The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs (Elizabeth Truss) With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I
would like to make a statement on what we are doing to tackle
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Moscow’s malign intent is
clear: it has massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s frontier and
Russian forces are continuing to arrive in Belarus. It is only
eight years since Russia illegally annexed Crimea and stoked
conflict in the Donbass...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs ()
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a
statement on what we are doing to tackle Russia’s aggression
against Ukraine. Moscow’s malign intent is clear: it has massed
over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s frontier and Russian forces are
continuing to arrive in Belarus. It is only eight years since
Russia illegally annexed Crimea and stoked conflict in the
Donbass region, so we know that the danger is real. They have
been pursuing a campaign of hybrid warfare aimed at destabilising
the country. Just last week, we exposed the Kremlin’s plans to
install a puppet regime in Kyiv.
This threatening behaviour towards a sovereign, democratic,
independent country is completely unacceptable. It is a clear
violation of the commitments and obligations that Russia freely
signed up to, from the Helsinki Final Act and the Minsk protocols
to the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed to
“respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing
borders of Ukraine.”
The only way forward is for Russia to de-escalate, pull back its
troops and engage in meaningful talks on the basis of those
existing obligations. That is why the UK is determined to lead
the way through deterrence and diplomacy.
The Prime Minister will travel to the region this week, and later
today the UK will be joining discussions at the UN Security
Council to apply further pressure on Russia to take the
diplomatic route. I will be flying out to Moscow over the next
fortnight. That builds on our campaign of diplomatic engagement
over recent weeks and months. I have led calls from the G7, NATO
and the OSCE to urge Russia to desist from its reckless and
destabilising activities in Ukraine, as well as in Georgia, the
Baltics and the Western Balkans. I have raised these issues
directly with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. Both
the United States and NATO have set out areas where we could
explore reciprocal measures to increase transparency, reduce
risk, and take forward arms control. The ball is firmly in
Russia’s court.
While we are determined to accelerate those efforts, we do so
from a position of strength. We are combining dialogue with
deterrence. That is why the Prime Minister is considering options
for further deployments of our armed forces, to reassure and
protect allies on NATO’s eastern flank. We are preparing to offer
to support NATO with additional fast jets, warships and military
specialists. As NATO’s biggest spender in Europe on defence, we
are prepared to deploy our forces accordingly.
We have been very clear that a united alliance would meet any
further Russian invasion of Ukraine with massive consequences for
Russia’s interests and economy. We are preparing an unprecedented
package of co-ordinated sanctions with our partners, which would
impose severe costs. Today, I am setting out our readiness to
act. We will be laying legislation before the House that will
significantly strengthen our hand in dealing with Russia’s
aggressive action towards Ukraine. It will go further than ever
before.
Until now, the UK has only been able to sanction those linked to
the destabilisation of Ukraine. This new legislation will give us
the power to sanction a much broader range of individuals and
businesses. We will be able to target any company that is linked
to the Russian state, engages in business of economic
significance to the Russian state, or operates in a sector of
strategic significance to the Russian state. Not only will we be
able to target these entities, we will also be able to go after
those who own or control them. This will be the toughest
sanctions regime against Russia we have ever had, and it is the
most radical departure in approach since leaving the European
Union. Those in and around the Kremlin will have nowhere to
hide.
We will make sure that those who share responsibility for the
Kremlin’s aggressive and destabilising action will share in
bearing a heavy cost. Their assets in the UK will be frozen. No
UK business or individual would be able to transact with them,
and should they seek to enter the UK, they would be turned back.
Laying this legislation now will enable us to act in concert with
the United States and other partners rapidly, multiplying our
collective impact. We will use these new powers in a targeted
manner, designed to damage the interests of those who bear
greatest responsibility for Russia’s actions and exert the
greatest pressure to change course. I will not say now exactly
who we may target, or with what measure, but Moscow should be
clear that we will use these new powers to maximum effect if it
pursues its aggressive intent towards Ukraine. Nothing is off the
table.
We are also standing with our Ukrainian friends by providing
vital support to help them defend themselves. That is why we are
supplying the country with defensive, anti-tank missiles, and
deploying a training team of British personnel. We have already
trained over 21,000 members of the Ukrainian army through
Operation Orbital. In addition, we are stepping up our investment
in Ukraine’s future, ramping up support for trade up to £3.5
billion, including £1.7 billion to boost Ukraine’s naval
capability. We will continue to stand united with Ukraine.
