PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Sanctions: Russia - 9 September 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 834), dated 29 July 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.

The instrument, which amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, was laid before Parliament on 30 July using powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and entered into force on 31 July. For clarity, the instrument was first laid on 24 May under the previous Government. This Government support the aims of the instrument, so we revoked and re-laid it to provide additional time post election for the required parliamentary scrutiny. There are no amendments to the policy in relation to Russia sanctions, and the substance of the instrument remains the same.

The United Kingdom’s commitment to Ukraine is iron-clad. In July, the UK contributed £40 million to NATO’s comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine, which ensures that Ukraine will access vital assistance for counter-drone technology, de-mining of reclaimed land, and the medical rehabilitation of injured Ukrainian personnel. Ukraine has placed new orders for ammunition worth £300 million through the international fund for Ukraine, which is administered by the UK.

Sanctions, too, are a crucial tool to weaken Russia’s ability to attack Ukraine. In July, the UK hosted the European Political Community at Blenheim Palace, where more than 40 countries signed a call to action to tackle Russia’s so-called shadow fleet: a fleet of ageing oil tankers, which use deceptive shipping practices and substandard insurance to attempt to undermine sanctions on Russian oil. At the event, the UK spearheaded action against the shadow fleet when we sanctioned 11 oil tankers. Through this action, we continue to demonstrate the UK’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and underline our leading role in eroding Russian oil revenues.

Targeted sanctions against oil tankers have had a material and immediate impact. UK sanctioned tankers have been left idling, knocked out of the Russian oil trade and for the most part unable to load new cargoes. The instrument provides the basis for those sanctions, and has enhanced the UK’s ability to respond to Russia’s increasingly desperate and reckless attempts to undermine our and our partners’ sanctions.

I thank the Minister, welcome him to his place, and wish him well in his role.

I have been sanctioned by China and Russia, along with many others in this House—it is almost a badge of courage—but that is not the issue. My understanding of today’s sanctions is that businesses and those who have super yachts will be impacted directly, but that is all that the instrument means. If that is the case, will the Minister ensure that our sanctions have enough teeth to bite, and to be painful?

I thank the hon. Member. If he allows me, I will go a little further into the introductory remarks, which I hope will specify why this afternoon’s measures will provide greater teeth. I hope that will answer his concerns, but if it does not, I will return to him.

The instrument, as well as increasing the effect on shipping, also broadens the designation criteria under the Russia regime. It expands our powers to target those who provide financial or material support to Russia’s war machine. That could include, for example, foreign financial institutions that facilitate significant transactions on behalf, or in support, of Russia’s military industrial base. That is in line with steps taken by partners and the G7’s commitment to curtailing Russia’s use of the international financial system to further its war in Ukraine.

Let me turn now to the measure about which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked. The instrument adds new relevant activities to the existing power in the Russia sanctions regime under regulation 57F—“specification of ships”—to provide the criteria to sanction individuals’ ships. The amendment provides that a ship may be specified by the Secretary of State where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is, has been or is likely to be used for any activity whose object or effect is to destabilise Ukraine, to undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine, or to obtain a benefit from, or support, the Government of Russia. That includes where a ship is involved in carrying dual-use or military goods, oil or oil products that originate in Russia, or any other goods or technology that could contribute to destabilising Ukraine or to undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine.

Where a ship is specified under regulation 57F, it will be subject to measures in regulations 57A to 57E—the shipping sanctions. Where those sanctions apply, a specified ship is prohibited from entering a port in the UK, may be given a movement or a port entry direction, and can be detained or refused permission to register on the UK ship register—or, indeed, have its existing registration terminated. Additionally, UK persons and persons in the UK cannot provide funds and financial services, including maritime insurance, or brokering services, in relation to specified ships that are transporting certain oil and oil products, and cannot use specified ships to supply or deliver Russian oil and oil products, regardless of the price of the oil on board.

Once again, the UK has already specified ships using that enhanced power. The previous Government specified six vessels on 13 June. In July, this Government specified 11 vessels that were operating as part of Russia’s shadow fleet. That fleet attempts to undercut our sanctions, undermines the maritime rules-based order, and presents an environmental and maritime security threat to coastal states.

This statutory instrument also amends regulation 6 of the Russia sanctions regime. That regulation provides the criteria for the designation of individuals or entities for the purpose of an asset freeze and other relevant measures. Specifically, the instrument adds additional activities for which a person may be designated, including where individuals or entities provide financial services or make available funds, economic resources, goods or technology to persons involved in obtaining a benefit from, or supporting, the Government of Russia. In practice, that widens the set of actors and enablers that can be targeted for providing financial and material support to Russia and its war machine as Putin continues to prosecute his illegal war in Ukraine.

