Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

Let me start by thanking the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. He always speaks with conviction and passion; he has been absolutely consistent on these issues for a very long time, and I recognise his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation. We fully support him and every colleague in this House who stands up for our values and has been sanctioned as a result—including your colleague the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful for all the contributions today, which have been constructively critical. I assure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and all Members that our teams will take the individual cases raised seriously, and I will try my best in the time available to respond to all the key points.

I emphasise from the start that I share the ambition of Members across this House. I take on board the challenge—indeed, I made many similar points in opposition on these issues in similar debates. I emphasise to colleagues the extraordinary work of the officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and of other teams across Government who work on these issues. I have to be honest: resource is finite, but we have invested substantially and we will continue to do so. We have set ambitious targets, including on enforcement, which I will come to, but I pay tribute to those people and recognise that they have been awarded for that work within the Department, and rightly so. That work is having a genuine impact, because sanctions are one of the most powerful tools we have to protect our security and advance our foreign policy, including in the areas described today.

We impose sanctions to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour, as well as to send deterrent and other messages beyond those we target. However, sanctions must be focused, enforceable, legally sound and backed by the right resources and credible evidence. We maintain the integrity of our regime through the strictest interpretation and the solidity of the evidence underpinning sanctions. I want colleagues to understand that, because it is important for the functioning of the regime as a whole.

Since this Government came in, we have set ambitious targets on sanctions, and we have introduced more than 1,000 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. We have laid 15 new statutory instruments before Parliament, including to create a new regime on irregular migration, to which the shadow Minister referred. We have already designated 32 individuals and entities under that. We have played a leading role in the snapback of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Those are just some of the examples showing that sanctions are not just symbolic gestures, but practical tools that are tightly focused and have a meaningful impact.

The UK covers Magnitsky-style sanctions under two regimes: the global human rights regime and the global anti-corruption regime. Under this Government, we have delivered more than 60 designations under those regimes. In 2025, we sanctioned 29 individuals and entities under the global human rights regime, going after scam centres in Cambodia and targets in Sri Lanka, Georgia and the west bank. Many colleagues have raised those areas and issues.

We have also delivered 164 sanctions taking action on human rights violations, war atrocities and gender-based violence. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, entities and organisations responsible for supporting or inciting violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank. In June 2025, we sanctioned the Israeli Government Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in their personal capacities, in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities. I mentioned the Cambodian scam centre package, which froze 20 UK properties worth more than £125 million, directly disrupting criminal activity in the heart of London. That activity impacted on British citizens on our streets, but was also linked to global corruption networks.

In November 2024, under the global anti-corruption regime, we sanctioned three notorious kleptocrats who had siphoned wealth from their countries, along with their enablers, including family and financial fixers. We froze more than £150 million in UK assets and sent a strong signal of support to Angola and other countries. We targeted an illicit gold network centred on a Kenyan-British smuggler who was using corruption to move gold out of southern Africa. In April 2025, we sanctioned corrupt officials and judges in Georgia and Guatemala and a pro-Russian network in Moldova, exposing their activities and supporting democracy and the rule of law.

Magnitsky sanctions are not our only tool. We also have the wider geographic regimes. Just in December, we sanctioned nine individuals and entities under the Syria regulations for abuses committed under the Assad regime and during last year’s coastal violence. We have to ensure that sanctions are robust, legally sound and evidence-based and that they stand up to the most robust scrutiny, and I am sure that colleagues understand why.

Russia has been highlighted by many Members today. We have taken concerted action on that front, and it is making a significant difference. Last year, we sanctioned more than 700 individuals, entities and ships under the Russian regime. We were the first G7 country to sanction all four Russian oil majors. The US followed suit, and that has had a direct impact: Russia’s oil revenues have dropped to their lowest level since the invasion began. I know that there is strong support across at least the majority of the House on those issues, and I have listed off the many other Magnitsky sanctions designation packages.

I am conscious of the time, and I will try to respond to some of the points that have been raised. It is worth making the point that often there are similarities between the different regimes. We co-ordinate very closely with partners, particularly the European Union, the United States, Canada and others. We try to bring the weight of the world to bear on these issues at crucial times, but I emphasise to colleagues that the legal bases for our sanctions regimes are different. There are different legal and judicial processes, and that is why there are often differences. Because of where nexuses of individuals and entities are, there are also often differences in where our sanctions can have the biggest impact. Sometimes that is what underpins what otherwise appears to be incongruity between regimes, but we always try to bring them together.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green specifically mentioned the Cambodian scam centres and Chen Zhi. I emphasise that Cambodia arrested Chen Zhi and extradited him to China this week, and that the National Bank of Cambodia liquidated Prince Bank on 8 January, so there has been a significant impact as a result of that package. Obviously, the sanctions are only one part of the response to these networks; there are other measures that countries can choose to take in response to very serious allegations.

