Jonathan Portes analyses how increasingly strict immigration policies may have impacted the overall economc contribution of migrants in the UK. He argues that if the objective is to maximise economic contribution, the UK system may now be ‘too selective’.

All advanced economies have “selective” immigration policies. Unless a country closes itself off to immigration entirely, or has fully open borders, this is inevitable. And politicians and economists generally agree that one important criterion on which policies should be based is that of economic contribution – that is, giving some preference to those who are likely to contribute positively to the host country’s economy. This is rarely the only criterion – others, such as legal and moral obligation to refugees, the ability of families to reunite across borders, and so on – also matter. And it can be measured in different ways – earnings, current or prospective, likelihood of making a positive fiscal contribution, skills or qualifications that are seen as particularly likely to be beneficial, and so on. But all systems use one or more such measures.

This perspective has informed the UK policy debate before and after Brexit: the coalition government’s desire to reduce migration while attracting the “brightest and the best”, Vote Leave’s promise of a “skill-based points system”, the post-Brexit migration system that equalised conditions for EU and non-EU origin migrants while setting earnings and skills thresholds, and the decisions by both the Sunak government and the current one to substantially tighten these thresholds while barring entry entirely in some occupations, particularly care work, where most workers are relatively low-paid.

In particular, the story of the post-Brexit period would seem very clear. In the face of post-pandemic labour shortages, and in an attempt to mitigate the negative impacts of Brexit, the system for non-EU migrants was radically liberalised – that is, it became significantly less selective – in 2021. As a consequence, numbers soared, with particularly strong growth among less well-paid migrants, especially in care. More recently, partly as a result of political backlash, policy was tightened substantially in 2024 and 2025 and numbers arriving, especially to work, fell sharply.

Given these changes in selectivity operated primarily through salary thresholds, the obvious implication is that new non-EU migrants arriving after 2021, but before 2024, should have had substantially lower earnings than those arriving either before 2021 (under the pre-Brexit system) or after 2024 (after the substantial rise in salary thresholds that was introduced then).  There is just one problem. The data says otherwise.

Using HMRC data, we can track the earnings of migrants by the year in which they entered the UK employee workforce. As the above narrative suggests, there was indeed a sharp rise in new entrants from 2021, and a more gradual fall from 2023 to 2025. However, we see no evidence at all that earnings were lower during this period of lower selectivity. Indeed, quite the opposite. The median earnings of non-EU migrants who entered the employee workforce in 2018 attained parity with the whole workforce in three years; for those who entered in 2022 and 2023, it took only two years, a slight but visible improvement.

And what about those who entered in 2024, after the tightening? So far they seem to be tracking the 2018 cohort rather than the later ones. And those who entered in 2025 have extremely low earnings compared to any of their predecessors, although we cannot attach too much weight to the first year figure, which may be dominated by students working part-time. Broader labour market conditions, which seem to have disadvantaged new entrants to the labour market across the board, may also have played a part here.

In other words, the 2021 move to lower selectivity and much higher numbers does not appear to have reduced either initial earnings or early years earnings progression among new non-EU migrants, if anything the opposite; outcomes did not worsen, but may have improved. And the very sharp reversal, designed to increase selectivity, appears, although any conclusions must be very tentative at this stage, to have coincided with a substantial worsening of labour market outcomes – precisely the opposite of what might have been expected and what policy was intended to achieve.

What is the explanation? First, it is important to note that increasing the selectivity of ’economic’ routes may well, paradoxically, reduce the selectivity of the migration system overall. By definition, those coming on work visas are likely to be in full-time work, and, even under a relatively liberal system, most will be on average or higher earnings; by contrast, those coming through other routes – family, refugee routes or asylum – often will not be in work, especially at first, and may often be on low earnings. So reducing work flows may increase the average earnings of work migrants, but may reduce the average earnings of new migrants overall (and indeed the overall workforce).

This seems very likely to be part of the explanation here –  while care workers and others in middle-skilled occupations excluded by recent policy changes are not generally highly paid, they and their dependants are not (especially if they work full-time, as most do) at the lower end of the earnings distribution either for new migrants or for the population as a whole.