The instrument also consolidates powers under the Russia regulations to designate individuals or entities involved in the destabilisation of Ukraine. Specifically, the additional activities that the instrument adds to the designation criteria make possible the designation of persons who have owned or controlled entities involved in destabilising Ukraine, as well as individuals who work as directors or managers of such entities.

In the plainest language—because that was the language that the hon. Member for Strangford used—the instrument enables us to target the ship, as well as the individuals or entities involved with the ship. We found, through the previous regime, that the ship itself is the sharpest area of vulnerability, so the International Maritime Organisation number of the ship itself is where sanctions have greatest effect, and that is the effect that we are using today.

I understand; the Minister has laid out the system very simply. It applies to the EU, but we all know that those who seem to break most of the rules are India and other countries across the world that are out to buy Russian oil. If that is the case, what discussions have been had to ensure that India does not contravene what we are trying to do through these sanctions?

I say gently to the Minister that we have only an hour and a half for this debate. I know Members want to speak and I do not want to take any of that precious time away.

I defer to your good guidance, Mr Speaker.

In conclusion, European security is a key focus of this Government. Supporting Ukraine remains vital to that end, and the UK is committed to doing so. I am sure that, when I come to answer hon. Members’ questions, I will have an opportunity to say a little more about how we work with our partners, including India, on these matters. We will work with international partners to ensure that the values of democracy, human rights and international law are maintained. This legislation and subsequent sanctions made under it show our commitment to Ukraine as it defends its freedom in the face of Russian aggression. British support remains iron-clad. I commend the regulations to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

As this is the first time that I have appeared opposite the new Minister at the Dispatch Box, I wish not only to congratulate him but to welcome him to his place. In a previous life, we served together in the Foreign Office. He is free to disagree, although I discourage him from doing so, but I believe we worked well together in difficult conditions and I hope that we will have the same relationship going forward. I am confident that he will bring the same dedication to his new position that he showed in his work at the Foreign Office, although it is a difficult time to take responsibility for the middle east and north Africa. We all wish him genuine success in the role.

Although the Government may have changed, the commitment across the House to support Ukraine and starve the Russian war machine remains absolutely resolute. This motion demonstrates continuity of purpose, as it was originally laid by the Conservative Government, was interrupted by the election and has now been re-tabled by the new Minister. The Conservative Government introduced the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act in 2018, allowing us to build our own sanctions regime having left the European Union. Although our co-operative approach with the EU on sanctions is vital, particularly on Ukraine, that legislation laid the groundwork for the UK to create a world-leading and effective sanctions regime, as was demonstrated after Putin’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine and concerns about the territorial sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The UK has now sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regulations, with over 1,700 targeted since Putin launched his renewed and barbaric illegal invasion of Ukraine. Major progress has been made in cutting Russia off from global financial systems, restricting its military-industrial complex, reducing oil and gas revenues and banning items with dual military use from export to Russia.

Briefly, on behalf of my party, I want to thank the countless civil servants, intelligence personnel and officials —some of them will be in the Box today—who work day in, day out to refine and improve our Russian sanctions regime. I know it is often difficult and hard work, long into the night. We are extremely lucky in this country to be able to rely on some of the most intelligent and hard-working sanctions officials. I am sure the Minister has already seen just how effective they are, and of course he will have long-standing friendships with some of them.

The motion addresses a key pillar of our sanctions regime: the identification and designation of Russian shipping, including ships operating under Russia’s so-called shadow fleet. The success of our sanctions regime has forced Russia to resort to expensive and complex logistical measures to source sanctioned goods and materials and export oil and gas, often via third countries, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. It is therefore imperative that we target the maritime arteries feeding the Russian war machine, and we welcome the fact that the motion will sanction a further 17 Russian vessels, including 15 from Russia’s shadow fleet. It demonstrates that, no matter how deep Russia sinks into the shadows, the UK and our partners will identify and act against Russian assets and their war machines.

The broader changes to facilitate more effective targeting of Russian shipping and of individuals aiding and abetting Russian aggression are also welcome. The Minister has our full support for those changes. Our commitment to work collaboratively and in a spirit of co-operation with the Government on the development of our Russian sanctions regime will continue, because some things, rightly, are above politics.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, two areas requiring attention are the transfer of dual-use technology to Russia from China and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, which some say is a form of genocide. Although I understand that he cannot comment on future sanctions, I ask him to keep all options open and commit to targeting any entity, individual state or organisation providing support for Russia’s illegal and brutal war and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children.