It might seem hard to believe that in the 21st century the
citizens of a proud, sovereign, European democracy are living
under the threat of invasion. We know from the lessons of history
that this course of action would benefit no-one. I do not believe
that ordinary Russian citizens want to enter into an intractable
quagmire of needless death and destruction that could rival the
Soviet-Afghan war or the conflict in Chechnya. Indeed, we have no
quarrel whatsoever with the Russian people, only with the
policies pursued by its leader. It is time for the Kremlin to
step back from the brink, to de-escalate and to enter into
meaningful dialogue. If it does not, it should be in no doubt: we
will be ready to use the powers that I have set out today to
maximum effect. We will join our allies and partners to ensure
that such reckless action will bring strategic consequences at a
massive cost. We will defend freedom, democracy and the rule of
law.
I commend this statement to the House.
5.30pm
(Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement,
and for our discussions on this issue. I am very grateful.
As we in the Opposition have made clear since this crisis began,
we stand in resolute support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and in
opposition to Russian aggression. We support the essential
international diplomatic efforts to achieve de-escalation and the
defensive support provided to Ukraine. I said it in Kyiv two
weeks ago, and I say it again now: we on these Benches believe
that it is important to send a united message from the whole
House. That is why we welcome moves by the Government to lay the
groundwork for a robust and extensive package of sanctions
against Russia in the event of any incursion or attack on
Ukraine.
We believe that these measures must be broad, severe and
comprehensive. They must apply widely to crucial sectors of the
Russian economy, without gaps or loopholes.
They must target corrupt elites who store their money in our
country. They must target not just relevant Russian entities, but
those who enable, support, service or facilitate their
activities. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that UK
subsidiaries of any new sanctioned targets would not be carved
out of scope? We know that some oligarchs have used their wealth
to seek influence and protect themselves from criticism, so may I
ask for her assurance that these measures will be applied without
fear or favour? Given that the measures were pre-briefed and
include broad categories of potential targets, may I ask what
assessment she has made of the risks of asset flight, and what
steps she has taken to protect against it?
These sanctions are conditional on Russia’s actions. Their
purpose is to form a serious deterrent, which when matched by
unified action and the work of the G7, NATO and the OSCE, will
make President Putin think again. However, there is much more
that we must do irrespective of the decisions made by President
Putin—things that it should not have taken an army threatening
Ukraine to put in place; things that the Opposition have
repeatedly urged the Government to address. For years, the Labour
party and colleagues across the House have raised the alarm about
the role of dirty money in keeping Putin in power.
For too long, our defences have been let down at home while the
Government looked abroad. Despite warning after warning and
report after report, the Government have been asleep at the
wheel. London is the destination of choice for the world’s
kleptocrats. We are home to the services and enablers who help
corrupt elites to hide their ill-gotten wealth. We have a system
of corporate transparency that permits the products of larceny on
a grand scale to be hidden under our noses—and the result is the
embarrassing spectacle of President Biden being warned that the
widespread presence of suspect Russian money in the UK could
jeopardise Britain’s response to this crisis. This is not a
matter simply of individuals, welcome though that action is; it
is about fixing a broken system—our openness to fraud and money
laundering, our inadequate regulation of political donations, our
lax mechanisms of corporate governance, and our weakness to
foreign interference.
I therefore ask the right hon. Lady the following questions.
Where is the economic crime Bill that the Government have just
pulled? Where is the comprehensive reform of Companies House?
Where is the register of overseas entities Bill? Where is the
foreign agent registration law? Where are the new
counter-espionage laws? Where are the new rules on political
donations? Where is the reform of tier 1 golden visas? Where is
the replacement of the outdated Computer Misuse Act 1990? Where
is the reform of the Electoral Commission, and why does the
Government’s Elections Bill make these problems worse by enabling
political donations from donors based overseas?
The right hon. Lady’s movement on sanctions is welcome, but there
is much, much more to do. These steps at home are not distinct
from sanctions or diplomacy abroad. They must form part of a
unified and coherent response—one that has been urged
consistently by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr
Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. If
she truly wants to fix the problem, she must start there.
