Sanctions

Moves the motion for approval of The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022, dated 28 February 2022.

Questions the number of individuals sanctioned, criticises the Government for not naming specific oligarchs on sanctions lists compared to EU measures, raises concerns about delays in sanctioning individuals like Mr Abramovich.

Asks the Minister to update the House on actions taken regarding Scottish limited partnerships as a loophole for Russians and Belarusians to invest in property and raise cash in the UK.

Questions why privilege in the House is not used to name oligarchs, presses the Minister for more direct action against individuals involved with Russia.

Highlights that 23 people on EU sanctions lists are not on UK sanctions lists, including commanders of various Russian forces and the Defence Minister. Criticises current measures for allowing sanctioned individuals to use their own economic resources.

Expresses frustration over lack of effective action against economic crime and kleptocracy, urges the Minister to enforce sanctions rigorously.

Critiques the legal threshold for sanctioning individuals as too high, proposes legislative changes to lower this bar to aid enforcement of sanctions.

Highlights the need for quick action in applying sanctions to avoid escalation of hostilities due to delays in implementation.

Encourages cooperation among allies to ensure sanctions are effective and prevent escalation of hostilities, suggests measures already exist that could be utilised more effectively.

Highlights the immediate economic impact of banking measures on Russian assets.

Raises concern about allowing VTB Bank, the second-largest Russian bank, 30 days for clients to remove their assets despite all other measures coming into force immediately.

Suggests using unexplained wealth orders legislation to impound assets of individuals and leave it up to them to prove legitimacy, a quicker approach than current legal due diligence process.

Russia’s unjustifiable attack on Ukraine is condemned by the House. The desire for tough action is robust and united across the kingdom. We urge the Government to act faster, considering economic impacts while ensuring meaningful sanctions. Questions are raised about immediacy of measures, law firms enabling asset flight, pace of individual designations, corresponding banks, exemptions, deposits restrictions, aviation assets, luxury goods ban, insurance sectoral measures, Scottish limited partnerships, use of assets, resourcing, enforcement, and sanctions against Belarus.

The hon. Member finds much to agree with in the moves to prevent Russian banks and businesses from accessing the UK financial system, but he argues that more needs to be done immediately, including targeting Russia's second, third and fourth biggest banks, VTB, Gazprombank and Alfa-Bank. He also raises concerns about measures being bypassed by countries like China, India and Brazil and suggests targeting oligarchs who have bought their way into British society. Davis emphasises the need for quicker action due to the urgency of the situation in Ukraine and criticises the slow use of unexplained wealth orders. He calls for immediate action on identified targets such as Roman Abramovich.

The Scottish National party supports the statutory instruments. However, there is concern about the UK's approach being duplicative and less ambitious than the EU’s efforts. The SNP urges greater coordination with the EU on sanctioning individuals and companies, including extending sanctions to overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands. They also call for broader sanctions such as removing Russian banks from SWIFT, imposing equivalent sanctions on Belarus, banning payments to Gazprom, and providing financial support for UK entities impacted by sanctions.

Compliments the Government for acting swiftly with extensive sanctions. Asks about legal status of holding equities or debt instruments in Russian businesses pre-crisis and measures to prevent smuggling of sanctioned materiel to Russia via third countries. Supports isolating Putin economically alongside allies.

Expressed support for the introduction of statutory instruments and emphasised the need to protect British companies from being used by Putin's cronies. Criticised the lack of effective mechanism in government to implement sanctions and mentioned frustration over delays in action regarding Companies House.

Responded briefly with 'Never' but did not elaborate on his full contribution. His response was an intervention rather than a main speech.

Seely criticised the delay in passing legislation to address economic crime and emphasised the need for a comprehensive approach, including foreign lobbying laws, amendments to libel law, data protection reforms, and an espionage Bill. He highlighted instances where Russian oligarchs have used UK companies and offshore accounts to facilitate money laundering and political influence. Seely also pointed out that some legal firms knowingly assist corrupt clients without proper client checks, contributing to the intimidation of investigative journalists and authors like Catherine Belton. He urged for a public inquiry into systemic corruption over the past decade and called for measures such as capping costs in National Crime Agency cases.