Maintaining an effective sanctions regime requires continuous attention and effort. This instrument is an important continuation of that work, and we support the Minister’s bringing it to the House.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and welcome him to his position in the House. He brings a huge amount of experience in this field, and I know he will do a fantastic job.

Tightening economic sanctions on Russia is one of the most fundamental ways that we can help to support the people of Ukraine in their fight for democracy, and that is what I want to speak about briefly. Throughout history, conflict has been a battle of individual courage and morale—something that the people of Ukraine have demonstrated time and again over the past two years since the Russian invasion—but it has always also been a battle of technology. From the Roman legions through to the Manhattan project, the side with the better, more advanced technology often prevails, which is why it is important that our sanctions restrict Russia’s ability not just to resource its war, but to fight it in the first place.

As the saying goes, chips are the new oil. Russian semiconductor technology remains around 15 years behind that of NATO allies, but by avoiding sanctions, it is able to overcome that problem. More than two years on from its illegal invasion, Russia remains able to acquire the microchips necessary for advanced missiles and drones that are used against innocent civilians in Ukraine. Many will remember—I certainly do—that, when our sanctions were first introduced, there was talk that Russia’s economy would come to a standstill, that within months, planes would not be able to take off and Russia’s military would be unable to function. Clearly, that has not happened. We must therefore ask ourselves why and what more we can do. Today’s move to ban shadow tankers and sanction those who operate them is the right decision. It will impair Russia’s ability to finance its war by selling and transporting oil, but there is still more to be done, much of which will require ingenuity and the kind of careful diplomacy that I know the Minister is more than capable of.

There are two broad strands to the ways in which Russia is obtaining this technology. The first, and perhaps the most difficult to resolve, is by repurposing common technologies, the kinds of dual-use microchips that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) referred to. They are in washing machines or microwaves, but they are also appearing in Russian attack weaponry. For example, the Orlan-10 drone—used by Russia to target Ukrainian troops—contains some western-made components that we would normally find in weather stations, or even in dishwashers. When the Minister sums up, will he reflect on what work the Government are doing to make sure those dual-use microchips are unable to be used in that way?

The other way that Putin’s military has continued to supply itself is by avoiding sanctions via third parties. The evidence is widespread: since the invasion of Ukraine, exports from the EU to some of the countries bordering Russia have increased by around 50%, roughly equivalent to three quarters of the drop in European exports to Russia since the war began. It does not take a genius to work out what is going on, especially given that the biggest growth in exports is in heavily restricted product groups such as chemicals, electronics and machinery. I know that the Minister will be keenly aware of this problem, so could he inform the House of the diplomatic work that the Foreign Office is undertaking to ensure we combat it?

I fully support the Government’s moves to tighten sanctions. Russia must never be allowed to prevail in Ukraine, and we must constrain its resources to fight this illegal war. The people of Ukraine have shown incredible bravery, courage and skill. The very least that we in this place can do is honour our commitment to them. I know the Minister will do everything in his power to help achieve that.

Given that this change to the law seeks to tighten economic and trade restrictions on Russia, the Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument, which has been carried on from the work of the previous Government. However, if we step back from the detail of what this SI seeks to do, it is worth looking at some of the context in which it has been tabled. Proceeds from oil and gas sales within Russia’s federal budget rose by 41% in the first half of 2024. That is partly accounted for by the fact that oil prices have gone up and the rouble has become weaker, but we cannot get away from the fact that Russia is profiting from its oil and gas sales in a way that was not the case a year ago, and is getting far greater proceeds from the sale of its oil and gas.

That matters, of course, because Russia is using that money for its grossly illegal aggression in Ukraine. It is thought that those oil and gas sales account for between a third and a half of the total Russian federal budget, so we have to ask how that is happening. Yes, it is partly happening via Russian ships that are part of this so-called shadow fleet, and it is welcome that the SI will prohibit those ships from entering a port in the UK. It is welcome that those ships can be detained in the UK and will be refused permission to appear on the UK’s ship register, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is exactly right: we also have to think about what other countries than the UK are doing. According to the Financial Times, the oil trade between India and Russia almost doubled to $65 billion in 2023. India imported very little crude oil before the invasion of Ukraine; now it is the No. 2 importer of Russian oil, after China. It is alleged that India has been refining Russian crude and re-exporting it to European nations that are otherwise seen as subject to, and complying with, our sanctions regime.

