Middle East

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I am sorry to say that the sanctions and actions announced today will not prevent Israel from continuing to act with impunity and committing one war crime after another. On Friday, I received a reply from the Foreign Office to a letter that I sent three months ago on the UN commission of inquiry findings that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. In that reply, the Minister for the Middle East stated:

“as soon as this Government took office, we ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which has continued to conclude that Israel is not committed to upholding IHL in Gaza.”

Why, in the light of that assessment, are the Government still limited to giving statements of concern, rather than taking meaningful actions to prevent further atrocities and breaches of IHL?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because of that review, which was commissioned immediately after we came into government, that we suspended a whole series of arms export licences. We took practical steps, just as we have done in providing additional aid and support, and in introducing whole swathes of sanctions—this is our fourth round in this area—and we will continue to do that.

To get overall impact, however, we need an international coalition; no one country can do it alone. The impact that was felt in the autumn to achieve the 20-point plan for Gaza took countries from around the world coming together. That is what we need again, and that is why we need to drive this through international diplomacy and activity, as well as through the actions that we in the UK take.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his commitment to the region and developments in the middle east. We are proud that we are now one of the largest humanitarian donors in Lebanon. Access to that aid has not been impeded within Lebanon. However, as some of my hon. Friends have already set out, there have been terrible incidents involving the death of aid workers—very committed young Lebanese who are doing their absolute best to help people in their own country—and that must stop.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The illegal actions of Hezbollah and Iran must be condemned, but so must the illegal actions of Israel. Israel carried out 11,518 attacks in Lebanon between 2 March and 11 May, with more than 3,000 further estimated attacks since. Israel has bombed and destroyed or heavily demolished more than 100 villages. As of yesterday, Israel has injured 10,577 people and killed 3,468 people, including 128 health workers. It has attacked and damaged 17 hospitals, destroying three of them. It employs double and triple-tap attacks on civilians. Will this Labour Government do anything meaningful to stop Israel’s thirst for the blood of innocent civilians, its insatiable appetite for the most barbaric violence and its Gazafication of Lebanon and the wider middle east? Does the UK support or condemn Netanyahu’s declared plan for a Greater Israel?

[Mr Falconer]

I think we have to be a bit careful when we describe the Government of Israel. I do not think they have a thirst for the blood of innocent civilians. We have to be a bit more careful with our language in this Chamber, because that sounds to me like it echoes antisemitic tropes—so I want to take a little bit of issue with the question that I was asked. I have taken clear steps in relation to Lebanon, and indeed in relation to events in Palestine, and we will continue to do so, but I do think we have to be careful with our language in here.

Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on freedom of religion or belief in China.

I would like to open with a tragic story. On a hot August day in 2022, in Shanxi, northern China, more than 100 police officers descended on a Christian family summer camp, surrounding the gathering, forcibly searching and detaining dozens of believers—over 30 adults and 40 children. The police were breaking up not a dangerous gathering or insurgency, but a family day out. The camp was organised by an unregistered church called the Linfen Covenant House Church, and was a harmless event aimed at building church community. In the months that followed, pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were arrested and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, including sleep deprivation, humiliation and torture. Church member Wang Qiang was later detained and tortured for weeks after refusing to renounce his faith or fabricate testimony against the church leaders.

It took three years for the court to process that case, but justice was nowhere to be found. Prosecutors did not accuse the pastors of violence or any threat to society—they could not. Instead, they charged them with fraud, arguing that the voluntary offerings given by members of their unregistered church were somehow illegal. Pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were each sentenced to three years and eight months in prison and fined heavily, while church member Wang Qiang received a sentence of one year and 11 months. The community church insists that the three men had committed no crime, and that they had suffered simply because of their faith.

We have all come here today because we believe that freedom of religion or belief is not a secondary liberty; it goes to the heart of human dignity. It concerns the right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, to have no belief, to worship in public and private, to teach and to live according to conscience without fear of intimidation, criminalisation, imprisonment or torture. That is why Parliament cannot look away, and why the situation in China requires ongoing and determined scrutiny.

What is taking place in China is not merely the sporadic mistreatment of a few isolated believers, nor is it the meddling of local officials. What we are seeing is the rolling out of a sophisticated system of repression, in which law, administration, surveillance, propaganda and coercion are all being weaponised to subordinate religion to the Chinese Communist party. The issue before us is not only persecution; it is the construction of an entire architecture designed to make genuine freedom of religion or belief impossible.

China’s persecution of religion comes under the broad policy initiative of Sinicisation. That term is made to sound mild, as if it refers only to making religion compatible with Chinese culture, but that is not the case; instead, it is political domestication. It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project.

Sacred texts can be reinterpreted, clergy can be screened and managed, venues can be monitored, publications can be censored, foreign links can be severed, and anything that escapes that framework can be branded illegal, extremist, fraudulent, subversive, or labelled as a cult. Religion must not simply co-exist with the party; it must be remade in the party’s image. Recent Sinicisation policies mean that all clergy must support the leadership of the Communist party, and must be evaluated and ideologically disciplined. All online or in-person religious activity requires a permit from Government. No child can be given religious education.

Furthermore, the sad story of the Linfen community church, which I referred to in my opening remarks, demonstrates that in China the law is always secondary to the will of the Chinese Communist party. China’s constitution appears to protect so-called normal religious activities, but in practice that protection is a joke. The same is true of China’s legal system. The party retains overriding authority over state institutions, including the courts and legislature. In other words, rights exist only to the extent that the party permits them to exist.

Evidence gathered by Christian Solidarity Worldwide takes us deeper. It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement. They create uncertainty by design and allow ordinary religious life to be reclassified as a threat.

As we saw with the Linfen community church, the vagueness of the rules means that donation to an unregistered church can be reframed as fraud. Similarly, a Bible study can become an illegal gathering; publishing or sharing religious materials can become an illegal business operation; and a sermon can become incitement to subversion. This is not neutral law enforcement; it is ideological criminalisation. Then, when the full weight of the justice system is brought down upon a believer, the defendant themselves becomes subject to serious procedural abuses. Lawyers are denied access to defendants, cases are shrouded in secrecy, and detainees can be isolated from family and counsel for prolonged periods, placed in legal black holes where torture and coercion become far more likely.

The case of the Linfen community church tells us a great deal. It tells us that family church life can be raided; it tells us that children are not shielded from the machinery of repression; it tells us that secret detention and torture remain live concerns; and it tells us that “fraud” is being used not as an honest response to dishonesty, but as a legal fiction to criminalise churches that refuse to submit to state control.

The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethno-religious persecution in China today, and as chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, this topic is very close to my heart. Since 2016, the Xinjiang region has been transformed into one of the most heavily policed areas in the world, under a so-called counter-extremism campaign, marked by pervasive surveillance, forced interrogation and mass incarceration. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim and that non-Muslim Uyghurs are also persecuted.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?

[Ms Rimmer]

I do agree, and I will come to that later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said more than I was going to say—I thought I was saying too much. Yes, he is absolutely right, and it is dangerous for us all.

The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethnoreligious persecution in China. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim, and not all Muslim Uyghurs are persecuted. Independent estimates suggest that between 1 million and 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in camps and prisons, with many later transferred into long-term sentences. Alongside that, Uyghur imams, scholars and religious leaders have been systematically targeted, with many detained in prisons for decades or dying in custody, underscoring the deliberate dismantling of religious leadership and community life. Uyghurs have been punished for everyday religious practice, including praying, fasting during Ramadan, teaching the Quran or even using traditional greetings, while mosques and shrines have been demolished and altered, children separated into state-run schools, and homes subjected to constant monitoring.

