enable their corrupt dealings.

While all those measures are achievements worth celebrating today, I fear that we are not going quite far or fast enough. Our use of Magnitsky-style sanctions to target human rights abuses has, to date, been a little too timid. Only 229 individuals and entities have been sanctioned under that style of sanction, which contrasts with the nearly 3,000 individuals and entities sanctioned under a single scheme specific to one country: namely, Russia.

As REDRESS and other civil society organisations have shown, too many individuals remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of their involvement in corruption and serious human rights abuses the world over. Despite high-profile designations, such as the targeting of Isabel dos Santos, the frankly limited number of Magnitsky-style sanctions imposed undermines their effectiveness. By focusing only on isolated bad actors, such narrow designations overlook key backers or enablers and they fail to adapt when entities rebrand, or disappear and then reappear, simply to sidestep sanctions.

To illustrate the problem, here are just three brief examples that highlight the gap in our use of Magnitsky sanctions, allowing those responsible for egregious human rights violations to act with impunity. For instance, just last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces—the RSF—suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. The civil war in Sudan, as has already been mentioned, is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, displacing some 13 million people. There is overwhelming evidence of heinous crimes, mass executions, starvation and the systemic and calculated use of rape as a weapon of war. Evidence compiled by the UN, experts and journalists has shown, as has already been cited, that the UAE and its officials have been secretly supplying weapons to the RSF via neighbouring Chad—a position that the Gulf state denies, but the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Sadly, no action was taken against the RSF’s key military and diplomatic backer, the UAE, or against the chief commander of the RSF.

Similarly, the narrow scope of sanctions designations in Georgia also undermines our response to the human rights crisis currently under way. Georgia is increasingly finding itself subject to authoritarian rule. Since the highly disputed election in 2024, during which the Georgian Dream party claimed victory, there has been an escalation in the crackdown on protests and on independent media, including widespread violence and human rights abuses. The Georgian Dream party has now captured almost all Government branches and institutions. It has used its new-found power to aggressively suppress protests and all scrutiny of its actions, including hundreds of reports of arbitrary detention and even torture.

Although the UK has rightly sanctioned some of those responsible for violent attacks against journalists and protesters, key members of the pro-Russia elite were sadly absent from those designations. They include Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder and chairman of the Georgian Dream party, who was sanctioned by the Biden Administration in the United States for undermining democratic processes simply for the benefit of the Kremlin. The UK has yet to take the same steps in relation to Georgia, so will the Minister make decisive use of sanctions to crack down on the abuses, which only benefit the Russian Government and are entirely at the expense of the Georgian people?

Finally, although the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in the deadly repression of Uyghur Muslims in China in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from REDRESS and other human rights organisations, which identified the broader command structure behind the violent atrocities committed against the Uyghur people in China. We cannot continue to ignore the calls, already put forward today, for sanctions on senior Chinese officials, who must include the Chinese Communist party secretary in Xinjiang, who is considered the architect behind the human rights abuses committed.

Those three cases all show how limiting our use of Magnitsky-style sanctions undermines their effectiveness. Sanctions are a key tool in our armoury to crack down on the most egregious human rights abuses, but narrow designation overlooks the key backers or enablers of the worst atrocities.

Underpinning our sanctions with strong enforcement is also critical to their impact. We know that sanctions are only as strong as the enforcement behind them. In last year’s cross-Government review of sanctions, the Government rightly recognised that there are gaps in the UK’s sanctions implementation and enforcement, which they are seeking to address through new measures to increase the deterrent effect of sanctions and enhance our ability to take robust action against those who choose to break the rules.