It was also interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) about the use of dual-use technology. It is true that Russia is seeking to become increasingly self-sufficient, while it also looks to China and India to import technology in the fields of artificial intelligence, space technology and energy technology. Earlier this year, we saw the former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov, previously Minister for the Economy, become the principal Minister for Defence. We now need to move to the next stage: when we think about dual-use goods, we need to think about how to make sure we can throttle the Russian economy so that it is not importing goods that can be used for aggression in Ukraine.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that tradition dictates that these speeches pay homage to our honourable predecessors, but the history of maiden speeches delivered by Members for Makerfield is somewhat chequered. My predecessor, Yvonne Fovargue, had to face down an unwelcome opponent—an unusually persistent wasp. Just as she stood up, after buzzing around her face, it struck, leaving her to struggle through the next few minutes while her face gradually swelled up.

Her predecessor, Ian McCartney, faced an even more formidable opponent: Michael Fabricant. I am told that, for decades, the parliamentary record of that encounter has stood uncorrected. As Mr McCartney began, Mr Fabricant put his feet up on the Bench. Betty Boothroyd was sat in your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Fabricant interrupted with a point of order—not the done thing during maiden speeches, I am told. “Madam Speaker”, he said, “can you ask the man to speak in English?”, mocking Mr McCartney’s thick Scottish accent. Mr McCartney retorted, “If he doesn’t mention my accent, I won’t mention his wig.” The record does not then note Mr Fabricant’s response, “Touché, touché”, or Mr McCartney’s victorious retort, “Toupee, toupee.” Anyway, so far today there have been no wasps, and—a point that may perhaps unite this House in gratitude—no Michael Fabricant. While I do not wish to emulate those misfortunes, I hope to continue those Members’ good work in delivering for the people of Makerfield.

Many in this Chamber may not know that Makerfield is not really a place: it is a suffix attached to a collection of towns, given the name of an ancient Lancastrian forest called Macerfield that used to stretch unbroken from Wigan to Warrington. The towns I represent include Hindley Green and Hindley, Platt Bridge and Abram, Ashton and Bryn, Winstanley and Worsley Mesnes, and Orrell and Pickley Green. The history of those towns is the history of our nation. Many dug pit mines, producing the coal that powered our industrial revolution. While men dug the coal, women sorted it—pit brow lasses, as they are known. Mine workers organised into unions and, since 1906, elected Labour MPs to represent them. Industrial decline brought great destruction to many of these towns—places such as Abram, Bryn, Bickershaw and Hindley—and they will never forget the callousness with which they were treated in those years. That is one reason why I support delivering justice to mineworkers on the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Coal made this nation wealthy, and now we must ensure that those workers live with dignity in old age.

Backed by a Labour Government, Ian McCartney delivered the minimum wage, new health hubs in Platt Bridge and Worsley Mesnes, and investment in Abram and Winstanley. Then under the Tories, 14 years of austerity deepened the wounds of industrial decline, hollowing out public services and degrading public spaces, while wealth accumulated in London and the south-east. My predecessor, Yvonne Fovargue, worked hard to protect constituents, continuing a tradition of working closely with the fantastic Wigan council on its groundbreaking Wigan deal. She delivered a new health centre in Ashton and was a leading voice in combating debt, loan sharks and those who prey on the most financially vulnerable.

Through their ups and downs—their history is the history of this country—the towns I represent have developed one simple superpower: a community spirit that should be the envy of this land. They have pride in place, and care for friends, family and neighbours. Today, this spirit manifests in some of the wonderful community organisations I have had the privilege of getting to know. In Orrell, there is Tony, Julie, volunteers at Brighter Better Orrell, the Friends of Orrell Station, Greenslate community farm and Greenslate water meadows. In Worsley Mesnes and Winstanley, there is Joe at St Judes rugby club, Winstanley Warriors football club, and the Clifton Street community centre. In Ashton and Bryn, there is the Brian Boru club and Garswood Hall Bowling, Ashton Town FC and Ashton Athletic FC, which is currently rebuilding after a mindless arson attack. In Abram and Platt Bridge, there is David’s fantastic Wigan & Leigh Community Charity and Wigan Cosmos FC. In Hindley, there is Eric at the Hindley community allotment, the Friends of Hindley Station and the friends of Borsdane wood; and in Hindley Green, there is the Brunswick bowling club, the St John’s church and Bethel community centre, and the Hindley Green Residents Association.

What is the future for these towns and for our country? That is the question that we Labour Members must now answer. The task is immense. People I represent have lost trust in politics and in politicians. They believe that the work we do here makes little difference to them. They feel that we lecture, we speak, and we let economists, lawyers or bankers tell us the “right” answers, but that we do not listen, or respect or represent them. That is why the weight of responsibility on this Government, on me as my constituents’ representative and on all of us across this House could not be greater. Together, we must deliver for decent, fair-minded, hard-working people who love their community and their country, especially those in the former industrial heartlands of our great nation, which I am so proud to represent. We cannot and will not let these people down.

