Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord with his very considered remarks, most which I agree with entirely. His points reflected the three words that I thought could sum up this debate—the need for urgency and clarity, and at scale. These are the priority areas where we would wish to see the Government continue to move. Notwithstanding, as my noble friend Lady Smith said, that we support the Government’s work on this entirely, those aspects, the next steps on how we are going to be moving at pace, will be of fundamental importance. We are still technically debating the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As a long-standing former Minister and Chief Whip, he knows that this is a Budget Bill and that he cannot amend it in this place, but, as anybody who has seen the speakers’ list will know, he also knows how to get the last word. I commend him for that, because these Benches agree with the thrust of his argument. If there is anything that we can do to help him persuade his noble friends on the Front Bench to support our positions on seizure, he can count on our support. The debate also had the outstanding maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. My former constituency was on the north side of the border, so I used to deal with NFU Scotland rather than the NFU. I recall that at my first meeting with NFU Scotland as a brand-new Member of the Scottish Parliament, I thought that I had listened attentively, but it was rather complicated, with lots of very difficult, technical words. I jotted them down, but at the end, I went home and had to ring up the then president of NFU Scotland, who was the noble Baroness’s counterpart. I said, “I’m really sorry. I’ve looked at my notes and can’t now remember what the animal disease or the animal medicine is, because the words are so complicated”. He said, “Jeremy, you don’t need to understand what we say; you just need to understand that you do what we say”. With the clarity of the noble Baroness’s contribution, I hope that Ministers will do what she says in this House, and she is most welcome. The sober element of this debate was the recognition that the toll on the Ukrainian economy and country has been enormous. We often try to get a picture of what the toll is on the Russian economy; sometimes we get information showing that there is a significant toll on it from our sanctions and from external actions. The news, which I think was from just last week, that one rouble is now worth less than one US cent is one illustration that a toll is being taken, but as my noble friend indicated, there is still too much sanction circumvention and there are still too many areas where the Russian economy is gaining—whether it is the shadow fleet, which we are still seeking to pursue, or other elements of avoiding sanctions. Constant work is of fundamental importance in this area. I have previously raised something with regard to British Overseas Territories which I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. How are we ensuring that all the actions and all the work that we are doing are consistent across all parts, including the overseas territories? With regard to the impact on Ukraine, it is now estimated that there has been well beyond £500 billion of war damage. That is just a modest estimate by the World Bank. It is inconceivable that Russia will voluntarily pay compensation, so any thought that if it retrieves assets, they will voluntarily be used for some form of reconstruction in a ceasefire agreement is for the birds. A fundamental question therefore needs to be asked: why would we not use the entirety of the assets for the reconstruction purposes which we know Russia will deny in the future? Given that Ukraine is suffering a budget deficit of well over £10 billion and that, in context, it allocates more than £40 billion—about half of its entire budget—to the defence sector, which shows the scale of what Ukraine is having to do, timing is of fundamental importance, as well as scale. It is welcome, of course, that there is the G7 consensus on this, but it was agreed in June last year to use the profits on immobilised assets. It was in January last year, when we were in Grand Committee on the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations, that I called on behalf of these Benches for the equivalent of what the Bill is now. The timing is of importance, but it is also not just about the cost of recovery and contributing to Ukraine now; it is also an argument about accountability. Our friends in Canada have passed legislation. Given the other debates that we have secured, including in the other place on 6 January this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend indicated, and given the points that my honourable friends in the Commons made in Committee of the whole House on the Bill, the argument is not simply about funding Ukraine’s efforts now for its economy and the war. It is also about ensuring that there is Russian accountability. If part of the argument is that the Putin regime should be held to account for what it is doing, why would it then be able to profit and, in effect, have assets back and be able to use them? We probably know—the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, perhaps alluded to this—that there is a distinct incentive for Putin to have some form of ceasefire: to pause, recoup and then string this on. There is therefore no long-term security, and if part of the funds are simply being immobilised so that the profits from them can be used rather than the asset value itself, then unfortunately there is an incentive for Putin not to have a long-term solution. I suspect that that is why there is a last-ditch attempt in the last days of the Biden Administration, as CNN reported yesterday, for them to move towards the seizure aspect. I hope that the Minister might have an opportunity to respond to that. To help us understand the position—this is where clarity comes in—I hope that the Minister will be able to look kindly on what my honourable friend James MacCleary put forward as an amendment to the Bill. It was to seek government reports: an immediate report but also, for clarity, a report regarding our “share of the principal loan amount” and what is able to be seized, if we had the intent to do that. There are ways in which the Government could demonstrate more clarity—as the United States has done, having been asked by Congress, and as Canada has done—as to what the scale of the opportunity is. Perhaps the Minister could clarify another question for me. How much of what has been committed so far under the G7 programme has been disbursed? My understanding is that, as reported, the US committed £20 billion as a portion to the World Bank in December but that only £1 billion has been disbursed. I wonder what the status is likely to be for when the disbursements will be in place, especially the UK contribution. If the intent of this fund is for the purchase of munitions on a very urgent military operation, it goes without saying that any delay to the disbursement is not to the advantage of our Ukrainian friends and allies. Let me close by reiterating what my noble friend Lady Smith said at the outset. We believe that it should be the UK’s intent that we move on this, as far as seizure is concerned, and that it is unjustifiable that these assets should be utilisable by Russia in the future. Russia’s actions should not be forgiven by it being able to recoup assets which we have found justifiably should be frozen. Those assets should be seized at pace and at scale and be used for the defence of Ukraine and as part of its reconstruction. That would also show accountability for those terrible crimes that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine.