Lord Blencathra (Con)

My Lords, I beg to move the regret amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I too am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and her take on the situation in British agriculture at the moment, which is quite interesting. Let me make it absolutely clear that I will not press my regret amendment to a vote. I will do nothing to delay the passage of this Bill and, in the highly unlikely event that there is a vote on the Bill, I shall vote for it. I support the Bill, but I have had to adopt this tactic because I cannot table a simple amendment I would like—because it is a money Bill—to add a little additional power to the Bill. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not taking that power, as the United States and Canada have done. Having said that, I congratulate the Minister on his speech and congratulate the current Labour Government for being as robust on Ukraine as my right honourable friend Boris Johnson was when this appalling war first started. I I am proud of the financial assistance that this United Kingdom has already provided to Ukraine. We have committed £7.8 billion in military support and £5 billion in non-military support. In hard cash terms, the United States has given $135 billion, Germany $16.5 billion and I think our £12.8 billion is $15 billion. However, in terms of GDP we find that Estonia has committed 3.5% and Denmark 1.8%. Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland and Poland also stand out as the highest donors in terms of GDP. The closer you are to Russia, the more you have to fear and the more you spend on defeating the aggressor. In GDP terms, the US contribution is only 0.32%, Germany’s is 0.57% and we are at 0.55%. Nevertheless, in these difficult financial times we have done a remarkable job in assisting. Of course, as the Minister pointed out, we have done other things as well. We have trained over 51,000 Ukrainian troops and sent over 400 different types of military capabilities and kit, including drones, boats and munitions. Defeating Putin is a point the United Kingdom—including the present Government—repeatedly makes at the United Nations and we have imposed sanctions on over 2,100 individuals and entities, including 100 ships and shadow tankers. We are taking a leading role in the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, co-hosting the London Ukraine Recovery Conference in 2023. Then we come to the G7 summit in Italy in June 2024, which is the father of the Bill before us. The official communiqué said: “We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven … gathered in Apulia … reaffirm … Ukraine’s fight for freedom and its reconstruction for as long as it takes … we decided to make available approximately USD 50 billion leveraging the extraordinary revenues of the immobilized Russian sovereign assets, sending an unmistakable signal to President Putin”. The important words there are “leveraging the extraordinary revenues of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets”. So what are those assets? The figures vary, but total immobilised Russian assets are believed to be from $280 billion to about $300 billion. About $240 billion is in the EU, up to $28 billion to $30 billion in the United Kingdom and the rest elsewhere. The US does not have much at all. The $50 billion loan will be advanced to Ukraine under the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme—the ERA—and is due to be paid back to lending countries from the interest that we are making from those immobilised Russian assets. The UK, as the Minister said, is about to extend our share of £2.26 billion under the ERA loan scheme, to be repaid from approximately 15 years-worth of interest on those Russian state assets that have been immobilised in the EU. That $50 billion in ERA loans is, however, merely a temporary financial buffer. It falls far short of addressing Ukraine’s long-term needs, with damage requiring reconstruction surpassing $486 billion, according to the World Bank’s February 2024 assessment, and western contributions to Ukraine’s defence expenditure of roughly $105 billion annually. The little amendment that I wanted to make to this Bill was simply to add after the words “money provided by Parliament” a sentence that said, “or out of any assets, reserves or any other property held within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom directly or indirectly by, for or on behalf of the Russian Federation”. That would permit us, if we so decided—it is a permissive power—to utilise the whole of the $30 billion of Russian assets that we have. I am very happy to use taxpayers’ money in the Bill, but I am more keen to use Russian money. The whole purpose of my amendment today is to ask the Government: why on earth not take that permissive power to utilise Russian assets? Why are those words not in the Bill? Since it is morally and legally right in international law to keep the Russian money immobilised but spend the interest raised on it to help the reconstruction of Ukraine, it must also be legally right in international law to spend the capital assets themselves to help Ukraine. Canada and the United States have taken this path. In 2022, Canada introduced legislation that enables its Government to seize state and individual assets frozen in Canada in cases of grave breaches of international peace and security. In 2023, the United States passed the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act—the REPO Act—which allows immobilised Russian sovereign assets seized and transferred under US jurisdiction to be sent to Ukraine. Some have suggested that our Treasury has blocked this because of a misguided fear that it will deter foreign investment in the City or the UK, since it could send a message to foreign investors that the UK will suddenly seize their assets without good reason. That is just not the case and is not going to happen. The concerns that seizure would lead to the withdrawal of global reserves held in the G7 currencies and their ultimate devaluation are grossly exaggerated. The practical impact of indefinite immobilisation, as we have done, and confiscation is exactly the same. Three years of immobilising these Russian assets have not led to a flight of capital from the US dollar, the euro or Great British pounds, and there are no grounds for believing that confiscation will have that effect either. In January 2024, the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed an agreement on security co-operation. Among the 66 paragraphs or articles were the following: “The Participants reaffirm that the Russian Federation must pay for the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine. Russian sovereign assets in the UK’s jurisdiction will remain immobilised until the Russian Federation has paid for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The UK, working with its partners, will continue to pursue all lawful routes through which Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine … As a priority, the Participants will continue to work together with others, including G7 states, to explore options for the development of appropriate mechanisms to provide reparation for damage, loss, or injury caused by Russian aggression”. That is what the last Government said, but what do the current Government say? It seems exactly the same, I am pleased to say. On 6 December last year, in answer to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Banner, the Minister said: “This Government is clear that Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war. That includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. Working with allies, we continue to pursue all possible lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet those obligations. Our agreement with G7 partners to provide approximately $50 billion in additional funding to Ukraine, repaid by the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets, is an important step towards ensuring Russia pays.” Note the words, “an important step”—not the only step. The only way that Russia can be made to pay is to use all the immobilised assets held in the UK, EU and US. These should be transferred to an international fund, as the Council of Europe has called for. It is morally right to use those assets; it is legally right under international law to use those assets. The whole point of my Motion today is to plead with the Government to take those permissive powers, to use when the time is right. Will the Government please explain to me and the House in more detail why they are not taking that route? I beg to move.