Sanctions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their work to date on sanctioning Russia. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies and the brave Ukrainian people in resisting Putin’s aggression. The support for Ukraine across this House sends a really strong message to the Kremlin, so we welcome this latest statutory instrument, which rightly tightens the screw on Russia’s ability to wage its illegal war.

These amendments expand our sanctions regime in three important ways. First, by extending export bans on a wide range of products—chemicals, electronics, plastics, metals and machinery—we are further disrupting the industrial base that fuels Putin’s war machine. Secondly, by banning the transfer of associated software and technical knowledge, including cloud-based solutions, we will prevent the back-door flow of intellectual capital into the Kremlin’s hands. Thirdly, by introducing import bans on Russian synthetic diamonds and helium products, even when processed in third countries, we will cut off future revenue streams to help fund this war. These measures respond to the real-world attempts by Russia to sidestep sanctions by using complex supply chains and third-country networks. They align the UK with our allies—the EU, the United States and the G7—making our collective response far more powerful than going it alone.

However, while I support these measures, I hope that Ministers will consider going further. If the Government are serious about holding Putin to account, sanctions must be not only enforced but escalated. The Liberal Democrats have been saying this for months: the UK should begin the seizure, not just the freezing, of Russian state assets.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is laying out, and I absolutely agree with him that the support for these measures across this House is really powerful. I was most recently in Kyiv two weeks ago, and the look on the faces of the people subjected to war crimes by the Russian army will stay with me for a very long time. That underlined to me the importance of UK efforts to support them, and I completely agree with his point about moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets. The Minister today and the Foreign Secretary earlier this week talked about working on a multilateral basis. Does my hon. Friend agree that if such an agreement cannot be found, we should consider moving on a unilateral basis in a leadership role for the United Kingdom?

[James MacCleary]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is an estimated £22 billion in frozen assets from Russian central bank reserves held and locked up in the UK at the moment. That money could and should be used to help rebuild Ukraine, provide humanitarian assistance and purchase the matériel that the Ukrainians need to defend themselves, and the UK should certainly be taking a leadership role in seizing those assets as soon as we can. The United States is already moving in that direction, as are EU member states. The United Kingdom, as we have said, should be leading, not lagging behind.

We must also close the loopholes that have allowed Russian oligarchs to continue laundering their dirty money in London. That means properly resourcing the National Crime Agency, strengthening the economic crime legislation, and demanding the use of Magnitsky sanctions not just for individuals but for their family members when wealth is transferred in an attempt to dodge accountability.

As a member of the UK’s parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, I strongly support the register that the Council of Europe has established, on which the UK is taking a leading role, to record the damage that Russia has done to Ukraine. I know that the Government are backing that work, but I hope that Ministers will promote the register, which does not have a very high profile at the moment, to ensure that victims’ claims are properly documented and Russia is held meaningfully to account for its actions.

Let us not forget that Putin’s ambitions do not end with Ukraine. He is actively working to destabilise other sovereign states, including Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and others in a wider attempt to erode European stability and democratic resilience.

Let me be clear: the Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, the sovereignty of nations and the right of people to choose peace over tyranny, and Putin’s war is a grotesque assault on all those principles. This legislation is a necessary step, but it must be the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to hold Putin and the Russian state to account. We support the motion, but we will keep pushing this Government to be bolder, faster and more determined in their support for Ukraine and its defence of the values we all hold dear.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman, who I know well, will know that that is a matter for the Nobel committee, and not for me. I do not recognise his characterisation. We are working closely with the United States, Ukraine and all of our European partners to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We are very clear about who is on the side of peace—us—and who is on the side of war: Vladimir Putin.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Members across this House who have been sanctioned by Putin and his flunkies should wear that as a badge of honour. It indicates just how Putin and his flunkies feel about the prospect of Russian assets being seized. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets to strengthen the hand of our brave Ukrainian allies?

[Stephen Doughty]

I condemn the sanction against the hon. Lady, and against other colleagues in the House. We have been very clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing in Ukraine and the destruction that it has wrought on the Ukrainian people and industries. I saw some terrible examples of that when I visited just a few weeks ago. I have spoken about the importance of the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and the moneys that are now available to Ukraine. The Government continue to work closely with allies on the issue that the hon. Lady references. I had extensive discussions with my G7 counterparts and others about considering all possible lawful avenues for making Russia pay for the damage it is causing, and we will update the House in due course.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and that is a really timely point. We should not outsource our children’s safety to social media companies. Indeed, we heard in a previous statement about the impact of content moderation and how it may or not form part of discussions on trade agreements as we move forward.