In this House, I hope to use my career to contribute on this question of the future. I spent years working on technology, data and machine learning. Too often, we talk about technology as an inexorable force, as if it bends society to its will, but it has no will. Technology is a tool. We build it, we design it and we use it in our world in ways that we choose. Now more than ever, we must have the interests of working people in mind as we harness the great potential of technology. I look forward to working with colleagues across this House who share those interests.

However, my family is what brings me more pride than anything. My parents divorced at a young age, so I grew up shifting between homes, towns and religions. I learned to see the best in people and in ways of living that could not be more different. Now I am lucky enough to see the world through the eyes of my children. I remember friends asking me before our first child was born, “How do you feel about bringing a child into this grim world?”, but to me that has it all wrong. Children are a bridge to the future. They inject hope for what our communities, our country, and we as individuals can be. That is why childcare will be a key focus of mine. We make having children too hard, too exhausting and too expensive in this country. Radically reforming childcare may be one of the most effective ways to deliver change that working people can feel, as well as boosting our workforce, and that is why I will campaign hard for that reform over the coming months and years.

Let me end by returning to something that my predecessor Mr McCartney said about the history and the future of the towns we represent. Democracy, he said, is not solely, or even primarily, about this place, or about us. It is about the efforts and endeavours of ordinary people. It endures because people have their country and their desire for freedom and fairness in their hearts. That is a profound lesson—a lesson that bears on this age even more than on his, and one that we must hold close through the challenges ahead, for we live in an age of insecurity.

As the organisation I was proud to lead, Labour Together, has argued, we must once again focus on strength, security and working with allies to navigate the choppy waters ahead. That is what we are here debating this afternoon, which is why I urge this House to support tightened sanctions on Russia. We must navigate the challenges of this age with a constant focus on working people, who are the backbone of this country, because unless working people like those I am so proud to represent feel change, and unless we in this Chamber demonstrate humility and honesty, and act with integrity and with respect, they have no reason to believe in democracy. That is the kind of representative for the people of Makerfield that I hope to be.

First, I congratulate the new hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) on his extremely well delivered maiden speech. I am sure that he is somebody whom we will not be able to ignore over the next few years. Inevitably, given his remarks, he has somebody with a Scottish accent following his maiden speech. I hope that everybody in the Chamber will be able to follow mine, unlike Michael Fabricant in the past.

I also think it is important to speak today, and I join colleagues in backing the Government’s move on sanctions. The cross-party support that the Government have on this issue is exceptionally important. We could be slightly more robust on this issue, and I have a number of very specific questions for the Minister. I know that he will not be able to answer them all, but I would like to put them on record for him to answer in due course.

First, I was very pleased to hear the Minister talk about European security. We are of course stronger in dealing with Russian aggression in Ukraine when we do so in commonality with our partners in Europe. I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about the importance of common European foreign and security policy. However, that security also applies to issues such as energy, and when it comes to energy security, being outside the single market makes us less secure. I would like to hear from the Minister about the areas in which he feels he can deepen our security by working with our European partners—on sanctions, but also more broadly.

Secondly, on tightening up financial regulations, the Minister will be aware of the issue of shell companies. The former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Roger Mullin, frequently raised the really important issue of Scottish limited partnerships. I know that this is not something that the Minister can answer immediately, but can he look at financial regulations and the challenges around dirty money? All too often, as we know—this has been picked up on by Members from across this Chamber—that money has found its way into the UK economy. I would be grateful if he could look at that issue, although I acknowledge that putting him on the spot right now may be a little unfair.

I want to pick up on the recommendations in the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Yes, I know we are talking about sanctions, but there is the broader issue of polarisation and disinformation in our society. I pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, Stewart Hosie MP. He worked tirelessly on the Intelligence and Security Committee, as did colleagues from across the House, on that issue. I have not yet had the opportunity to pay tribute to him in the House for his role in raising these issues in Parliament, but also for being an exceptionally diligent, hard-working and popular local MP.

