Joe Powell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The single most effective action to protect El Obeid civilians and avoid a repeat of El Fasher would be for the UAE to withdraw its clearly evidenced backing for the RSF and demand that civilians are protected. What more can the Minister do to persuade the UAE? If that fails, what can we do on the gold trade and illicit finance, in addition to sanctions, to ensure that anyone involved in arming the conflict does not materially benefit?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate and on restricting himself to only two mentions of mansions in Kensington in his introduction. This should be one of the progressive causes of our time. Others have covered the harms: from the links to the drugs trade and other serious organised crime, to the housing crisis and to conflict in Ukraine, Sudan and other parts of the world. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problem and have taken action to date, including their commitment to host this summit on illicit finance. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk; I think it was the right decision to delay the summit. Primarily, that is because it gives us time to produce a package of progress that we can show to the world, build alliances around key themes and link this summit to the UK Government’s other international leadership positions, including the G20 presidency in 2027, the presidency of the financial action taskforce from 2026 to 2028, and the chair of the Open Government Partnership. Those are all forums where we can take illicit finance and corruption initiatives and multilateralise them through other international organisations. There is a big opportunity here. Before being elected, I spent a decade working on illicit finance and corruption. I supported the last summit on anti-corruption that we led as a country in 2016, which was hosted by Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. That summit helped to put beneficial ownership transparency on the map as a tool to remove secrecy from the anonymous companies that, on many occasions, facilitate money laundering. There is an unheralded British success here: 104 jurisdictions now have a live register, although I accept that there are varying degrees of openness. There is, of course, the glaring exception of most of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The lessons of the summit can be applied to December’s summit. First, as others have mentioned, there is the need for political leadership, from the Prime Minister down, to bring international counterparts to the UK and to link the summit to other international forums in which we are involved. Secondly, there should be strong cross-Government co-ordination, with regular ministerial meetings. Thirdly, there should be clear and specific policy commitments that other countries can join, rather than vague initiatives that will fizzle out immediately. Fourthly, we must be open to working with civil society, which can support the bringing of countries to the table and add ideas, enthusiasm and accountability to the summit. Fifthly, we must prepare our own package of reforms so that we open the summit with a strong policy offer. We have an outsize responsibility in this area because we are the epicentre of global finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has covered the stats, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue. I have three brief policy proposals on which we can make progress before the summit. The first proposal is about property, which the Government are right to make a summit priority. The goal should be a global alliance for full transparency in property ownership, so that dirty money cannot be stashed in London or in other property markets around this country and the world. In my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, 40% of the foreign-owned property is still held in anonymous trusts. That means that approximately 4,000 properties in my constituency have hidden ownership, despite the introduction of a register of overseas-owned properties after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There is a major loophole that is incentivising more opaque ownership structures, which have only been thrown open through leaks and investigations such as the Panama and Paradise papers investigations. Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer, found that the ultimate owners of 45,000 properties in this country—properties collectively worth £190 billion—are still hidden from view. It is time to report back on the consultation opened two years ago on trust-owned property and to take bold action. Of course, beyond property there is a need to continue Britain’s leadership on beneficial ownership, the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) has outlined. That is absolutely the right place to start with our leadership in the global jigsaw. Gibraltar has done this work with no economic harm whatever and we need to extend it. Finally, on professional enablers, I am really glad that the Financial Services and Markets Bill was in the King’s Speech. That will extend the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervision to accountants, lawyers and other financial bodies, and introduce proper anti-money laundering supervision to them. There must be no more anonymously owned properties, which allow dirty money to be stashed with impunity; no more tax haven secrecy, which facilitates billions in criminal and corrupt cash; and no more hiding places for professional enablers, who turn a blind eye to dirty money. Those ideas should be the basis for a summit that can show our leadership on the global stage.

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  Beyond aid, our party has a proud history in this area, from debt relief to immunisation finance and leveraging capital investment in programmes such as the World Bank’s International Development Association fund. Will the Secretary of State give us an idea of how much of a priority that will be for the UK’s G20 presidency? Given that Ukraine now represents one of our biggest humanitarian budgets, what message does she have for my former constituent, Roman Abramovich, who has missed the 90-day deadline to pay the more than £2.5 billion he owes from the sale of Chelsea football club, which could be used for humanitarian needs right now in Ukraine and could alleviate some of those budgetary pressures?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for providing another rich example of the level of infiltration and influence that malign actors have had, including capturing Government contracts and not delivering on their intention. I am sure that Front-Bench Members will have heard her plea for clarity. Roman Abramovich was sanctioned in March 2022 and had his assets frozen. I am pleased that the Government have extended those sanctions, with 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russian sanctions regime. In May 2022, Abramovich sold Chelsea football club under an explicit agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need for Ukraine. It is shameful that, after four years, that money has still not been released. I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence in December to release the money within 90 days and a commitment to legal action if necessary. This is not only a case of profound national and international importance, but a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they should. The Minister has worked closely on that issue and I am keen to hear what plans are in place for 17 March. What legal action can be taken if the money has not been released? Obviously, I hope that all options are kept on the table. Abramovich’s influence in public life in Britain extends beyond the Chelsea FC money. He is accused by the BBC of avoiding up to £1 billion of tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in a British overseas territory, the British Virgin Islands. He deployed some of the best lawyers in the land to attack the journalist Catherine Belton’s book, “Putin’s People”. Specifically, he did so to try to distance his relationship with Vladimir Putin, an egregious example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation —a practice that I hope will be outlawed in this Parliament. Abramovich is, of course, fighting a legal case in Jersey—a British Crown dependency—where his legal team includes the Conservative shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson. Having raised that issue many times in the House in recent weeks, I find the inconsistencies and double standards in the defence of Lord Wolfson astonishing. On the one hand, Conservative shadow Ministers have attacked the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for their former clients, including at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Yet when people have raised the Lord Wolfson case, including at the Solicitor General’s questions last week, Conservative shadow Ministers claimed disgrace. There is a critical difference: those clients represented by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were not taken on when they were serving in this Parliament. I agree that everyone, even a sanctioned Russian oligarch, is entitled to legal representation, but it is surely a massive conflict of interest for a sitting peer—the top legal adviser to the Conservative party—to think that it is compatible to do both of those jobs at the same time. Sir Bill Browder himself, the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions, which are named after his lawyer who was killed by Putin’s henchmen, asked how the shadow Attorney General can “moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’.” Sir Bill is absolutely correct. The Conservative position is that Lord Wolfson has recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), and shadow Ministers on Russia and Ukraine, but on the day that the Conservative spokesperson made those comments to the lobby—not in the House, but to the lobby—Lord Wolfson published a letter that made no mention of such recusal. Is that not strange? Could we hypothesise that on that day, things were just being made up as they went along? A man of Lord Wolfson’s experience surely knows that a formal recusal must be more detailed than a Conservative spokesperson’s lobby briefing. I ask again, as I have done in the House: does the recusal include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the action taken with allies recently? Does it include sanctions policy? Does it include sanctions enforcement? Does it include tax policy? Does it include NATO policy? Does it include policies on money in politics? The point is that the shadow Attorney General is representing someone with extremely close ties to Vladimir Putin at a time when Russia is attacking our country through hybrid warfare. I do not think that an unspecified recusal of which we have no detail is anywhere near sufficient to satisfy this House. I urge Lord Wolfson to reflect and make a choice, given that it appears that the Leader of the Opposition has proven too weak to do so. He can either continue to be shadow Attorney General or continue his representation of Abramovich. Doing both is simply indefensible.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  In the past few weeks I have had heartbreaking conversations with Iranian and British-Iranian constituents, and letters from many more. They have fragments of information about what is coming out of Iran, and those fragments include many first-hand examples of horrific violence, killing and relatives unaccounted for. I am glad to hear about the step-up in sanctions and the commitment regarding the IRGC. I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister could give on what we are doing with our allies to break the internet blackout so that we can get information out of Iran about what is really happening, not only for evidence purposes in future but to help the families who I represent find out what has happened to their loved ones.