Second, even within economic migration routes, tightening the rules, supposedly to favour the “brightest and the best” may in fact deter them. As is often observed, we can choose migrants, but they also need to choose us – and those who are most likely to be economically beneficial have the most choice. As thresholds, fees and bureaucratic burdens rise – and policy changes signal a more hostile environment towards immigration and immigrants more generally – these workers may substitute toward alternative destinations, even if they remain formally eligible.

Does this mean that there is no point trying to select migrants on economic grounds? No – as noted above, some selectivity is inevitable, and at some point, lowering requirements will indeed reduce average outcomes. But it suggests that, if the objective is to maximise economic contribution, the UK system may now be ‘too selective’: a liberal and flexible system towards economic migration routes is likely to produce better results overall than one whose primary aim is to limit eligibility to a very narrow set of potential migrants.

[The data in this blog is taken from my work with Ben Brindle and Madeleine Sumption of Migration Observatory, published here. The opinions expressed here are my own.]

By Professor Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Department of Political Economy, King’s College London.

Credit: Adobe Stock

Earlier this year, nexfibre agreed to acquire Netomnia, one of the UK’s largest alternative network providers. With planned investment of £3.5bn in full-fibre infrastructure, we are set to establish the first genuine wholesale competitor capable of challenging BT Openreach at national scale.

The decision regulators reach on this transaction will determine whether Britain’s broadband future is defined by vigorous, sustainable competition or continuation of the status quo of monopoly-style dominance. It’s a clear choice.

Openreach still dominates the full-fibre market

Despite a decade of alternative-network (“altnet”) build-out, Openreach retains overwhelming market power. Its expansive footprint, retail relationships and deep balance sheet allow it to set terms that shape the entire sector. Many altnets remain geographically fragmented and financially fragile, limiting their ability to exert sustained, nationwide pressure on the incumbent.

These concerns are echoed in the latest Assembly Research report on the UK full‑fibre market, which warns that Openreach’s grip “risks replicating copper-era monopolies in the fibre age”. Unless a challenger with comparable scale and reach emerges, the UK risks compounding the Openreach dominance that has long constrained innovation and consumer choice. nexfibre’s mission is to change this.

Testing the limits of regulation

Openreach’s latest pricing tactics are testing the boundaries of Ofcom’s Telecoms Access Review (TAR) and are at odds with the government’s aim of promoting long‑term competition, investment and growth in the fibre market.

While headline price cuts may appear attractive for consumers in the short term, these are infact deep and targeted wholesale discounts, which make it uneconomic for rivals to scale. If allowed to proceed, it would entrench BT Openreach’s monopolistic position.

Sustainable competition depends on a level playing field. Ofcom scrutiny, and decisive action, is essential to ensure the market will mature to become sustainably competitive, enabling it to deliver investment, innovation and lower prices over the long term.

Building a national wholesale challenger

The combination of nexfibre’s network, Netomnia, and 2.1 million Virgin Media O2 premises which will also be upgraded to full fibre by nexfibre, will create a scaled, financially secure challenger to BT Openreach, with a full fibre footprint of around 8 million premises by the end of 2027.

When combined with the growing fibre footprint of Virgin Media O2, the two networks will collectively reach 20 million premises and give internet service providers a highly attractive wholesale alternative to the incumbent.

It is a bellwether transaction and will deliver three essential outcomes.

First, it will unlock £3.5bn of new investment at a time when capital for standalone altnets is increasingly scarce.

Second, it will create a financially secure wholesale platform covering millions of premises nationwide, giving internet service providers a meaningful alternative to Openreach.

Third, it will accelerate the full-fibre rollout while supporting AI adoption, cloud services and the productivity gains a modern economy demands.

The latter is a point that I made at the New Statesman Politics Live Conference earlier this week.

The UK is searching for growth, backing AI adoption, and our government is increasingly digitising. nexfibre is a next generation network provider, delivering the latest XGS-PON technology to premises across the country, ensuring Britain is connected – and prepared for the next stage of digital growth. But the full fibre market, which underpins the investment and growth we need, is often taken for granted.

Full fibre is essential growth infrastructure – and we need to make sure the conditions are there to support it – and fast. Every day of delay reinforces the incumbent’s advantage and slows the progress of genuine competition.

