UK’s Moscow sanctions may be shelved for two years
THERESA MAY has been warned that the Government must “get its act together” over its response to the Salisbury attack, as it emerged that a new set of sanctions against corrupt Russian officials is to be shelved for up to two years.
A so-called “Magnitsky amendment”, announced by the Prime Minister as an “immediate action” following the chemical attack in Salisbury, will not be introduced until after the UK has left the EU.
Ben Wallace, the security minister, has told MPs that the measure, mirroring laws in force in the US and Canada, would not be introduced until “after Brexit”.
It is understood the comments referred to the end of the 21-month tran- sition period in December 2021 or next year in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Mr Wallace said the reason for the wait was that it forms part of the Sanctions Act, which constructs an entirely new sanctions regime for the UK for when the country leaves the EU.
Last night, the disclosure prompted a furious response from Conservative MPs who campaigned for the law, which allows the Government to target human rights abusers with asset freezes and visa bans.
One senior Tory warned: “The Government has got to be really careful that it is not seen as being tough on Russia with allies in other countries and yet has not got its act together at home.”
Another, Andrew Mitchell, the former Conservative chief whip, said: “The House of Commons strongly supported the Magnitsky amendment and, following the events in Salisbury, it re- ceived immediate government support. I would not want to be in the shoes of the minister who has to come along and explain that they have now basically kicked it into the long grass.”
Richard Benyon, a Conservative member of Parliament’s intelligence security minister, and 17 Labour MPs, in separate letters to Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, expressed frustration about the Government’s plan to delay the new sanctions.
“Others have publicly taken action against known abusers of human rights in Russia,” said the Labour letter, led by Ian Austin, a former minister.
“Yet, despite an atrocity carried out by Russian operatives on British soil, we appear to have done nothing.”
The Magnitsky amendment is intended to target human rights abusers from Russia and across the world.
The US list of sanctioned individuals includes 49 Russian nationals whose crimes include extrajudicial killings and torture. The two specific sanctions under Magnitsky laws are visa bans and asset freezes.
In a statement to the Commons on March 14, ten days after the nerveagent poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former spy, and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, Mrs May said the government would table a Magnitsky amendment to the Sanctions Bill as one of its “immediate actions”. Last week she said the amendment had formed part of “our collective effort to protect ourselves in response to this threat”.
But pressed last week on when the Magnitsky powers would be used, Mr Wallace told Stephen Kinnock, a La- bour MP: “We stand ready to use the new powers on sanctions after Brexit”.
And Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, told Mr Benyon she was “not aware of the exact process” on setting up a committee to monitor use of the powers, as required by the Act.
Tim Otty, a QC specialising in sanctions and public law, told The Sunday Telegraph that there was “no need” to wait until Brexit to use the Magnitsky powers in the legislation, which became law four months ago.
Mr Otty said: “There is no need to await the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union before bringing the new Magnitsky powers contained in the Sanctions Act into force.
“The principal purpose of the draft Sanctions Bill when first presented may have been to replace European Union sanctions measures following withdrawal but its scope expanded substantially as a result of amendments made during Parliamentary debate.”
He added: “It would be very odd if provisions said at the time to represent part of the United Kingdom’s response to the Skirpal poisoning incident were said to depend on the entirely unrelated issue of when the United Kingdom left the European Union.”
‘Despite an atrocity carried out by Russian operatives on British soil, we appear to have done nothing’