I want to pick up on points made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). First, I pay tribute to colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who have been working on this issue exceptionally hard. I also pay tribute to the intelligence services for the work they have done, often in very difficult circumstances. It would be remiss of us not to touch on the exceptional work done by the international community of non-governmental organisations, many of them based in the United Kingdom, which have done incredibly brave work in the field on this issue. Some of the work NGOs have done has found its way into policy—for others, that is not so much the case—but the international NGO community has been exceptionally good over the years, and often ahead of the Government of the day on some of these issues.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford mentioned the kidnapping of children, and I wholly endorse her remarks. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) was right to pick up on technology and its secondary role, and I endorse his remarks. Finally on sanctions, I ask the Minister to look across the piece at the system of controls on arms exports to secondary countries. I hope—I will write to the Foreign Secretary about this—that we will ensure that we do not catch countries such as Ukraine in the measures, and impede their ability to defend their territorial integrity after Russia’s aggression. I thank the Minister for his comments. He will have our support.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) on his fantastic maiden speech. There is already a little bit of confusion between Macclesfield and Makerfield, and it is good that we can continue that by giving our maiden speeches on the same day.

It is the privilege of my life to be elected to represent the communities of Macclesfield, and I start by placing on record my thanks to the House staff for the warm welcome and support that they have given new Members over the last few weeks. The Table Office, the Speaker’s Office, the Doorkeepers and our catering and security colleagues have all been phenomenal; thank you so much.

I understand that just by speaking I have already outdone one of my predecessors, as those in the Library tell me that they are yet to find any evidence that a century ago William Brocklehurst said anything at all in the 12 years in which he represented Macclesfield. On the subject of predecessors, I wish sincerely to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor David Rutley, particularly for his public service on behalf of Macclesfield and our country. People of all political persuasions will tell you that he is a man of courtesy and kindness, and that certainly tallies with my experience.

After the momentous general election that we had earlier in the summer, lots of bright new Members are frenetically trying to make a name for themselves, so I need something to help me stand out from the crowd of new MPs. The House Library thinks it has found it: I may well be the first Labour Member of Parliament to be called Tim. As I grew up in the 1990s, when Harry Enfield was on television, being called Tim was a bit of a cross to bear, so it is good to see that it has finally paid off. If being the first Tim is not enough, I will make do with being the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Macclesfield.

Seventy-five years ago, my grandad crashed his car in Macclesfield, and while hospitalised, he fell in love with a young Irish nurse, my grandma Josephine, and my family’s story in Macclesfield began. I grew up in the constituency, and I am proud to call it home. From the Cheshire plain to the rolling hills of the Peak district, it is a beautiful part of our country. Indeed, nearly a third of the constituency lies within the Peak district national park. The town itself was famously home to a thriving silk industry, with 71 silk mills operating at one time, and I am proud to be wearing a Macclesfield silk tie today.

Macclesfield and its towns and villages—Disley, Poynton, Bollington, Prestbury and more—have made their contribution to our country with athletes, artists, scientists and writers of renown. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) can try to claim the band Joy Division, the mural of Macclesfield born and bred Ian Curtis dominates our town, a reminder not only of his talent, but of the very real struggle that many people face with mental health. Macclesfield also hosts a sprawling AstraZeneca campus that employs more than 5,000 people and is crucial not just to my constituency, but to the economy of our country.

At the election, it was a privilege to campaign and, importantly, listen to people’s concerns, aspirations and fears, Many spoke of the climate emergency and the need for greater action. Others insisted on the need for electoral reform—a view that I share. Universally, they worried about public services and the cost of living crisis, with the backdrop being widening inequality on a scale that is Edwardian, unprecedented, and in my view, immoral.

There is no doubt that we live in interesting times. During the last Parliament, colleagues had to contend with a global pandemic that still casts its shadow across our country, but there is a feeling that the world is drifting towards the rapids. Every day, the brave men and women of Ukraine fight for the life of their country, and these coming weeks may prove critical in that war. In the middle east, innocent civilians bear the brunt of a tragic conflict, with a ceasefire proving frustratingly elusive, and across the world economic shocks, climate extremes, and soaring prices are combining to create a food crisis of unprecedented proportions. At home, confidence in our political system is at a record low, and according to the latest British social attitudes survey, as many as 58% of people say that they “almost never” trust politicians to tell the truth.

In medieval times, Parliaments had monikers, such as the Mad Parliament, the Lawless Parliament, and the Merciless Parliament. How will we in this place be known as we face up to our responsibilities in this Parliament? I look forward to working with Members from across the House to meet those responsibilities, to act for the public good and to contribute thoughtfully without fear or favour. We must make this a place of public service, not self-service, and about the national interest, not self-interest, so that together, to borrow a phrase, we are a standing contradiction to people who wish to believe that only those with cold hearts and twisted tongues can succeed in the world of politics.