First, may I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his
constructive approach? It is vital that all Members of the House
demonstrate their support for freedom and democracy in the face
of severe aggression by the Russian regime, not just on the
borders of Ukraine, but through Belarus, into the western
Balkans, and across the world. I will take forward the united
message that I have heard from the whole House to our friends in
Ukraine, who very much welcome the support that they have been
offered by the United Kingdom—the economic support, the support
in terms of defensive weaponry, and the support in the face of
Russian aggression.
The package that we are putting forward in legislation will be in
place by 10 February, which means that we are able to enact
wide-ranging sanctions in broad categories that really target
anybody who is providing strategic or economic support to the
Russian regime. There will be nowhere to hide, and I am very
clear that we will apply those sanctions without fear or
favour.
We have already taken steps to tighten up our regime on
corruption and illicit finance through the Criminal Finances Act
2017, the global anti-corruption sanctions regimes that we have
put in place and our review of all tier 1 visas granted before 5
April. We will also be introducing the economic crime Bill. The
Prime Minister committed to that at the summit for democracy with
President Biden at the end of last year. Let me assure the House
that our priority is the defence of freedom and democracy. That
comes before any short-term economic interest not only for our
country, but for the whole of Europe. We must wean ourselves and
others off dependence on Russian gas. We must target the criminal
and corrupt money, and that is what we are determined to do with
this extension of our sanctions regime, the most radical that we
have put together yet.
(Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to hear from my right hon. Friend the Foreign
Secretary about the tightening of the sanctions regime. She knows
that the Foreign Affairs Committee has called for that for four
years. It is extremely welcome that she is looking hard at dirty
money, and here I find myself in agreement with the right hon.
Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The need to clean up the dirty
money in our economy is not just about doing the right thing and
standing up alongside the people of Ukraine, but about standing
up for the British people, defending ourselves against the
corruption that flows through our system, and making sure that
our houses, our homes, are not being exploited to pay murderers
on behalf of a dictator. This is not a foreign problem; this is a
problem for the United Kingdom to deal with at home. The
strongest thing that we can do to defend Ukraine is to defend
ourselves against filth and corruption in our City.
My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the work that the
Foreign Affairs Committee has done to champion this issue. This
is why we are introducing a much tougher sanctions regime on
Russia. As I have said, we will be bringing forward the economic
crime Bill to add to the work that we already doing to tackle
illicit finance.
(Stirling) (SNP)
I, too, am grateful for sight of the statement, which we support.
I have already said in the House that the SNP will be part of the
coalition to defend Ukraine and our democracy. It is not a blank
cheque, because we will want to see some details, but hon.
Members can rest assured that we will stand behind the
measures.
I would be grateful for reassurance that Scottish limited
partnerships will be included in the package, because they are a
clear risk in terms of dubious transactions, and that property
transactions will be part of it as well. I also ask for
reassurance that there will be co-ordination with the EU
precisely to avoid asset flight, given that the measures have
been telegraphed.
I have another question, to which I do want an answer. I have
pledged the SNP’s support for the measures, but I want a
statement from the Foreign Secretary in response to Pippa Crerar,
the political editor of the Daily Mirror, who is an impeccable
journalist with impeccable sources. She reports that there was
supposed to be a call between the Prime Minister and President
Putin today but that:
“When the Gray report landed the Russians were asked to shift the
time—but they couldn’t. So it’s off…”.
What in the name of hell impression does that give to our friends
and our allies if it is true—perhaps it is not? I would be
grateful for an assurance that it is not true, or if it is true,
I would be grateful for an assurance that that conversation will
take place.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that absolutely nothing is off
the table in terms of who and which organisations we will target
with these sanctions. We are very committed to working with our
partners, including the EU. We had a big discussion at the G7 in
Liverpool about the sanctions regime. I have had discussions
since then with Josep Borrell and my EU counterparts to ensure
that we are fully co-ordinated, as well as with the US. The Prime
Minister will shortly be speaking to President Putin. As I have
said, I will be travelling to Moscow in the next fortnight to
speak to my counterpart Sergey Lavrov.
(New Forest East) (Con)
Cutting out a cancer is both painful and dangerous. Is the
Foreign Secretary aware that the previous Intelligence and
Security Committee, in its Russia report, drew on the expertise
of Edward Lucas, who today has a comment column in The Times
headed, “Britain has become addicted to dirty money”? May I
suggest that if she wants to be sure that the cancer will indeed
be cut out of the body politic and the country’s wider economy,
she could do far worse than to consult Mr Lucas before she
finalises her proposed sanctions and their structures?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. I would be happy
to meet the gentleman he mentions.