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I join colleagues in congratulating the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. As he rightly said, an effective sanctions regime is an increasingly important foreign policy and defence tool. Having worked on international anti-corruption and open government efforts for over a decade before I came to this place, I know that they can make a real impact. I agree with him that such a regime includes the threat of sanctions, as well as their execution. Like others, I am pleased that the Government have introduced over 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russia sanctions regime, and over 60 designations under human rights and anti-corruption specifically. I know how seriously the Minister takes this tool, and I sincerely thank him and his officials for their complex work. I believe that the UK’s ambition on sanctions is at the edge of global leadership. That means that we must continually look for ways to make the system more effective, and I will suggest a couple of areas in which we might do so. One obvious area, in which I know the Government are working hard, is the transparency of asset ownership across jurisdictions. If we want sanctions to work, we need to know where the assets are, and transparency is an important prerequisite for effective targeting. To give one example, approximately 40% of the foreign-owned properties in Kensington and Chelsea are controlled by trusts. Through sanctions, our borough has one of the highest numbers of frozen properties. Trusts are not automatically included in the foreign-owned property register, and although information can now be made available on request, the lack of open data makes it harder to track real ownership. I know that the Government are considering that matter. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) mentioned, the long-standing effort to bring in transparent beneficial ownership registers to the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies would enable better tracking of assets under the control of sanctioned individuals. I support the Government review of asset and beneficial ownership in the UK, which is being carried out by anti-corruption champion Baroness Hodge, as part of the anti-corruption strategy, to identify vulnerabilities in that area. I hope that her recommendations can support our sanctions regime to be more effective. International data sharing on this issue is important. The illicit finance summit is coming up in May. Will the Minister outline whether sanctions policy, and international co-operation around it, will be on the agenda? On scope, we may benefit from looking more closely at how the two Magnitsky-style regimes interact, particularly in terms of corruption related to abuse of function, trading in influence and illicit enrichment, which bridge human rights and corruption. I hope that the Minister will keep under close review the potential effectiveness of sanctions relating to Georgia. I have met representatives of Georgian civil society, which has been calling for the UK to expand our sanctions further, including to Mr Ivanishvili and his top officials. For sanctions to be effective, they have to bite, and enforcement is critical. I welcome the Government’s approach of working multilaterally with allies to maximise effectiveness. However, it is also important that we look closer to home. Roman Abramovich is a former resident of Kensington and Chelsea, and still owns frozen property in my constituency. As the House will no doubt be aware, he was sanctioned in March 2022, and his UK assets were frozen. In May 2022, he sold Chelsea football club under an agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need in Ukraine. It is shameful that, almost four years later, that money has still not been released. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence last month to release the money within 90 days, and in making a commitment to taking legal action if necessary. This is a case of profound national and international importance—and a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they need. Although I welcome the cross-party spirit with which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green approached the debate, I find it astonishing that such a serious conflict of interest has now emerged at the top of the Conservative party. Sir Bill Browder—the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions—has asked how it is possible that the shadow Attorney General can “moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK Government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’”. I agree with Sir Bill, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has sympathy with that point, too. The detail matters here. Yesterday, Lord Wolfson published a letter saying that the Prime Minister got his facts wrong, and that he was not advising Mr Abramovich on UK sanctions or the proceeds of Chelsea FC. First, the Prime Minister did not in fact say that Lord Wolfson is advising Roman Abramovich on UK sanctions and the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. The Prime Minister did say, however, that Lord Wolfson is advising Mr Abramovich. That is true, as both Lord Wolfson and the Opposition spokesperson have now confirmed. The record should, in my view, be corrected. Secondly, Lord Wolfson’s letter omitted the most crucial piece of new information released by the Opposition spokesperson yesterday, which is that the shadow Attorney General has now recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers on Ukraine and Russia. Quite apart from whether someone can be an effective shadow Attorney General when they are unable to provide legal advice on the most important issues facing this country—Ukraine’s security guarantees to name but one—this recusal raises serious questions. Does it include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the military action yesterday? Does it include sanctions policy and enforcement? Does it include tax