Great Yarmouth is a constituency like no other. In many ways, it feels two or three decades behind the rest of the country, but what may seem to be a criticism is in fact the complete opposite. Countless other areas that once, not too long ago, shared Great Yarmouth’s unique sense of community, have lost that. In Great Yarmouth, everybody knows everybody, and if they do not know somebody, they know somebody who does. It holds a remarkable charm that is unlike anywhere else I have experienced. My constituents care about their town, they care about their community, and they care about their country. It is, as Harry Redknapp would say, “a proper place”. During the European Championships, I can honestly say that I have never seen so many England flags in my life than in Great Yarmouth—certain hon. Members from across the Chamber may have found that experience to be a reminder of past indiscretions.

As is customary, I would like to thank my predecessor, Brandon Lewis, for his contribution to the Great Yarmouth constituency over 14 years. It is a genuine honour to represent the UK’s premier seaside tourist destination, narrowly beating Clacton and Skegness to the top spot, on a billing definitively decided by a straw poll of constituents on Great Yarmouth’s famous Golden Mile. A particular fan of the attractions in the constituency was one Ann Widdecombe. Taking her on the world-famous “snails” rollercoaster during the election campaign was an experience she is unlikely to forget—and her back held up rather better on the rickety ups and downs than my own!

We are blessed with some of the UK’s most glorious coastline, with Great Yarmouth, Caister, Gorleston, California, Hopton and more. As those who are familiar with the geology of the area will know, my constituency’s borders change on an almost monthly basis as swathes of land are reclaimed by the sea, particularly in the charming village of Hemsby. While other coastal communities have been rightly gifted the defences they desperately need, the good people of Hemsby have been left to fight the power of the sea. It has been a losing battle, and numerous constituents have lost their homes with zero compensation. In fact, one resident told me that his property was worth minus £15,000 due to demolition costs.

I pledged to fight for Hemsby, and that is exactly what I am doing. The funding criteria, as promised by a now Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on an election visit to the area, must be urgently changed. We do not have time for the usual pontification; we must act before any more of my constituency disappears into the sea. I am pleased to say that among other things, I have already secured the reopening of the Hemsby beach public loos.

Decades ago, the ocean brought huge wealth to Great Yarmouth from both fish and oil. Primarily known for its wildly successful herring fishing industry, at its peak, it was one of the most important fishing ports in Europe, often referred to as the herring capital of the world. That wealth was stolen from the people of Great Yarmouth and transferred overseas through our membership of the European Union. It is no surprise that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union. Evidently, it is a constituency with fine judgment. It is sad that today, having been our largest fishing port, only one fishing boat operates from Great Yarmouth, and there is no longer a local fish processing industry.

Great Yarmouth’s local football club is affectionately known as the Bloaters. The Wellesley ground contains the oldest wooden football stand in the world. I am now the proud holder of a season ticket, which was an incredibly kind gift from the club’s chairman following the donation of my first month’s parliamentary salary to the club—don’t worry, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been appropriately declared. It is a ticket of perhaps less financial value than those that some other Members will have declared, but it holds infinitely more real value for me.

Being elected as Great Yarmouth’s MP was the proudest moment of my professional life, narrowly beating taking Southampton to the FA cup final in 2003 as chairman. Sadly, we lost 1-0 to Arsenal that day, to a tidy Robert Pires finish. The town and its people have quite simply been let down and forgotten for too long, being at the end of the line, literally and metaphorically. My constituents look around their town, and they have seen their once-booming home change beyond recognition. Uncontrolled mass immigration has failed Great Yarmouth, as it has failed the entire country. Just like the majority of the rest of the country, in 2010 they voted for lower immigration. In 2015, they voted for lower immigration. In 2016, they voted for lower immigration. In 2019, they voted for lower immigration. What did the Conservatives do? They allowed immigration to soar, with no thought to the brutal consequences.

In 2024, Great Yarmouth also voted for lower immigration. The difference this time is that I will voice those concerns and fight as best I can to drastically reduce the unsustainable number of people settling in our country. The roads are packed, the hospitals are full, GP surgeries are bursting at the seams, and dentists are inaccessible—frankly, the system is broken and mass immigration is largely responsible.

Great Yarmouth has a long history of proudly welcoming immigrants who come to the UK to work hard, integrate properly and contribute to the economy. The current chaos could not be further from that. We have local people, particularly women, feeling unsafe in their own town. We are told that crime is down, but I do not believe it and the town certainly does not. We must be clear: the reporting of crime is down because many have lost faith that the police will act. I am determined to change that, and I am running a public awareness campaign on the importance of reporting crime. It is one that I think should be replicated nationally. Yes, of course we need more police on the streets, but without reporting crime, nothing will change.