Britain’s choice

The UK faces a clear decision. We can allow dominance to deepen and maintain the monopolistic status quo that is holding our country back. Or we can equip the UK with a credible wholesale challenger and a sustainable competitive framework for the full-fibre era.

Britain’s broadband moment is here. Let’s seize it.

Suella Braverman (PA Images/Alamy)

10 min read29 min

In February 2018, a junior minister in Theresa May’s government stood up in Parliament to make one thing very clear: post-Brexit Britain would not be a place in which rights and equality laws are rowed back on.

Citing the UK’s “proud record, history and tradition” of “supporting workers, protecting civil liberties and championing human rights”, then-Brexit minister Suella Braverman proudly declared: “Our gender pay gap reporting requirements and our public sector equality duty are world-leading initiatives that go beyond EU law in many ways”.

Braverman was referring to measures enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act – a statute that, eight years later and in a new party, she is now determined to abolish.

Until relatively recently, the Equality Act was not a controversial piece of legislation, and no major political party was proposing changes to it.

“Originally, the Tories resisted it, but then the consensus grew – with [David] Cameron and with Theresa May… about the role of the state in promoting equality,” says Baroness Harman, the architect of the legislation. “There were arguments about how that should be done, but there was a consensus that it should be done.”

When Braverman, now Reform UK’s equalities spokesperson, announced in February that Reform would scrap the Equality Act if it won the next general election, she was re-committing the party to a policy that had already featured in its 2024 manifesto. Removing the legislation, she said, would allow Reform to “build a country defined by meritocracy, not tokenism” and “personal responsibility, not victimhood”.

In June, the Conservatives then set out their own stall on the issue by promising to ditch the Equality Act’s public sector equality duty. The duty requires public bodies to have “due regard” to the legislation’s overarching aims of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and “fostering good relations” between groups of people with or without different protected characteristics.

Braverman said this “half-baked and half-hearted attempt to copy Reform” was “embarrassing”, but shadow equalities minister Claire Coutinho counters that Reform’s plan would backfire.

“White men have successfully fought discrimination claims under the Equality Act because it protects everyone on the basis of race and sex, not just ethnic minorities and women,” she tells The House. “They would lose this protection under the plans Reform has announced, as would disabled people.”

Coutinho continues: “Reform’s plan would also make positive discrimination and race quotas in the workplace legal. We want to maintain protections against genuine discrimination whilst getting rid of the grievance culture which says minority groups are worthy of special treatment.”

But she confirms that other parts of the Equality Act would also be amended by the Conservatives, as party leader Kemi Badenoch has said removing the duty would only be the start of a wider “overhaul”.

“People should be judged on merit, protected from discrimination and abuse, and free to live their lives with everyone equal under the law,” Coutinho says. “There are other elements of the Equality Act, such as positive action and ‘work of equal value’ pay claims, which are social engineering in a way that undermines those principles.

“We will be rooting out anything that is incompatible with our values, but that doesn’t mean just binning the entire act without properly understanding what’s in it. Just to get a political headline, Reform was willing not just to throw out the baby with the bathwater but pregnant women, new mums and disabled people as well.”

It is a line of attack that Reform is clearly conscious of the need to counter. To replace the Equality Act, the party has pledged to introduce a Workplace Fairness Act that will treat people “as individuals”.

The Equality Act consolidated more than 116 pieces of pre-existing equalities legislation into one statute and Braverman has said that “much of what was valuable” in it stems from those earlier laws.

The Workplace Fairness Act, therefore, would re-consolidate the pre-2010 legislation into a new statute – including, Reform says, protections which apply “both inside and outside the workplace”, despite the proposed legislation’s name. But it will not carry over provisions like positive action or the public sector equality duty.

Braverman has pledged to repeal the Equality Act on “day one” of a Reform government and the party says its Workplace Fairness Act would be implemented on the same day. “The repealing and replacement legislation will be in the same act,” a Reform spokesperson tells The House.

One source familiar with Reform’s political operation says the policy is not so much about broadening the party’s appeal with new voters as it is about firing up its base and the commentariat. It also stems from a concern within the party that the Equality Act could prove an obstacle to parts of its agenda in government.