(Aberavon) (Lab)
Six months ago, the Government said that they were finalising
their report into how more than 700 Russian millionaires were
fast-tracked for British residency via their so-called golden
visa scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when that
long-overdue report will be published? Does she agree that the
reason for the delay relates directly to the £4 million that has
been donated to the Conservative party by seven individuals who
have deep and highly dubious links to the Kremlin?
We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5
April. I am sure the Home Secretary will have more to say about
that in due course.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the wider steps that the UK is taking
to support Ukraine. My concern is that western tactical responses
are playing into Putin’s strategy. Seeking meetings with him, for
example, plays to his self-importance; any sanctions actioned
will drive Russia ever closer to China, which is exactly what he
wants; and sending NATO reinforcements around Ukraine, but not in
it, is not the way to deter an attack.
I worry that we are missing the bigger picture. Putin is using
the Ukraine crisis to realign Russia militarily, economically and
geopolitically with China, which has massive security
implications for the west. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that
the only way to halt an invasion and check that dangerous
trajectory is to support Ukraine militarily? This is our Cuban
missile crisis. I encourage Britain to lead the call to deploy an
offensive alliance and stand up to Putin’s aggression.
Our approach in dealing with the issue of Russian aggression is
both deterrence and diplomacy. That is why the UK has been at the
forefront in supplying defensive weapons to Ukraine, training up
Ukrainian forces and working with our allies, many of whom are
also supplying defensive support into Ukraine. But we have to be
clear that there is a difference between a country that is a
member of NATO, which has a security guarantee—Baltic states such
as Estonia, where UK troops are in place—and the situation in
Ukraine.
In my view, the best way of deterring Vladimir Putin from an
invasion of Ukraine is by making it very clear, first, that that
will not be simple or easy and is likely to result in a quagmire,
as we saw in the Soviet-Afghan war or in Chechnya; and, secondly,
that there will be severe economic consequences—and those are, of
course, sanctions that target oligarchs and companies close to
Vladimir Putin. Also, not going ahead with Nord Stream 2 is very
important from the Russian point of view.
It is important that we talk to Russia and communicate these
messages. We will not resile from our position on the protection
of the open-door policy into NATO, but we will communicate
directly with Russia so that it understands those messages.
(North Durham) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary comes to the House, talks tough and says
that the Government have a readiness to act. It is four years
since the Foreign Affairs Committee produced its “Moscow’s Gold”
report, which outlined Russian corruption in the UK. It is two
years since the Intelligence and Security Committee published its
report on Russia, which outlined similar concerns. Why have the
Government not acted in those years? If we are going to implement
sanctions, how can we believe that they will be effective without
strong political will and the determination to make them
work?
We have taken a number of measures in recent years: namely, the
Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the review we are conducting of
visas. I am saying that the most far-reaching sanctions regime
will be in place by 10 February, making sure that Russia
understands that there is a severe package ready to be in place.
Of course, I am absolutely prepared to do what is necessary to
make those costs severe.
(Maldon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right that our argument is with President
Putin and his cronies, not with the Russian people, but she will
be aware that Russian citizens, and, indeed, many in eastern
Ukraine, are able only to access Russian propaganda from
state-owned or oligarch-owned media channels, while independent
journalists are put into prison and the internet is censored.
Will she look at what more can be done, perhaps through the BBC
World Service and the tech platforms, to ensure that the Russian
people can access objective and factual reporting?
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are looking at
all the channels that we can communicate through directly to the
Russian people as well as to the Russian Government. That is
something that I will look to do on my visit to Russia.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
This is just weak, weak, weak. Honestly, since 2010, when the
Conservatives came to power and they first started saying that
they wanted to press the reset button with Putin, we have been
weak, ambivalent and vacillating towards the Russian Federation.
We have no quarrel with the Russian people; it is with President
Putin. It does not work to try to look tough when the Government
have refused to deal with the issue of tier 1 visas. It is
shocking that the Foreign Secretary does not even have a proper
answer to that question this afternoon. This has been going on
for ages; we have been giving them out to thousands of Russian
oligarchs. She still does not have an answer—maybe she will have
now—to the question about unexplained wealth orders. If we cannot
make them, how will this new legislation make any difference?