There is so much to resolve in Great Yarmouth, but treating the symptoms can only be a temporary measure until the root cause of the issue—uncontrolled immigration —is tackled in Westminster. Our whole system of governance is broken. I have huge respect for Members of this House who have entered with genuine experience from a career in business, medicine, the military or however else. Sadly, we are a dwindling number, and the relentless rise of the career politician continues. From politics, philosophy and economics at Oxford, to special adviser, to parliamentary candidate, to MP—this well-trodden journey serves nobody but the traveller, and deprives the British people of the representatives they deserve.

Many Members of Parliament lack experience of the challenges faced by people in the real economy. A day on my farm or some work experience in one of my contracting businesses would open their eyes to the punishing reality of what hard-working Brits go through every day, much of which emanates from do-gooding legislation. I fear that people in Britain will not understand the damaging reality of socialism until they have experienced it. The only difference between this Government and the last is that they may be more honest about what they intend to inflict on the British people.

The political system serves nobody but itself. It is arrogant, out of touch and incompetent. That potent mix has delivered woeful Government after woeful Government. Who suffers? Decent men and women working hard to provide for their families. We need to back the risk-takers, back the wealth-creators and back the doers. As the greatest Prime Minister in many decades correctly said, “Let us back the workers, not the shirkers.” If we are to successfully change Britain, we need to change politics. The election of five Reform party MPs, including me, is a politically seismic event in our two-party state. We are just getting started and the winds of change are blowing much harder.

On Russia and the Ukrainian situation, I think it is a tragedy for both those countries, for Europe and for the world. In particular, it is a tragedy for those people who are needlessly dying on both sides.

I echo what one of my colleagues said about the support and help that the staff of Parliament have given to all of us new MPs. I would not call myself a young MP—I am a pensioner—but I thank them all very much indeed.

I thank Members for their contributions to this debate. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for her kind words about my service in the Foreign Office. Indeed, I pay tribute to hers: she did fine work on Iraq and Syria, and I was glad to work with her. I look forward to working with all of this House on matters of national security.

I welcome the maiden speeches that were made. My hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Josh Simons) and for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) were both funny, which is useful when I am being so dour at the Dispatch Box. I noticed that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) paid tribute to particular kinds of experience —military, business, and so on—but he did elide the diplomats. Given that there are many of them in the Box, I would like to say that he should take a look at the good work of the Foreign Office, because there are many hard-working officers who do their very best, and I am grateful to everybody in the House for recognising that.

If I may, I will come back to some of the points raised by the other parties. I regret that I may have to write to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about the specific Scottish issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying he will respond to me in writing, which I accept, but I should also be clear—this was the mistake that previous Prime Ministers made—that Scottish limited partnerships are not a Scottish Parliament issue, but a Westminster reserved issue.

I understand that, and I agree. I welcome the importance that the hon. Gentleman placed in his comments on working together. I also believe that, on many of these issues, we are better together.

Some important points were raised about our partners in India and China in relation to Russia. I say to the shadow Minister that any evidence of Chinese companies providing military support to Russia would be damaging to China’s international reputation, given its strong position on not being involved in the conflict. We will not hesitate to take action against anyone supplying and funding Putin’s war machine.

On India, which was raised by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), we regularly raise Russia’s actions in Ukraine with India. We did so most recently in a conversation between the Foreign Secretary and the Indian Foreign Minister. We highlight the importance of tackling the shadow fleet. India is a key partner, and we are committed to working together across a whole range of issues. We underline to them how unreliable an energy partner Russia would be.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford raised the tragic forceful deportations of, we believe, almost 20,000 Ukrainian children, which is a matter of real concern to me and the rest of the ministerial team. As a member of the jointly led Canadian Ukrainian initiative, along with 28 other states, the UK is providing funding to support the rehabilitation of children.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) made some kind comments. I am unsure whether they were for Minister Doughty or for me, but, as I am here, I will certainly accept them. He made important points about microchips and various other dual-use technologies on which we are taking action with others to try to address. In the interests of the House’s time, I will write to him to give further detail.

On the wider point about circumvention, I am grateful to the House for its support and recognise the widespread concern about other countries doing otherwise. We are sending senior officials to the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey and Serbia to highlight circumvention risks and to offer technical support. We recognise that these issues are global in nature, so we have designated individuals in Belarus, China, Iran, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey, the Emirates and Uzbekistan. I will no doubt have another opportunity to update the House on our work in this area in due course. I thank the House for its support and urge it to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024, (SI, 2024, No. 834), dated 29 July 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 July, be approved.