Africa: New Approach

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said, we will set out further details on allocations in the new year, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the situation in Nigeria. To understate the position considerably, women and girls in Nigeria clearly face very considerable threats—as do Christians in Nigeria, as recent events have demonstrated. Let me take the opportunity to condemn the recent abductions. We welcome the news that some have been released, and we join the Government of Nigeria in calling for the release of all remaining abductees and for perpetrators to be brought to justice. Events in Nigeria have taken a very dark turn in recent months, and it is a high priority for the British Government to see that reversed.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Following on directly from that, what can the Minister tell us about any military advice or assistance that our experts in counter-insurgency are giving to the Governments of friendly Commonwealth countries like Nigeria that face vicious jihadist extremist attack from organisations such as Boko Haram?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We have a security and defence partnership with Nigeria and we are helping to build capacity within Nigeria’s security agencies to respond to and prevent attacks, including through support to the multi-agency anti-kidnap fusion cell, which is particularly critical given the events to which I just alluded.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that question. The UK negotiations with the Mauritian Government have had the wishes of the Chagossian people very much at their heart. Some of the elements that I laid out in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary are responses very much to the Chagossians themselves, including both the majority control of the board that will determine the nature of the trust fund, and the element about civil status documents and origin of birth. We will continue to talk to the Chagossian community about their wishes.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is, in the Government’s opinion, Mauritius a free society, and what is the Government’s assessment of the nature of its relationship with communist China?

[Mr Falconer]

These issues have been discussed at some length. Mauritius is obviously an important partner for us. I will leave it to the relevant Minister to provide a fuller commentary about the state of its relations with China.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that many other people are facing prosecution or have already been charged and been through a process under the national security law. We are very clear that the national security law should be repealed. It directly contradicts the declaration and the legal obligations on the Chinese authorities under that declaration. I will follow up the case he raises.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like every other communist regime that has ever existed, the Chinese Government behave with ruthlessness, impunity and unmitigated mendacity. I therefore welcome the strong words in the statement from the Foreign Secretary, but what Members on both sides of the House wish to see is stronger actions. It is not so much a case of one country, two systems, as of one Government and two faces. If our Government cannot even say that a country that poses so many strategic threats is itself a threat, we have an awfully long way to go.

[Yvette Cooper]

I note that the right hon. Member obviously shares the concerns about, and joins the calls for the release of, Jimmy Lai. On the wider issues, I have been very clear about the national security threats posed by China—for example, transnational oppression, support for Russia in the war on Ukraine and cyber-threats, on which we have recently introduced more sanctions. However, because of our strong history—our economic history as well as our political history—with Hong Kong, China is the UK’s third largest trading partner. Those are not things we can trade off. We do not trade off them, as the Prime Minister made very clear in his speech a few weeks ago. National security is always the first duty of any Government, but alongside pursuing threats and human rights issues, we must recognise that trading relationship. We should ensure that we pursue both, but that we pursue national security issues as the first duty.

Venezuela: US Military

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

On my hon. Friend’s last question, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with her US counterparts in recent days on these questions. He asks an important question about civil society. We strongly condemn the ongoing repression of civil society and members of the opposition in Venezuela. We continue to call for the unconditional release of those arbitrarily detained, including members of civil society and independent media, such as through the UK’s published statement to the UN Human Rights Council in its most recent session.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

President Trump would no doubt argue that there is a parallel between this situation and George Bush senior’s invasion of Panama in late 1989, but does the Minister agree with me that it will be interesting to see, if something like this goes ahead, what sort of outcry there is from either Russia or China? If there is no sort of outcry, would that not suggest that there is some sort of understanding between these three major powers that they each leave each other to get on with, shall we say, unilateral actions within what they regard as their own spheres of influence?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman is learned and offers the opportunity both to make historical comparisons and comment on the conduct of other powers. I will avoid the temptation on both. Clearly, the British position is that international law is vital. Counter-narcotics action is important and we support that.

Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

It is non-negotiable. You cannot steal children in 2025 and think that is an acceptable way to conduct war. The relevant international legal provisions are absolutely clear, and I know that this whole House, and indeed the whole country, is genuinely outraged by what the Russians have done.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

By putting forward proposals that could have been drafted by the killer in the Kremlin himself, it seems that President Trump has finally given up on the Nobel peace prize, and is content to settle for the Lenin peace prize instead. Do the Government share my concern at the remarks, admittedly aspirational, by the US ambassador to NATO about his long-term hope that Germany will take over America’s role at the heart of the alliance? Does that not betray the decades of peace after the second world war that NATO was created to preserve?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not familiar with the Lenin peace prize; I will google it afterwards. I have been clear on the position and the basis of negotiations. Clearly, it is for Ukraine as a sovereign nation to determine the position that it takes in negotiations. I saw reports of the discussion. I think it was, to be fair, about who should perform the role of SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—rather than the future division of responsibility between forces in NATO. NATO remains a vital component of European security and perhaps the most signal commitment to Europe and America’s shared defence and shared values. Long may it continue.