This is far, far too late. It is not a question of whether the
horse has bolted; they have invited the horse in, sat it down at
the table and given it plenty to eat.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to Ukraine—
I have been!
I suggest he goes to Ukraine and asks the Ukrainian Government
which of their allies they think is giving them the most support.
The answer is that the United Kingdom has supplied more defensive
weapons to Ukraine than any of our NATO—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Please, the question has been asked; let us hear the
answer.
The answer is that the Ukrainian Government are very grateful for
the support that the United Kingdom is giving. Of all the
European NATO allies, we are the largest supplier of defensive
weapons to Ukraine. We have helped to train up the Ukrainian
forces, we are providing economic support, and the sanctions
package that I am announcing today goes far further than the EU
sanctions regime which, presumably, the hon. Gentleman
supports.
(North Somerset) (Con)
I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today. It
is quite understandable and right that our focus is currently on
Ukraine, but is not this just part of a bigger picture? What we
have is a Russia that is trying to build an arc of instability
around NATO, from the Arctic through the Baltic to the Balkans
and the Caucasus. Does this not require a sustained, consistent
and strong policy of deterrence, using diplomatic, economic and
military elements? Would it not be a good start if all members of
NATO carried their fair share of the defence spending burden?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the UK is
supplying support from the high north through to the Baltics and
through to the Black sea, backing up NATO as the largest defence
spender of all the European NATO allies. That is being
recognised. Contrary to what those on the Opposition Benches say,
that is being recognised by our allies in the Baltic, by our
allies in eastern Europe, and by our allies in Ukraine.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
We cannot sanction what we cannot see, and while I welcome this
statement, I would like some clarity on whether this new
legislation will finally include a register of beneficial owners
for overseas entities. The Foreign Secretary will know that many
of these oligarchs hide their money, particularly in UK property.
The press release from the FCDO says that it is going to leave
Russia “nowhere to hide”, so is that loophole finally going to be
closed?
The legislation we are putting forward is about being able to
target entities and individuals that are of strategic or economic
interest in the Russian state. We are broadening it out much more
widely than before, when we would have been able to apply
sanctions only to those who were actively destabilising Ukraine.
We can target asset freezing, and we can target the ability to
enter the UK of those individuals and entities. The register of
interests that the hon. Lady is talking about is part of the
economic crime Bill that is being brought forward by the
Treasury, and the Prime Minister has committed to that happening
this year.
(The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, and the
announcement of new powers. They are long overdue, but I am glad
that it is this Government who are delivering them, and doing so
by 10 February. That will also be welcomed by the Rada in Kyiv
and by the Government of Ukraine. Is it not the case that Ukraine
is not NATO’s border and not the EU’s border, but that it is
democracy’s border, which is why Ukraine matters? I thank her for
her good offices in working hard to galvanise opinion in
Washington and across EU capitals to ensure that we have that
strong defence, strong deterrence and strong diplomacy.
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party
parliamentary group on Ukraine. Ukraine is vital. It is a
freedom-loving democracy in Europe. If we do not work hard—we
are—to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression, that will simply
encourage aggressors around the world. This is not just a
regional security issue, important though it is; it is a global
security issue.
(Glasgow South)
(SNP)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (), I support much of what is in
the statement. The statement says that the Secretary of State
will not name who or what may be targeted with sanctions, but can
she clarify that whatever the new legislation looks like, it will
enable the Government to take action against Kremlin mouthpieces
and outlets in this country, for example RT UK?
As I said, I am not going to talk about the individuals or
entities that could be targeted, but it will be anyone who is of
strategic or economic interest to the Russian state. The hon.
Gentleman can imagine that that is quite a broad list of people
and entities.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend will know well that Kyiv was the original
capital of Rus, and was an area of fabulous wealth and education
until invaded by the Khans. The Russians and the Rus called them
the Tatars. Many reports have come out that tens of thousands of
Tatars have disappeared from Crimea. That human rights atrocity
cannot be properly investigated. Does my right hon. Friend agree
that we must try to find out exactly what has been happening to
the Tatar population?
Equally, for those who do not feel it is important or that we
should somehow let Russia have the Russian empire, as President
Putin outlined in his essay last year, that goes against every
principle of freedom and democracy of standing up to fascist
Governments who want to ethnically cleanse people over centuries
of hatred.