At the same time, ordinary expressions of the Islamic faith have been criminalised, and the wider system of repression has expanded beyond detention into forced labour, cultural destruction and enforced assimilation. Coercive labour transfer programmes have expanded across multiple sectors, with significant global implications for supply chains. The trajectory is now being further entrenched through new legislation, including the 2026 ethnic unity law, which promotes a single national identity, expands ideological control over religion and culture, and introduces broad penalties for behaviour that is deemed to undermine ethnic unity, effectively formalising a system that has already devastated the Uyghurs’ religious and cultural life. Thanks to many hard-working advocates —such as Rahima Mahmut, Benedict Rodgers and Lord Alton, to name a few—the Uyghur tribunal has concluded that a genocide is taking place in China, including through the sterilisation of Uyghur women. That finding was echoed by the UK Parliament, which voted to recognise the atrocities as a genocide in April 2021.

Evidence from human rights organisations describes the regulations governing Tibetan Buddhist temples, reincarnation and monastic education, including the prohibition on allowing children of compulsory school age to study scriptures in temples. Ordinary religious expression is recast as a threat to state security. Falun Gong practitioners have also faced extreme persecution, including arrests, torture and deaths in custody, with figures suggesting that more than 2,800 were arrested in 2024 alone. A mounting body of evidence presented in 2019 at the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—the same person who chaired the Uyghur tribunal—pointed to the conclusion that Falun Gong practitioners have been the victims of a state-run programme of forced organ harvesting. It is unbelievable what went on there.

It is clear now that religious persecution in China has two aspects: the careful controlling of a narrow, politicised form of religion, and the outright repression of all other expressions of that faith. We see that clearly in the systemic persecution of Chinese Christians.

First, we see the careful controlling of a narrow and highly politicised form of Christianity. The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination. In regulating the churches, the state claims the right to decide which churches may legally exist, which pastors may lawfully preach, which cameras are installed above the doors, what theology may be taught and what children may hear. Registration does not guarantee safety; even registered churches have still been raided. That shows that the issue is not merely whether a church is registered, but whether it remains sufficiently obedient to party priorities.

Secondly, we see the outright repression of all those who refuse to conform to that limited model. While local government officials might be able to turn a blind eye to small house church gatherings, they can crack down in a flash on congregations that risk growing too large, too noticeable or too direct in their political messaging. Unregistered churches are pressured to join the state system, and refusal can trigger raids, detention and prosecution. Even the smallest acts of worship, such as organising a bible study in a home, can be labelled as illegal gatherings, leading to detention and imprisonment.

When preaching is treated as a political crime, and when ordinary worship becomes a criminal offence, freedom of religion or belief is not merely restricted, but effectively denied. What binds all these examples together is not a single denomination or doctrine, but the party’s insistence that no independent moral, spiritual, communal or transnational authority may exist outside its control.

Why should the United Kingdom care? First, because freedom of religion or belief is universal. It is not diminished by geography, and it does not become negotiable because the offending state is economically powerful. Secondly, because the United Kingdom has long claimed a role as a defender of human rights and the international rules-based order. That claim rings hollow if, when confronted with a sophisticated system of ideological repression by a major power, we choose caution over candour. Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable. A model in which freedom of religion or belief is hollowed out through licensing, digital surveillance, patriotic indoctrination, vague criminal law and selective prosecution is not only a domestic tragedy for China’s believers, but a profound challenge to international human rights norms.

Let me conclude with several clear points. The United Kingdom should state plainly that China’s Sinicisation programme is incompatible with genuine freedom of religion or belief. We should call for the release of prisoners of conscience who are detained on account of religion or belief, including Christian leaders, Uyghur and Hui Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others. We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards. We should support international efforts to establish a robust, independent UN mechanism capable of investigating China’s serious human rights violations, including against freedom of religion or belief. We should work with international partners on targeted sanctions against those responsible for gross abuse. We should ensure that UK trade engagement does not proceed as though forced labour, religious persecution, cultural erasure and ideological criminalisation are somehow separate from the overall character of the state with which we are dealing.

China’s believers are not asking this House to solve every problem in one debate, but they are entitled to expect a democratic legislature to tell the truth.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Given the 2021 parliamentary vote recognising the risk of genocide of the Uyghurs, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should be taking every step that they are obliged to take, under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to prevent genocide in China?

[Ms Rimmer]

I have to say that I did not hear everything that the hon. Member said, but I think we should do whatever we can to bring the issue to a head, one way or another. We cannot just leave it as it is.

I urge the Government to make freedom of religion or belief in China a sustained priority in our diplomacy, multilateral engagement, sanctions policy and trade posture, because if freedom of conscience means anything, it must mean something when it is hardest to defend.

Strait of Hormuz

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman’s characterisation of our response. We have British Typhoon and F-35 jets flying in defence of British people, bases and partners, including Qatar, Cyprus, UAE, Jordan and Bahrain. We have had multiple F-35s, Typhoon jets and ground-based defences shooting down drones. The Defence Secretary has just set out the operational hours and sorties that our brave crews have been flying. We also have HMS Dragon on her way to the eastern Mediterranean, and RFA Lyme Bay has sailed from Gibraltar and is also available for maritime tasks. We also have helicopters and other assets in place, so I simply do not recognise his characterisation.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is suspected that AI systems have been used to target and murder 165 schoolchildren and their teachers using US-made Tomahawks, with further double-tap attacks falling on survivors 40 minutes later. This Government say that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority, but in failing to call out this clear war crime, those words mean nothing as the bodies of children get buried. Will the Minister explain what the UK Government are doing to hold America and Israel to account for these war crimes, and does he share my concerns about the use of AI to kill?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Defence Secretary has set out our position in relation to autonomous systems and AI, and that is not for me to comment on as a Foreign Office Minister, but it is my understanding that investigations into the incident the hon. Gentleman refers to are ongoing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this crucial debate. As he said, any person of conscience can and must condemn both the illegal actions of Hamas on 7 October and the illegal actions of Israel in its response for the 850 days since that horrific day.

Despite the plausible risk of genocide inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people having been identified by the ICJ, the UN and multiple other agencies and experts, successive UK Governments have consistently refused to acknowledge that risk, and they have failed in their obligations to take immediate, proactive measures to prevent a genocide of the Palestinian people.

Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back Hind Rajab, her six family members or the two paramedics who tried to save her. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the 2,700 family bloodlines wiped out at Israel’s hands, or the relatives of more than 6,000 sole survivors. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions genocide or not, it will not bring back the parents of a new generation of Palestinian orphans created through Israeli slaughter, such as the three-year-old Wesam, who was left with a lacerated liver and kidney after an Israeli airstrike that killed her five-year-old brother, her pregnant mother, her father and her grandparents.

Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the almost 300 journalists assassinated for trying to report Israeli war crimes in real time. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the more than 100 Palestinian hostages executed in Israeli detention centres in the last two and a half years. I regret that I do not have time to pay tribute to each and every individual murdered by the genocidal Israeli regime, who will not be affected by this Government’s decisions.

The point is that accepting the irrefutable and serious risk of genocide would oblige the UK to hold Israel accountable. It would save lives in the present by creating legal obligations for the UK Government to cease arms exports, impose sanctions and prosecute those committing war crimes.

I end my speech with a quote from Francesca Albanese:

“The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live-streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation.”

The UK has aided and abetted this genocide—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call John McDonnell.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

In that period, the UK has made a range of significant determinations in relation to our policy in the middle east. Of course, we continue to consider the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation carefully. There is lots in that advisory opinion with which we agree, and which is, indeed, already Government policy. We agree that settlements are illegal, and we have already taken strong action against them. Since this Government came into office, we have introduced three packages of sanctions related to violence against communities in the west bank, and we continue to keep these matters under review.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Since the recent ceasefire came into effect, over 450 Palestinians have been killed by Israel. UNICEF reports that over 100 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza since 10 October. Israeli airstrikes are ongoing, and the mental and physical torture and violence continue unabated. Will the Minister tell the children still alive in Gaza what action the UK Government will take to force Israel to comply with international law and allow essential humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to make the ceasefire a real one and stop the killing?