Supports sanctions but emphasises need for further action, including a Minister for economic warfare, a single lead agency to tackle economic crime, publication of reports on golden visa schemes, increased funding for agencies like the National Crime Agency, introduction of laws such as foreign agents registration and SLAPP-back laws, ban on political donations from profits earned outside UK, regulation of solicitors to stop abuse of legal process. Emphasises need for comprehensive strategy against economic crime.

Agrees with Liam Byrne's points but cautions against targeting senior military figures, suggesting a two-stage approach to sanctions instead.

Supports the need for stronger action like that taken in Italy and France, questioning why UK regulations are limited compared to other nations.

Mr. Jenrick argues that the focus should be on systemic impacts and measures targeting the Russian economy rather than individual oligarchs, emphasising the need for significant sanctions like the move to exclude Russia from SWIFT and freezing assets of the Russian central bank. He expresses disappointment in the limited initial package of sanctions but supports current measures. Mr. Jenrick also questions why all major Russian banks have not been sanctioned and suggests that targeting individuals is less impactful in the short term due to their distance from Putin's regime today. Additionally, he criticises the inefficiency of the system for sanctioning individuals, calling for more resources and a lower legal threshold. He stresses the need for plain-English guidance for businesses affected by sanctions and warns against measures that might harm legitimate small businesses while tackling corruption and money laundering.

Mr. Seely intervenes to support Mr. Jenrick's distinction between institutional sanctions and personal sanctions, emphasising the importance of targeting individuals who remain close to Putin for effective policy implementation.

Mr. Byrne intervenes to caution against making Companies House cost-neutral, arguing that while good 'know your customer' checks are necessary, they should not come at the expense of sky-high fees for businesses.

My party fully supports this sanctions regime, on which the Foreign Secretary gave us some insight yesterday. This is a great opportunity, because the whole House is united behind the Government. The only dissent might come from Sinn Féin. We have waited long for these sanctions and should have acted sooner due to the malign influence of Russian oligarchs. Now is an opportunity to ensure effective legislation with unity in the House. Some may see it as revenge against Putin’s friends, but it's about ensuring that the gangster regime perpetrating atrocities in Ukraine feels the economic pinch. We must address the weaknesses in sanctions, such as delays in implementation and asset movement by targeted individuals or groups. There are facilitators here in the UK hiding ill-gotten gains; we need a level playing field to ensure effective measures against them. Since direct military support is not given, our economic weapons must be used effectively to defend democracy in Ukraine.

Moran congratulates the Servant of the People party for joining the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, highlighting cross-party cooperation. She supports targeting Russian financial sectors but questions the 30-day grace period for sanctions without disclosing names. Moran emphasises that sanctions will significantly impact Putin's finances and criticises a collective greed and naivety towards Russia previously. She urges the Minister to be transparent about issues related to lawfare and protecting media freedom.

Hanvey supports sanctions on Russia as a means for de-escalation and preserving life in Ukraine. He stresses the need to address London’s reliance on dirty money to avoid impeding meaningful sanctions, highlights risks associated with cryptocurrencies, and calls for urgent measures to tackle rising energy costs and propose alternative energy opportunities. Hanvey also advocates for a windfall tax on energy profits to mitigate impacts on the cost of living crisis.

Pollard argues that Russia's invasion is an unprovoked act requiring severe sanctions. He highlights the need for more aggressive measures, including closing the gap with EU sanctions, targeting oligarchs, and reforming Companies House to enhance transparency in financial dealings. Additionally, he advocates for stricter control over dual-use exports and calls on ministers to prepare pre-emptive sanctions against Belarus if it participates further in Russian aggression.

Mr. Ellis closed the debate by emphasising that nothing is off the table regarding further sanctions against Russia, highlighting the UK's significant impact on Russian assets and companies through measures such as freezing assets of VTB and banning sterling clearing with Sberbank. He addressed specific queries raised during the debate, including the delisting of existing securities and the automatic application of designations to Crown dependencies.