“The second-order issue is, of course, that the Equality Act can be used to frustrate a whole lot of legislation Reform would want to bring in,” the source says, pointing to the party’s plans to ban foreigners from accessing social housing as an example of a policy that could be challenged under the current equalities framework.

“The big issue for Reform is making it clear – particularly to female voters, where they’re aware they have a weakness – that getting rid of the Equality Act doesn’t therefore mean they want women to go back to the kitchen, or that they’re going to dump maternity rights.” The insider believes Reform has “not successfully communicated that”.

“The genius of the Equality Act is that the branding’s very good. Most people in the modern world are in favour of equality. But, on the other hand, what it creates by [introducing] special categories [of people] is a whole lot of inequality,” they add.

Earlier this month, Reform announced plans for a Women and Motherhood Protection Act, which will consolidate the pre-2010 legislation pertaining to women’s rights, while also building on them, they say – such as by increasing the time limit for pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims from three months to 12 months.

The Trades Union Congress criticised the proposals as “shameless and deceptive”, as Reform’s press release appeared to cast doubt on the Equality Act’s principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Reform said its changes would ensure that “genuine cases of pay discrimination” would be tackled but avoid “allowing courts and tribunals to determine the relative value of fundamentally different occupations”.

“Just to get a political headline, Reform was willing not just to throw out the baby with the bathwater but pregnant women, new mums and disabled people as well”

The Women and Motherhood Protection Act would confer “explicit breastfeeding rights” for mothers. Reform’s spokesperson clarifies for The House that, in practice, this will not necessarily mean women gaining any new rights to breastfeed. Rather, breastfeeding rights that currently exist “across employment legislation and the Equality Act will be brought together and, where necessary, made explicit or further codified”.

In the case of older people, meanwhile, regulations introduced in 2006 were limited to employment. It was only under the Equality Act that older people gained additional rights in other areas like the provision of services.

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, tells The House that scrapping the Equality Act “would be a disaster for older people”.

“We would strongly oppose any repealing of this act, because it would legitimise age discrimination, in a way. It’s bad enough with the act – it would be a lot worse without it,” she says. “It’s totemic and it gives a signal to society that we think it’s important to respect different people’s rights.”

The 2010 legislation, she argues, has played an important role in governing how NHS treatment decisions are made, for example.

“Certainly, digital exclusion is another issue that arises here – your ability to physically access or in other ways access a service,” Abrahams adds.

“Older people already have to pay more for things like travel and motor insurance, but without the Equality Act they would have total freedom to be very discriminatory in who they sold their products to.”

Asked whether Reform intends to carry over rights that were introduced for the first time in 2010, a party spokesman replies: “We are considering what additional protections would be needed for genuinely vulnerable groups in society.”

When Disability Rights UK raised similar concerns about protections specific to the 2010 legislation being lost, in an article published by Disability News Service, Reform was adamant that no protections would be removed.

“Of course these protections won’t be scrapped and all provisions for disabled people will be kept,” a spokesperson said. “A Reform UK government will always support protections against discrimination based on disability, including in services. Neither Suella nor the party have ever made any suggestion that we will water down provisions for disabled people.”

At the same time as the Equality Act is under fire, Labour is under pressure to fulfil its manifesto pledge to expand the legislation’s reach.

Section One of the Equality Act – the socio-economic duty – has never been implemented, as Theresa May cancelled its planned enactment within months of taking office as women and equalities minister in 2010.

The duty, which requires public bodies to consider how their decisions might help reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage, has since been implemented in Scotland and Wales – but not in England. 

In 2024, Labour promised to enact it, but Keir Starmer’s government never confirmed when this would happen.

“It was good that it was in the manifesto, but we should have done it straight away,” Harman, who was appointed as Starmer’s adviser on women and girls in May, tells The House.

“I’m a bit frustrated that two years in, we haven’t set a time for implementing it,” Harman says – not least, she adds, because when she was in government in 2010, working on the Equality Act with the then-chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips, they drew up draft guidance for implementing the duty. “We were ready to go but we lost power. So, that guidance is still there and still ready.”