When I sat in a room with all the social media companies, only one had heard of the Alex McCartney case. That tells us everything that we need to know about how seriously big tech takes child safety.

It should not take a TV show like “Adolescence” to make the Government wake up to what has been warping our society for years. The actions that they have taken so far have been inadequate. Meeting the creators of “Adolescence” was indeed welcome, but it is simply not enough. Commissioning more reviews, talking about cultural change, and tinkering at the edges will not fix the problem. We must speak to the platforms in the only language they understand: profit and loss. We know what drives this issue: algorithms, content recommendation systems and the financial interests of the big tech companies actively steer vulnerable young people towards ever more extreme content. This is not a side effect; it is their business model.

Fundamentally, this debate is about power: who holds it, who wields it, and in whose name are they acting? Right now, big tech billionaires and online extremists are working hand in hand, shaping our children and democracy, and warping our society. This Government have been too slow, too weak and too captured by vested interests to stop them. Figures like Andrew Tate have built empires by manipulating young men into their worlds of violent misogyny, lies and conspiracy. Tate has ingratiated himself with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, but does he care about men? Not a bit—he exploits them. This is not just an individual person behaving irresponsibly; it is a co-ordinated machine trying to drown out critical voices, spread misinformation and undermine public debate.

Let us be honest: agitators and bullies like the Tate brothers have always existed. What has changed are the tools and the platforms that they have at their disposal, which give them access to young people in particular. Let us be clear: their reach is not accidental. Andrew Tate is amplified, promoted and monetised by the same platforms that claim to be unable to regulate online harm. This is not just about free speech; it is about radicalisation and control. Powerful malign actors—some overseas, and some home grown—are exploiting our young people and our political system for profit. Social media platforms are not neutral: they push extremist content deliberately, algorithmically and at scale.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the clear way that she is laying out some of the issues that we are talking about today. I am lucky enough to be a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, and one of our strands of work is on tackling myths and disinformation. One of the calls I have heard is that, at the very least, the social media giants should have a duty to carry out a risk assessment of legal but harmful content, which covers some of the issues that she is talking about. Does she agree that that is the very least the platforms could do?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I completely agree that that is the bare minimum that they should do.

A report by Hope Not Hate found that almost 90% of boys aged 16 to 18 in the UK have consumed content from Andrew Tate. On Elon Musk’s X, a platform that has dismantled its trust and safety teams, Tate’s videos dominate young men’s feeds. If we allow this climate to continue, we are handing digital platforms the power to dictate political debate, poison young minds and do irreparable damage to our democracy.

Of course, the loudest free speech warriors are the first to silence criticism, as I know from personal experience. After I called out Elon Musk for platforming extremism, Tate’s followers immediately descended on me with a flood of abuse and harassment. That was not random; it was a deliberate attempt to silence an elected representative. I was bombarded with death threats, rape jokes and abuse from accounts both local and international. Then the Tate brothers themselves came after me—two men running from the most serious criminal charges and propped up by the world’s most powerful leaders. They targeted me, an elected representative from Northern Ireland, for daring to speak my mind. It was not even about them—it was about Musk—but it was a calculated attempt to silence an elected politician. I was, in their words, “a nice target”. It was a direct attack on democracy and on this House itself.

This is not just about individuals; it is about democracy. We have seen a deliberate, organised effort to create an online environment where extremism flourishes, where intimidation becomes the norm, and where women, minorities and political opponents are driven out of public life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to press these issues. It was very important to be in Israel yesterday to talk about what may come when we get that ceasefire, and about the role that the UK of course wants to play both in ensuring Israel’s security and in working with other partners to ensure reconstruction.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The rights of women in Afghanistan have been under systematic assault since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, and women have been all but entirely excluded from public life. They are barred from attending school and university, and in many areas they cannot leave their homes without a male guardian present. What pressure are the UK Government putting on the Taliban to ensure that women and girls can go back to school?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We are deeply concerned by the appalling erosion of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, and we are seeking to use every avenue to exert pressure. I remind the House that on 9 January I announced that the UK had formally joined the list of countries pledging political support to the initiative to refer Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for violations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.