[Mr Falconer]

I know how deeply so many of our constituents and, indeed, Members of this House feel about these issues, and how often they raise them. We will continue to take action in the way that the Foreign Secretary set out this morning. It is vital that the ceasefire holds, and that we make progress in the three areas set out already, and that is the priority for Ministers.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is the whole point of today’s debate. My feeling is that this Government and even the previous Government have to a degree dragged their feet. I often say to the Minister, who I know very well—we have debated with each other endlessly—that it seems not to matter who is in government, because the Foreign Office retains its reluctance over many sanctions. He will deny that, of course, because it is his job to do so, but I see him as a very decent individual and he must know in his heart of hearts that there is more that we could do. I will leave that for the moment, until he has the chance to wind up the debate.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a perception in my constituency and across the country that the money laundering checks on individual consumers going for a mortgage or buying something expensive such as a car seem to be more stringent than those for the millionaire- billionaire foreign investors who are investing in the City of London?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The whole point of the debate is to ensure that we know where the money comes from, that we know how it has been gained, and that the individuals must pay a penalty if they are involved in what is illegal or inhuman. The key point is that all those matters can be picked out by the Magnitsky sanctions.

I mentioned Myanmar earlier. Despite historically leaning on sanctions against Myanmar’s military junta for its role in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its civilian population after the 2021 coup, the UK has failed to target the State Security and Peace Commission, the military’s successor to the UK-sanctioned State Administration Council. Without additional sanctions, the State Security and Peace Commission, which was established in an attempt by the military to rebrand itself and rebuild financial ties with international partners, has effectively succeeded in its mission. That is exactly what we should have been tackling through the sanctions available to us, but we have not done so.

Finally, last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. However, no action was taken against their key military and diplomatic backer, the United Arab Emirates, or their chief commander. That highlights a broader, troubling trend: to date, only a fraction of Magnitsky sanctions have ever been applied by the UK Government to perpetrators from countries considered strategic allies of the UK. That is a very important point to make; politics have an awful lot to do with this issue. As reported by REDRESS, several of the most notorious human rights abusers and corrupt actors, including in Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, China, Eritrea, the UAE and Egypt—we have mentioned Russia, too—have not been sanctioned by the UK.

I will now come to some examples of individuals and contexts that remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of involvement in corruption and serious human rights issues. Let me deal now with China. While the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in China’s violent repression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from human rights organisations. REDRESS— I know, because I have seen the evidence—previously submitted it to the FCDO, calling for targeted sanctions on the following individuals and entities for their involvement in serious human rights violations in Xinjiang.

All of the following are sanctioned by the US—our ally—but not by the UK. The persons recommended for designations are: Chen Quanguo, party secretary of the Xinjiang Chinese Communist party and the key driver of the policy of genocide; Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissar of the XPCC, who was sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; Peng Jiarui, deputy party secretary and commander of the XPCC, sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Public Security Bureau, sanctioned by the US on 9 July 2020. As somebody sanctioned by the Chinese Government myself—like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—for raising the issues of Xinjiang at the time, I think that that is a major omission. These are the key people—close almost to President Xi himself—who, when sanctioned, will really feel it. They are locked out of America, but have not been locked out by us. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps the FCDO will take to ensure that sanctions are consistently applied to all actors involved in human rights abuses and corruption?

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing forward this important debate on the effectiveness of Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses. They are tools that reflect our values as a country that is meant to defend human rights and the rule of law.

Under the UK’s autonomous sanctions framework, which is built on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and reinforced by subsequent legislation, the global human rights sanction regime allows us to target individuals and entities responsible for gross violations of human rights, including with asset freezes and travel bans. Magnitsky sanctions have been used against perpetrators of egregious abuses in multiple contexts, from Russian officials linked to the death of Sergei Magnitsky to those implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and military leaders in Myanmar. However, today’s debate also requires us to consider the broader effectiveness and consistency of these tools in the face of major crises.