My right. Friend is completely right. Let us remember that Russia
signed up to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in
the 1994 Budapest agreement. It signed up to that, and what it is
seeking to do is renege on its commitments, stoke aggression and
seek to undermine Ukrainian democracy in a variety of ways,
whether by false flag operations or cyber-attacks or by trying to
install puppet regimes in Kyiv.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
A few minutes ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box
and said, in response to questions on partygate, that his is the
Government who are bringing countries together “to stand up
against Putin”, but just last week, our closest allies went
public with their concerns over Russian influence in this
country. Will the Secretary of State admit that her Government
have undermined our diplomatic status and our national security
by refusing for so long to take seriously Russian influence and
dirty money?
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s talking down of the UK’s role. It
was at the G7 meeting in Liverpool that we agreed with our
allies, including the United States, the EU and Japan, that the
Russian regime would face severe consequences of an incursion
into Ukraine. That language has now been adopted by all our
allies and partners. We have led the way in providing defensive
weaponry to Ukraine. We have led the way today with our package
of economic sanctions, which go beyond what we were able to do as
a member of the EU.
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
The time for deterrence diplomacy is now. Over the last two
weeks, from Kramatorsk, to Donetsk, from Kyiv to Sarajevo and
Mostar, civilians have been clear with me that they believe the
west will either save them or there will be bloodshed in Europe.
What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to blacklisting
Russian banks? Will she look at joining the US in sanctioning
Milorad Dodik in Bosnia, whose ethno-nationalist, separatist,
genocide-denying agitation also risks bringing bloodshed to
Europe?
I know that my hon. Friend has recently visited the western
Balkans. We are absolutely looking at what more we can do on
sanctions on the regime there, as well as at how we target some
of the Russian entities that she talked about.
(Islington North) (Ind)
Any war on the border between Ukraine and Russia will be utterly
disastrous for the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia and
the future of peace throughout the whole continent of Europe.
When the Foreign Secretary travels to Moscow to have discussions
with the Russian Government, I hope that she will be able to
reassert the agreements reached in the 1990s that recognised
Ukrainian independence, but will she also try to take the whole
thing a stage further with a new disarmament agreement with
Russia, revisiting the previous agreements? Will she ensure that
the British state is represented at the Vienna convention on
nuclear weapons in the middle of March, as a way to take forward
the de-escalation of stress and threats and thereby to wind down
the tensions on the border? If we carry on building up massive
numbers of troops on both sides of the border, something awful is
going to happen and it will be very hard to get out of it.
Let us be clear: it is the Russian regime that has amassed the
tanks and troops on the Ukrainian border. It is the Russian
regime that has escalated aggression, and not just towards
Ukraine but through Belarus and in the western Balkans. It is the
Russian regime that needs to step back before it ends up entering
into what could be—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this
point—a very serious quagmire, with appalling consequences for
the people of both Ukraine and Russia. That is the point that I
will make when I travel to Moscow in the next fortnight.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her very robust approach. This
is not a criticism of her, but we still lack a comprehensive and
coherent approach to dealing with Russia’s hybrid war. Frankly,
this is a decade too late—so there is no criticism of her—and it
is clear that deterrence is not working. My question is on
facilitators, which a few other people have mentioned. Does she
understand how corrosive it is to have young UK service
personnel—ordinary kids in uniform—in forward positions in the
Baltics while in London a morally vacant and corrupted class of
lawyers, bankers, reputation launderers and kompromat-style
private investigators coin it, serving the needs of a parasitic,
murderous oligarch class that is part of a neo-fascist regime
that now threatens war in Europe? What are we doing about this
corrupt facilitator class?
As I outlined earlier, we have taken action against illicit
finance and corruption. We have established the National Cyber
Security Centre and we are working hard to support Ukraine on the
cyber-attacks it faces from the Russian regime, and I have
announced today a sanctions regime that is by far the toughest we
have ever had against Russia.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s announcement shows that the Government
can act speedily when they want to—these measures will be on the
statute book by 10 February—so will she explain to the House why
we are still waiting for all the measures referred to by the
shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his response to the statement? Why can
those measures not be acted on as speedily as the sanctions that
the Foreign Secretary has announced to the House today?