A lot of questions have rightly been raised about Sudan and the work that the Government are doing on that issue. The Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Africa and I place a great deal of importance on that, and building a consensus on ending that horrific war is a core part of the Government’s diplomatic efforts, including with other regional partners and the UAE. The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Emirati Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister has also spoken to his counterpart. We will continue to use all necessary means to bring an end to the war in Sudan, which is having a devastating impact on its citizens.

A number of colleagues have asked questions about Hong Kong. Of course, we call on Beijing to repeal Hong Kong’s national security law. We are closely monitoring the situation there, and we keep sanctions under close review. I am not going to speculate on future designations, for obvious reasons, but particular cases have been raised. The case of Jimmy Lai remains an utmost priority. Diplomats continue to press for consular access, and they attended his trial. The Prime Minister has raised Mr Lai’s case directly with President Xi, and we are in close contact with his family and representatives. Of course, we want to make sure that he receives proper treatment, and we are deeply concerned about some of the allegations made about his treatment in prison.

On the case of Ryan Cornelius, I want to acknowledge that his family have been in Parliament today. We continue to support them and, indeed, the family of Charles Ridley as well. The former Foreign Secretary raised their cases with the UAE Foreign Minister last year, and I understand that he and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the families in September. We support their clemency applications, and of course we raise those and other cases with appropriate authorities at the right time.

Jagtar Singh Johal’s case has also been mentioned. We continue to raise serious concerns about that with the Government of India at every possible opportunity.

We have not stopped our Myanmar sanctions. Since the coup, we have sanctioned 25 individuals and 39 entities.

Very important concerns have been raised about Roman Abramovich and Chelsea football club’s assets. I draw colleagues’ attention to what we have said on that, and to the Prime Minister’s action on the licence.

Colleagues have also expressed strong concerns about the shadow Attorney General. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, the Conservatives have some very serious questions to answer on this issue, which is completely unfathomable to me and deeply disappointing.

On the question of enforcement—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

What about an annual report?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of reporting to Parliament, and I can assure him that I have been scrutinised in this place many times. I have sent a letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to Lord Ricketts in the other place, to set out the full detail of all the work we have done. I am committed to reporting regularly to Parliament on these issues; indeed, I have held private meetings with many Members from across the House to discuss their concerns, and I am absolutely committed to continuing to do that.

On the issue of enforcement, I think some of the criticism was somewhat unwarranted. This is an issue that I have regularly championed. I agree with the principles of what colleagues have said, but I point out that in November the National Crime Agency announced that, based on the intelligence it gained in Operation Destabilise, it supported international law enforcement partners in seizing $24 million and over €2.6 million from Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs and organised crime. There have been over 128 arrests as a result of that operation alone, with over £25 million seized in cash and cryptocurrency—another issue that has been mentioned. In 2025 alone, OFSI issued four major civil monetary penalties, totalling over £900,000—I think some of the figures Members have used are not quite accurate—and for its part, HMRC concluded a £1.1 million compound settlement for trade sanctions breaches in May.

The shadow Minister asked for figures. I am happy to write to her with further details, but to give one example, OTSI has received reports or referrals about 146 potential breaches of sanctions and it has a number of investigations under way. I do not want to comment on them, but I do want to assure hon. Members that we take all the considerations they have raised very seriously. Sanctions, including Magnitsky-related sanctions, are an important tool, and we will continue to look at all such possibilities. I welcome the challenge, and we will continue to rigorously pursue not only the designation of such regimes, but, crucially, the enforcement that makes the difference.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has visited our embassy in Washington on many occasions, will know that we have an excellent and dedicated team there, as well of course in the Foreign Office in King Charles Street in London. They are working on many aspects of that crucial security, defence and economic relationship. We are working diligently in preparation for the state visit, and I commend them for that work.

The hon. Gentleman asked about new information. I have been very clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. I have gone into the particular items, and in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government took early action—even before the conclusion of the deal—to ensure that that route was closed down by the memorandum of understanding that we reached with St Helena, for which I again thank St Helena. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was rightly scrutinised by this House on that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and that is why we have done this deal.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the attempts to constantly whip up the idea about Chinese influence, the deal contains specific precautions to prevent foreign forces. I remind the House again that Mauritius was one of the only countries that did not join the belt and road initiative. Its ally is India, not China.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The Government clearly want to dismantle legacies of empire. Why, then, do we think it is so important to attach the Chagos islands to Mauritius when, in fact, that link was only established when both territories were acquired by the French empire and later by the British empire? Why do we not listen to the Chagossians, instead of imposing the legacy of empire on them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have engaged with many Chagossian groups. The hon. Member will know, as I have said multiple times, that there are a range of views across the Chagossian community. He is perfectly able to look at the legal judgments himself. The fact is that the Government wanted to secure the long-term operation of the base, our national security and our interests. We have engaged with our partners and secured a deal, which his Government failed to do.