Multiple authoritative assessments, particularly from REDRESS and UK parliamentary evidence submissions, highlight several areas where the UK Magnitsky sanctions regime has failed to act effectively. Evidence shows that the UK has not replicated the majority of Magnitsky sanctions imposed by partner jurisdictions across the US, Canada and the EU. Only 14% of global Magnitsky designations are listed under the UK Magnitsky regime and another 17% appear under other UK regimes, meaning that 69% of perpetrators sanctioned abroad are not sanctioned by the UK at all. Of the unsanctioned cases, 71% were designated by the US, 27% by Canada and 2% by the EU, yet the UK has not followed suit.

The gap means that the UK is failing to act against individuals already identified as human rights abusers or corrupt actors by close allies. The UK has received at least 15 detailed evidence packages from NGOs such as REDRESS documenting alleged human rights abuses or corruption in many of the countries that were referenced by previous speakers, including China, Sudan, Uganda, Bangladesh, Venezuela and others. In many of those cases, the US has already sanctioned the perpetrators, but the UK has failed to act in almost all of them.

On the use of the legal powers available, according to parliamentary evidence, since September 2021 the UK has sanctioned only three individuals under its Magnitsky human rights regime, compared with 105 designations in the preceding period under the previous Foreign Secretary. That reflects a significant slowdown and a lack of strategic direction. There is also poor co-ordination with our allies in the US, the EU and other sanctioning partners. The recommendations from the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation stressed that the UK’s unilateral approach weakens the effectiveness of sanctions. The UK has failed to systematically sanction individuals already targeted by partners, co-ordinate multilateral actions to target corrupt networks instead of isolated individuals, or match the scale and frequency of designation by allies.

Magnitsky sanctions have been used against the egregious abuses that I have mentioned. However, today’s debate requires us to reflect on the broader effectiveness and consistency of these tools. In recent months, the United Kingdom has taken steps to sanction two Israeli Government Ministers over their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those designations, made alongside partners including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, include travel bans and asset freezes and were justified by the Foreign Office as necessary responses to genocide and serious abuses of human rights. Moreover, the UK has suspended trade negotiations with Israel in response to its ongoing military offensive in Gaza and related violence in the west bank and has applied sanctions against settlers and settler organisations linked to violence against the Palestinian communities.

The scale and scope of action by the UK Government has not been sufficient, and we have failed to reflect our obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law to ensure that civilians do not suffer, particularly in the light of provisional measures from the International Court of Justice ordering the protection of civilians in Gaza and actions directed at ending grave human rights violations in Gaza and the west bank. The sheer scale of suffering in Gaza, including from the blockade’s effect on civilians and the risk of mass starvation, must prompt far stronger measures, ranging from broader sanctions and trade restrictions to the enforcement of legal obligations to prevent atrocities.

Instead, we see 37 NGOs, including Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Rescue Committee, ousted and banned from providing aid across the west bank and Gaza with impunity. That is despite nearly 1.9 million displaced Gazans being vulnerable to shortages of tents, shelter materials, medical assistance, clean water and sanitation support during winter, and we still refuse to go further on sanctions and punishment for Israel’s actions. At the same time, the UK Government have stressed their continued support for Israel’s security while the Israeli Government expand illegal settlements deeper and deeper into Palestinian territory. We have recognised the state of Palestine, which is a welcome step, but we must follow that up by fulfilling our obligations under that recognition to the Palestinian people.

All that illustrates an essential point: Magnitsky-style sanctions are neither symbolic nor irrelevant, but their effectiveness depends on consistent, principled application, rigorous enforcement and alignment with broader obligations and foreign policy goals. Targeted sanctions are most effective when they clearly align with international law, with evidence and with credible human rights concerns, when they are co-ordinated with international partners to avoid loopholes and politicisation, and when they are part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy, humanitarian advocacy and engagement with multilateral justice mechanisms. Used in isolation, sanctions risk being dismissed as gestures rather than being seen as instruments of accountability. Used in co-ordination with wider action, they can contribute meaningfully to deterrence, pressure for change and justice for victims.