As I said, we put through the Criminal Finances Act 2017, our
global anti-corruption sanctions regime. We are reviewing the
tier 1 visas and will introduce the economic crime Bill, which
Her Majesty’s Treasury is working on.
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely correct to highlight that our
partners in central and eastern Europe—Poland and the Baltic
states—recognise the leadership that Britain is providing with
regard to these new tensions, but they also recognise the
increasing divergence between London and Berlin in how to tackle
Russia over this nefarious behaviour. Does she agree that it is
important now to go back to our German partners and re-emphasise
the need for them to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which gives
the Russians an umbilical cord to the heart of Europe? We import
less than 1.5% of our gas requirements from Russia, whereas the
Germans import more than 60% of their energy requirements from
Moscow.
I had a discussion with my colleague Foreign Minister Baerbock
last week about precisely this issue, and I welcome the
statements from her and Chancellor Scholz about Nord Stream 2, in
which they were very clear that it will not go ahead in the event
of a Russian incursion. We do need to reduce dependence on
Russian gas. I welcome the work that the United States is doing
to look at how supplies can be augmented, and we are working with
partners across the middle east. This is a strategic issue for
Europe and we do need to reduce dependence on Russian gas—there
is no doubt about it.
(Cardiff North) (Lab)
More than £4 million has been donated to Tory MPs, including to a
quarter of the current Cabinet, by Russian-linked
individuals—this is dirty money from an evil regime. Is that why
the Government have so far failed to take the Russian threat to
our democracy seriously? How will what has been announced today
help? Will the Foreign Secretary pledge to this House to fly at
least business class to Moscow in the next couple of weeks,
instead of using half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money, as
she did when she flew to Australia?
We have Government planes for a reason: for Government Ministers
to use on Government business.
(Newark) (Con)
In addition to targeted sanctions against Kremlin-linked
individuals, our friends and allies in the US Senate are
considering three further steps. The first is sanctioning Russian
state banks, to prevent the flow of foreign capital. The second
is having export controls on key technologies that are useful to
the Kremlin. Thirdly, a number of Senators, led by Ted Cruz, are
proposing a return to sanctions against Nord Stream itself, and
related entities and individuals linked to the organisation. Will
each of those be included in the Bill that my right hon. Friend
intends to bring forward?
As I have said, the legislation we are bringing forward is very
wide-ranging and targets a number of sectors and interests in
relation to the Kremlin, and I assure my right hon. Friend that
nothing is off the table.
(Exeter) (Lab)
Our American allies have just issued an unprecedented rebuke to
the British Government, saying that any new sanctions would be
worthless as long as London remains the main international
laundromat for dirty Russian money. I remember that this Prime
Minister tried to stop the publication of the Russia report and
removed the Whip from the right hon. Member for New Forest East
(Dr Lewis), who now chairs the Intelligence and Security
Committee, when his own patsy candidate failed to get the job. I
am still not clear, however, whether the Foreign Secretary is
reinstating the economic crime Bill, because that has not been
said on the record from the Dispatch Box before. If she is, can
the admirable have his job back, please?
As I have said already this afternoon, we remain committed to
bringing in the economic crime Bill, and the Prime Minister
committed that that would be done this year.
(South Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset () rather took my thunder, but this is such an important
point that I would like to reiterate: if ever there was a reason
to take a fresh look at NATO and its role and responsibilities,
this threat by Russia of an invasion in Europe must be it. Has
the Foreign Secretary spoken to the other NATO countries that are
not spending the 2%? Has she been given reassurance that they
will spend 2%? If they have not given her that, what does she
intend to do to make them spend 2% of their GDP?
We are already spending more than 2% of our GDP; we are the
largest European NATO supplier of troops and security around
Europe, and we want to see others step up, because, as my hon.
Friend says, these threats are getting worse. We have seen an
increase in aggression and we need to see all NATO allies step up
and fulfil their commitments.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
The Government’s attempt to claim some kind of moral high ground
on Russian sanctions is sheer hypocrisy when the right hon.
Lady’s party has accepted donations from oligarchs and her
Government have turned a blind eye to the Kremlin meddling in our
democracy and have held open the door to Putin’s cronies to have
their money laundered in London. Can she tell us whether that is
why there is still this delay to the promised register of
overseas entities, which would shine a light on Russian ownership
of British property? In her replies to the right hon. Member for
Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and
Abingdon (), she showed a remarkable lack
of urgency on whether the economic crime Bill might be introduced
sometime this year. That is not good enough when we are talking
about what pressure can be brought to bear on Russia now.