policy? The BBC reports that Abramovich could owe the UK up to £1 billion in tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in the British Virgin Islands. Thirdly, it is naive in the extreme to think it possible to separate the various legal cases that Mr Abramovich is engaged in and which affect UK national interests. According to The Times , Abramovich’s own representatives say that £1.4 billion of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea cannot be released to a charitable foundation until legal proceedings brought by the Jersey Government are concluded. I would welcome clarification from the shadow Minister and the Minister on whether they consider that the ongoing litigation, and Mr Abramovich’s position on its connection to the transfer of the Chelsea FC proceeds, conflicts with the ability to transfer that money speedily? Fourthly, there has been a concerted effort to conflate the vital principle of the right to legal representation and the prevention of conflicts of interest. I absolutely support the right to legal counsel of people I may find disreputable or worse, including sanctioned individuals—that is the basis of a strong legal system—but it is a choice to serve as shadow Attorney General, and it is a choice to represent a sanctioned Russian oligarch in the Jersey case. My view is that those two roles are incompatible. By recusing himself from giving the Conservative party legal advice on Ukraine and Russia, Lord Wolfson has himself confirmed that, in his view, it is not possible give that advice while being paid to represent Roman Abramovich, and that, given the choice, being paid to represent Roman Abramovich is more important to him than fulfilling his duties as shadow Attorney General. He could have made the opposite choice, but he did not. I want our sanctions regime to be as effective as possible. I know that the Government are committed to continuing to learn and adapt as that regime evolves. I hope—I really mean this—that the Leader of the Opposition will clear up the mess that has been created and restore the cross-party consensus that is in our national interest.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  Would the shadow Minister consider briefly responding to my question about whether she thinks it is appropriate for the shadow Attorney General to be simultaneously advising shadow Ministers and a sanctioned Russian oligarch?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the additional aid and sanctions, and I praise my constituents who have done so much to keep Sudan in the public eye. What lessons have been learned from the fall of El Fasher to prevent the RSF repeating its tried and tested pattern in Tawila, where approximately 650,000 civilians and 300 aid workers, including British citizens, are at grave risk?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we all agree that we would not support that action. I want to make a serious point about where progress has been made. Some of us recently met the leader of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo. Gibraltar now has an open register, and he told us that it has had no impact on investment there. In fact, it has attracted a different type of investor: those making sustainable, long-term investments into a reliable market where financial secrecy is not undermining the strength of the financial services. I note that in the Public Gallery there is a representative of St Helena, which has made great progress—as others have said, we are also meeting representatives of the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Although it is not perfect, there has been political commitment from those leaders to make progress and work together. But the harms are still severe: serious organised crime, drugs on our streets, the high streets issue that many hon. Members have spoken about, sanctions evasion, tax dodging, environmental crime, destruction of tropical forests and property. I invite Members to join me on our “Kensington Against Dirty Money” walking tour, which Baroness Hodge and I conduct in my constituency. The No. 1 source of foreign ownership of property—my constituency has 6,000 such properties—is the BVI. The question is: why? It is not a victimless crime, and we need to understand why it is happening. Let me very briefly talk about next steps. I really welcome Baroness Hodge’s trip to the BVI. She is a fearless champion for this issue. It would be good to understand the BVI’s red lines for a legitimate interests test. I think it should be broad, reliable and repeated access for those journalists who have helped to uncover so many issues in the past, while maintaining the Government’s long-term goal of publicly accessible beneficial ownership registers as the gold standard. The summit on illicit finance next year is a huge opportunity; it was great that the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that on the world stage at the UN General Assembly this year. The summit will be 10 years on from the 2016 anti-corruption summit, where public registers of beneficial ownership for UK companies were first introduced. Could the summit be the moment when we finally move forward on this issue, too?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly welcome the sanctions targeting the $108 billion in oil revenue that the Kremlin received last year and the progress on the $350 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets. I applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor for their efforts in building a coalition with the EU and others to move from using the interest payments to using the capital. Does she agree that that recent breakthrough shows that legally this money should be treated as a downpayment on the reparations for the horrific harm that Russia has caused, which we know it will do everything to avoid paying?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his defence of teachers. I am sure that he welcomes the pay rise for teachers of 5% last year and 4.4% this year, funded by the Budget.