The United Kingdom should make principal use of Magnitsky sanctions wherever there is credible evidence of human rights abuses—be it in Russia, the middle east, Sudan, Myanmar or elsewhere—but they must also be prepared to act boldly and consistently, in line with international law when confronted with mass civilian suffering anywhere on the globe. Our inconsistent approach to human rights, and the protection of so-called allies, condemns us all to an unsafe world in which might is right and wrongdoing is never corrected. In the same stroke of a pen, we shame our enemies and sign away the human rights that we like to proclaim are sacrosanct. We must ensure that our sanctions regime is not just a statement of values but a tool that genuinely contributes to accountability, justice and the prevention of atrocities. I commend the motion to the House.

Venezuela

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, to draw equivalence between different countries is the wrong approach. It does not recognise the scale of damage done by the Maduro regime or the fact that, in order to promote international law, we must promote the partnerships that underpin it. We need to work closely with the coalition of the willing, which is meeting tomorrow to discuss Ukraine, and ensure that there are US security guarantees in place, which are an important part of our security alliance with the US. On Greenland, we and other European countries have made our position clear.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The unstoppable machine of American imperialist invasions has killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. From aiding, arming and abetting a genocide in Palestine, to now the invasion and abduction of a leader in Venezuela, for oil, minerals and gold, and to protect the petrodollar, this has nothing to do with democracy or narco-terrorism. With ongoing threats to Greenland, Cuba, Colombia and Mexico, the list of gangsterish aggression continues unopposed. Has the global rules-based order now collapsed, or did it ever even exist for western warmongering powers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly disagree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. We have a strong security partnership with the US and other countries, and not just through NATO but through a direct security partnership. The US is our strongest security ally and our alliance is based on values and principles. We continue to sustain that relationship as part of our support and continued respect for international law.

Kashmir: Self-determination

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his continuing leadership on this issue, not just in this House but around the country.

It is quite disappointing. The last time we debated this subject in Westminster Hall was in March. I think about the many hours that we spend debating foreign policy issues in this place, and the fact that Kashmir does not often get the hearing it deserves and the prominence that it demands, given the issue’s impact on so many hundreds of thousands of our constituents throughout the country and its importance on the international stage.

I want to impress on the Minister, so that he hears it from all of us in this place, that the line that this is a bilateral issue is wearing thin. It really no longer holds water, not least because of China’s increasing interest in the Aksai part of the region. If we are serious about taking a leadership role through our UN Security Council membership, saying that these issues are bilateral makes it look as if we are not interested and pushes it back to two peoples we know are looking for help and leadership on this issue.

What I find most disheartening is that I have many Kashmiri constituents and many wonderful Kashmiri local councillors, and they hold a hope in their heart that the resolution promised to them in 1948 would, at some point, become a reality that would allow them and their families in Kashmir that very basic and fundamental right of self-determination, but that light of hope is fading. Time is passing and the clock is ticking, and it seems we are getting further away from a peaceful resolution to allow for the self-determination of Kashmir than we have been at any point in my time in the House. That cannot be allowed to continue under any Government, but specifically not under a Labour Government, given that we not only have a fundamental commitment to the basic premises of human rights but put such things at the heart of what we do.

I want to press the Minister, and I hope he can provide some answers, because the issues around the UK’s relationship with India are genuinely important. Since the previous debate in March, there have been three significant interactions with India: the trade deal delegation went out in October; Prime Minister Modi visited in July; and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), visited India in November. Those are three high-level interactions with India.

Will the Minister confirm that in each of those interactions the issue of human rights in Kashmir was raised with Indian Government representatives? It would be wonderful if he is able to say what those representations were. I appreciate that he might not, but knowing that the Government are using every lever available to them, and every diplomatic and political opportunity, to continue to push for the plight of a group of people who are looking to us for leadership would give us some hope that the thing we all aspire to is not completely off the Government’s agenda.

I want to press the Minister on something else. When I speak to representatives of the diaspora community in the UK, there is sometimes a feeling that direct engagement with the Government is not what it should be. There is a feeling that sometimes, as has been mentioned, the words “Kashmir” and “self-determination” are said, and there are tick points that have to be referenced in order to get through a meeting, but actually the commitment is becoming more skin deep.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Gareth Snell]

No, I will not.

The Minister is a diligent man and takes these issues very seriously; will he outline what regular engagement there is between the Foreign Office and representatives of the Kashmiri diaspora in the UK? How are we making sure that the voices of people who have a deep and meaningful connection to Kashmir are heard at the highest levels of Government? Will he potentially commit to making statements, so that we do not have to do these things through Westminster Hall debates and the whole House can discuss these issues with the prominence that they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate. For some, Kashmir is seen as a geopolitical flashpoint, but for thousands of people in my constituency and across the UK, it is something far more personal and intimate. It is a place where their parents were born, the place where their children’s grandparents still live and the place they call home, even from thousands of miles away.

My office has heard from many families who were gripped by fear as the recent violence escalated. One article described the situation bluntly:

“We were not able to step outside of our homes because of the intensity of firing from both sides. We could only hear loud bangs from inside.”

Others shared the heartbreak of losing relatives in the clashes, and several wrote to me terrified because their elderly parents were visiting during the violence and became stranded, unable to return safely. These are not distant political events; they are lived experiences for people I represent.

The human rights violations that we have heard about from Members on both sides of the Chamber do not exist in isolation. The root causes go back decades to the 1947 partition and the unresolved question of Kashmir’s political status, with incursions and human rights abuses from both the Indian side and the Pakistani side—a legacy of imperial decision making that continues to shape instability today. The violence is escalating, and the reports that India intends to impose Israel-style policies in Kashmir—demographic engineering, land dispossession and silencing of activists—only deepen the urgency.

The right to self-determination is not optional. It is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions 47 and 51. For 77 years, this promise has been denied. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a nation that champions democracy and human rights, the UK must act. I urge the Government to lead on human rights, and demand and facilitate independent investigations into atrocities on both sides of the line of control; to push for and facilitate dialogue, and to use our diplomatic influence to bring India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri representatives around the negotiating table; to support and enforce the 18 UN resolutions since 1947, none of which has been fully implemented, and especially advocate for a free and fair plebiscite; and to provide humanitarian support as required to protect civilian life on both sides of the line of control.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I turn to the Front-Bench spokespeople. Mr Mathew, you have no more than 10 minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

1. If she will meet with representatives of the Dawood Family Justice Campaign to discuss the potential repatriation of their family members’ remains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I am deeply saddened that more than two decades after the tragic deaths of brothers Sakil and Saeed Dawood in 2002 the family are still waiting for Saeed’s remains to be repatriated. Following the conclusion of the criminal case this year, our consular teams remain fully committed to resolving this matter and continue to raise it with the Indian authorities to secure a resolution.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Saeed and Sakil Dawood were abducted and murdered in Gujarat, India in February 2002. Their nephew, my constituent Imran Dawood, survived the attack. For over 23 years, the family have sought accountability and the return of the victims’ remains. The previous Labour and Tory Governments supported the family during the court trials, which ended earlier this year without justice. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 1 October regarding the Dawood Family Justice Campaign that seeks repatriation of the victims’ remains. We held a parliamentary event on 22 October, to which the FCDO leadership were invited. Will the Foreign Secretary meet the Dawood family and will she commit to providing urgent direct support to assist further in securing the remains of their family members, held by the Indian Government for over two decades, and help the family to achieve some level of closure?

[Mr Falconer]

We will.