Sanctions are imposed on an individual in two stages - by Ministers first making regulations and secondly designating the individual, using a power in those regulations. Parliament has a role in the first stage, but not the second.
Dheemanth Vangimalla
Researcher, Hansard Society
Dheemanth joined the Hansard Society in July 2021 as a Researcher to contribute to the Review of Delegated Legislation. His role also involves supporting the day-to-day delivery of the Society’s legislative monitoring service, the Statutory Instrument Tracker®.
Dheemanth has a diverse professional background that includes experience in both the legal and non-legal sectors. He completed his MBBS degree at the University of East Anglia. He has since attained a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) while working full-time as a junior doctor at an NHS hospital trust. He has previously conducted legal research with the hospital’s legal services department. As a research assistant, he has also contributed to a public international law project concerning citizenship and statelessness. Additionally, he has experience conducting scientific and laboratory-based research during his BMedSci degree in Molecular Therapeutics at Queen Mary University of London.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
In the UK, the legislative framework for sanctioning an individual has two stages.
The first stage is the use of powers delegated to Ministers in Acts of Parliament, often powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, to make regulations that specify the sanctions that can be imposed against individuals.
The role of Parliament depends on the purpose of the sanctions regulations.
If the regulations are made to comply with UN obligations then they are subject to the ‘made negative’ parliamentary scrutiny procedure – they don’t require active parliamentary approval to remain law but can be rejected by Parliament.
Ministers can also make regulations for what are called “discretionary purposes”. These are purposes listed in the Act such as furthering the prevention of terrorism or promoting the resolution of armed conflicts.
Generally, regulations made for discretionary purposes are subject to the ‘made affirmative’ procedure - they require retrospective parliamentary approval to remain law, usually within 28 days.
The second stage is the use of a designation power contained in the regulations to name and subject a person to sanction measures specified in the regulations, such as asset freezes or travel bans.
This is done on a separate administrative list. It does not involve Parliament.
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 has amended the requirements in the 2018 Sanctions Act that a Minister must meet before exercising a designation power under sanctions regulations.
As a standard procedure, a Minister must have “reasonable grounds” to designate someone.
The 2022 Act also adds an urgent procedure, under which a Minister can designate a person before establishing “reasonable grounds”, provided that relevant sanctions apply to that person under the law of certain international organisations and countries, such as the United States and the EU. The Minister must also consider that the urgent designation is in the public interest.
An urgent designation is temporary. It ceases to have effect after 8 weeks, though this can be extended by the Minister once, for a further 8 weeks. Before the period of urgent designation ends, the Minister must certify that there are reasonable grounds for the designation to continue to have effect.
This work is supported by the Legal Education Foundation as part of the Hansard Society's Delegated Legislation Review.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