With the Equality Act’s principles being more politically contested than ever before, she urges: “It’s important for the government to recognise that that consensus is being challenged, and they need to remind everybody why it’s the right thing for this country to be done – and get on with the socio-economic duty.”

Labour says it remains “proud” of the Equality Act and will “robustly” defend it in government.

“It’s fair to say we will be talking more about the importance of it and defending the core principles of it,” says one party source, speaking prior to Starmer’s resignation announcement, “but where it’s challenged, we’ve pushed back pretty firmly.”

When it comes to implementing the socio-economic duty, they admit that the legislative timing is ultimately “a decision of the centre”, though they insist it will be delivered.

In answer to a written question in April, equalities minister Baroness Smith said: “We are currently working toward commencement of the duty, which includes drafting statutory guidance that will clarify how the duty can be applied effectively. As part of this process, we are working with listed public bodies to ensure the guidance supports them effectively.” 

Credit: Adobe Stock

3 min read33 min

This article was commissioned by the Total Politics Impact team.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was carried over into the new session, having completed 12 Commons Committee sittings in April 2026. Its central objective is to reduce delays in the criminal justice system, currently standing at some 80,000 cases – twice the pre-pandemic level – in the Crown Court alone. It seeks to do this by rebalancing the respective functions of the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts.

The most radical provisions are in clauses 1-7 of the bill. These allow Ministers to expand magistrates’ sentencing powers by regulation to as much as 24 months, to replace automatic appeals from magistrates by a permission-based system limited to appeals on points of law, and to remove defendants’ right to elect jury trial for “either-way” offences in cases where the anticipated sentence is less than three years. Such intermediate level cases, together with complex financial cases, will in future be eligible for trial by judge alone.

These proposals take their lead from Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts but go significantly further in a number of respects. In particular, Leveson advised retaining magistrates’ sentencing powers at 12 months, and would have allocated intermediate cases not to a judge alone but to a judge sitting with two magistrates.

The bill also revises the tests for the admissibility of evidence relating to a complainant’s sexual history and previous bad character and changes the rules around the use of special measures (such as screens and video links) to support vulnerable witnesses. It contains provisions on tribunal leadership and judicial deployment and includes family justice reforms such as removing the statutory presumption of parental involvement in children’s cases.

These proposals take their lead from Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts but go significantly further in a number of respects

Advertisement

In its report on the 10 June 2026, the Commons Justice Committee regretted the absence of time for pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly given that the bill will not be implemented before March 2028. It pointed to weaknesses in the evidential basis for the anticipated savings of court time and voiced doubts as to whether the magistrature would be able to expand at the rate necessary to cope with the likely increase in their caseload. The report also drew attention to the lack of diversity of the judges who would sit alone in intermediate cases and referred to the conclusion of the Lammy Report in 2017 that juries are one of the few areas of the criminal justice system where Black and minority ethnic defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes.

With some criminal trials now listed as far ahead as 2030, there can be no doubt that decisive action is needed to reduce delays. But the proposed expansion of magistrates’ powers and roll-back of jury trial are controversial with practitioners and judges: there is no consensus that any time-saving benefit will justify their possible negative effects on the quality of justice and public perceptions of fairness. The House of Lords is not short of relevant expertise: Baroness Levitt, the Justice Minister, was a serving Crown Court Judge until she became a peer in 2024. A vigorous work-out may be expected there.

4 min read1 hr

This week’s Ofgem price cap rise will add £221 on average to people’s annual energy bills. While communities are struggling and parliament is distracted, fossil fuel giants and privatised energy companies are cashing in. This is rip-off Britain.

I know this will be another huge blow in what has been a bruising year for anyone trying to keep up with constant price rises. For the three out of ten adults in the UK already either in debt to their energy company or worried about falling behind, and for the one in three households in my constituency, Gorton and Denton, that are living in fuel poverty.

Behind these statistics are people. Elderly people worrying about the cost of running a fan in the heatwave; families that spent the winter trying to make a game out of huddling together against the cold; and people with disabilities trying to run life-saving equipment all year round.