Gaza and Sudan

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is deeply disturbing that despite the UK having raised the issue of sexual violence in war over very many decades, we have seen it increase in recent years. We want to strengthen the work being done internationally, both through the UN and more broadly, to tackle sexual violence in conflict. Most urgently, though, that means action to prevent this conflict, and calling for all parties to the war in Sudan to respect international law.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On Gaza, will the Government consider making representations to the Israelis about the fact that it does Israel’s reputation no good, and does not help the BBC World Service to report accurately, if external journalists are not allowed into the Gaza strip? Now that the fighting has diminished, the excuse for not allowing that access has disappeared.

Turning to the RSF, I note that the Foreign Secretary referred to Secretary Rubio’s comments about the need to end the supply of weapons and support to the RSF. Can she explain to the House who mainly is supplying those weapons and that support?

[Yvette Cooper]

On Gaza, I agree completely with the right hon. Member. Journalists must be allowed into Gaza; we need accurate reports. I am worried about the scale of devastation that we will then see, but it is essential that journalists are able to get in and verify that.

On the issue of the RSF, work done by the UN has identified a range of different routes and sources for arms. It is important that not only the Quad members, but other players, of whom the right hon. Member is probably aware, are held to account and involved in ensuring that arms do not get into Sudan.

Conflict in Sudan

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is one with which both I and the Foreign Secretary agree. As she said at the weekend, the world must do more.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I repeat the question that I asked the Minister’s colleague last week: are there no other regional powers that could intervene physically to separate the warring parties? May I put it to the Minister that, while it is fortunate that we have been granted successive urgent questions on this subject in successive weeks—thanks to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), to the shadow Foreign Secretary and to Mr Speaker—it would be a recognition of the anxiety felt in all parts of the House if the Government made regular ministerial statements on it, rather than us having to rely on applications for urgent questions?

[Mr Falconer]

As I am sure the House knows, this ministerial team is very happy to return to the House regularly, and Mr Speaker provides us with plenty of opportunities to do so. I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s comments back to the responsible Minister. For reasons that I am sure he will understand, I will decline his invitation to comment on the regional balance of military forces.

Sudan: Protection of Civilians

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents, and I know that she is not the only one; as I mentioned, my own constituents have great concern about family, friends and others in Sudan and have done so for a long time. It is absolutely right that she puts their concerns on the record. If I may, I will get back to her on consular access. There are obviously extremely challenging circumstances on the ground—even humanitarian organisations and the United Nations are unable to access the region—but I will get back to her on what steps we can take through our consular services.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain to the House what is the attitude of other states in the region towards this conflict? Is there any prospect that they could unite and possibly make some form of physical intervention to separate the warring sides in Sudan?

[Stephen Doughty]

Obviously it is not for me to speak to the individual policies of countries in the region, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, regrettably, to date it has not been possible to find a consensus in the United Nations Security Council on a way forward. We push for that and always attempt to do so in our engagement as the penholder—we will do so again today, particularly in the light of events—but ultimately it is the parties to the conflict that are responsible for what is happening. We are in direct contact and are urging restraint.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is an incredibly thoughtful, long-standing commentator on these issues. Both he and his family have made a great contribution to UK-Israeli relations. It was an act of great foolishness to prevent him from entering Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We called on the Israeli Government at the time, as we did in previous such instances. We cannot prevent the Israeli Government from making decisions that are not in their interests, but that was clearly one of them.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Government’s position seems to be that communist China can and does pose a wide range of serious threats to the United Kingdom but is not a threat itself. How can that possibly make sense?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me set out very clearly the threats that China poses to our national security, including those of transnational repression, support for Russia and espionage. He will know that range of threats and that is why it is deeply frustrating that the prosecution has not taken place. He will also know that China is a trading partner and that we continue to have strong economic relations. It is possible for both those things to be true.