Before I became an MP, I was a plumber. I spent my days going into people’s homes, and so many times I saw the problem right in front of me. I remember walking into a house where the air was so thick with damp that you could almost slice through it. This was not an issue of ventilation, as some might suggest: it was a working family trying to provide for their kids and being unable to afford the basics—a warm home that is not full of damp.

Burnham must break the link between the international gas market and domestic bill

I recently celebrated my first 100 days as an MP, and this is the one issue that has come up pretty much every single day I’ve done the job. In Westminster, however, the main topic of conversation seems to be when and how the Labour Party is going to replace its leader.

In the first month after the US and Israel’s initial strikes on Iran, the share value of just five North Sea oil and gas companies was boosted by £73bn in one month. As I said when I was elected, working hard used to get people a decent life; now it is more likely to line the pockets of billionaires and energy giants.

This cannot continue. That is why the Green Party is calling on Andy Burnham, if he becomes the next prime minister, to take immediate steps to cut bills before the winter.

First, he could take £150 off everyone’s bills by removing policy costs and the cost of servicing energy debt from energy bills and funding them via general taxation. Funding policy commitments like the Warm Homes Discount should be done progressively, and that’s exactly what adding them to taxation would do. A wealth tax could ensure this was placed even more firmly on those with the broadest shoulders. 

If Burnham is really serious about changing course, then more must be done. He must break the link between the international gas market and domestic bills and go further to stamp out the profiteering in the energy market that allowed UK energy companies to make £30bn in pre-tax profits in 2024 alone.

He should also be looking to set out a fully funded and properly regulated local authority-led, national home insulation scheme, because, as I am painfully aware, our homes leak more heat than most places in Western Europe, and making people who are struggling pay for energy lost in seconds is appalling. 

He also needs to move further and faster on renewables. New fossil fuel extraction will not bring down bills or improve the UK’s energy security, but renewables can. Since the start of the war in Iran, wind and solar have saved the UK £1.7bn in gas imports. 

The public is clear that the affordability crisis is the issue that they want tackled. The next prime minister needs to act, and this time not in the interests of fossil fuel giants, but in the interests of the very people who trusted the government to make their lives more liveable.

Hannah Spencer MP is the Green Party MP for Gorton and Denton

75 MPs from a variety of parties have called on the government to sanction Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Alamy)

3 min read8 min

The letter to Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, organised by Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan and shared with PoliticsHome, expresses “deep concern that the government has yet to sanction members of the Israeli government for the systematic torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees”. 

Citing a report by UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, MPs say responsibility for “well-documented torture of Palestinian civilians lies with the government of Israel, including Prime Minister Netanyahu”. 

The letter also references the decision by Israel in March to drop charges against soldiers for the alleged rape of a Palestinian detainee, a decision praised by Netanyahu, and the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla and Freedom Flotilla Coalition vessels in international waters by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). 

The Israeli government and IDF have repeatedly denied allegations of torture and rape, and have defended the interception of multiple flotillas in international waters, accusing them of being sympathetic to terrorist organisation Hamas. 

In the letter, cross-party MPs say that while they welcome sanctions against far-right ministers like Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, more needs to be done. 

“We write to express our deep concern that the government has yet to sanction members of the Israeli government for the systematic torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees, including children, in Israeli detention,” the letter reads.

“Responsibility for the systematic and well-documented torture of Palestinian civilians lies with the government of Israel, including Prime Minister Netanyahu.

“While the sanctions announced in June 2025 against ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich remain welcome, they have done little to change the government of Israel’s approach to Palestinian detainees. Since the sanctions were announced, the systematic torture of Palestinians, including children, has escalated, with near total impunity.”

The UK government sanctioned Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in 2025 in response to the pair’s “repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities”, with then foreign secretary David Lammy in a statement accusing them of inciting “extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights”. 

The letter from MPs also calls on the UK government to sanction both Netanyahu and Levin, arguing the government must end the “impunity” for Israel’s actions. 

“We urge you to take further steps to help end this impunity by sanctioning the government of Israel’s Minister of Justice, Yariv Levin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” the letter reads. 

MPs who have signed the letter include Labour MP Paula Barker, Your Party MP and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Liberal Democrat MP Manuela Perteghella, and Conservative MP Desmond Swayne. 

The Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office was approached for comment.