I had hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are
introducing our toughest ever sanctions regime on Russia, which
will be in place by 10 February. We are acting with urgency to
deal with this crisis.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the actions my right hon. Friend is taking.
Nobody should think they are safe from sanctions, so will she
confirm that this new legislation will ensure that any company of
interest to the Kremlin will be able to be targeted so there can
be nowhere for Putin’s oligarchs to hide?
We will be able to target any company linked to the Russian state
that engages in business of economic significance to the Russian
state or in a sector of strategic significance. We will be able
not just to target those entities but to go after those who own
or control them, so the net is very wide.
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
I am going to give the Foreign Secretary a third chance. Does she
agree that the UK Government will continue to look weak on the
Russian threat while Tory MPs and Members of the other House
continue to accept cash from Russian-linked individuals?
I had hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the package of tough
sanctions that we are introducing today. In fact, that is what
our allies across the world are saying.
(Cities of London and
Westminster) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She is
absolutely right that we need to widen the breadth of sanctions
on Russia to reflect the reality on the ground. In my
constituency those realities are very clear to see—the dirty
money invested week in, week out. Can she assure me that this
Government will follow through on the legislation and ensure that
the financial and professional services involved will be held to
account, and that we follow a “banks and tanks” strategy in
fighting corruption and Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine and
across Europe?
We have taken steps to deal with illicit finance and corrupt
elites through the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and our
anti-corruption sanctions regime. I have already talked about the
commitment to introduce legislation through the economic crime
Bill. Today is about showing that the UK is ready with a package
of severe sanctions that can target any organisation or
individual who is remotely linked or of economic significance to
the Russian state, showing there will be nowhere to hide in the
event of an incursion into Ukraine. This is about making sure
that those economic consequences are as severe as possible. My
hon. Friend makes excellent points on the broader issue, but
today we are talking about deterring Vladimir Putin from an
incursion into Ukraine.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
Why have the Government delayed the economic crime Bill? Why are
they doing nothing to stop lawfare in the UK courts? Why is the
Serious Fraud Office being sued by oligarchs rather than
indicting them? Without the laws, the courts and the prosecutors
to tackle corruption and dirty money here in Londongrad, are the
Foreign Secretary’s threats not empty and vacuous? Will she
ensure that the Tories’ Russian gold finds its way back to
Moscow?
I have already given the steps that Her Majesty’s Treasury and
the Ministry of Justice are taking on the issues that the hon.
Gentleman mentioned. The sanctions regime is under direct Foreign
Office control. That is why we are taking action as soon as we
can, by 10 February, to get these sanctions in place so that we
can exercise them in the event of an incursion.
(Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her announcement on
sanctions. She said in her statement that the UK will join
discussions at the UN Security Council to apply further pressure
on Russia. Could she explain what she hopes to gain out of this
and what success would look like?
Russia is a member of the permanent Security Council and needs to
be held to account for its aggressive actions with respect to
Ukraine.
(Angus) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the broad tenet of the Foreign Secretary’s
statement, the details of which included fast jets going to
bolster NATO forces in Europe. Has she had discussions with the
Ministry of Defence to ensure that when, quite appropriately,
bolstering Ukraine’s eastern flank, we do not create any problems
for the United Kingdom’s northern flank by redeploying quick
reaction alert Typhoon aircraft from either Lossiemouth or
Coningsby?
I am in regular touch with the Defence Secretary to make sure
that, of course, we protect UK defence interests at the same time
as we provide air support, particularly around the Black sea
region, to make sure that we are working with our NATO allies to
keep a free and safe Europe.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
President Putin is reported as saying:
“Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere”—
of artificial intelligence—
“will become the ruler of the world.”
Given the dangers posed by lethal autonomous weapons, will the
Foreign Secretary explain why the British Government seem
reluctant to support efforts to place legally binding instruments
to control their development and use?
We are shortly about to launch our international tech strategy,
which will talk precisely about setting standards in areas like
artificial intelligence and quantum. It is important that it is
the free world that is setting those standards rather than their
being dictated by authoritarian regimes.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
There are concerns in the food industry that a Russian invasion
of Ukraine could lead to food shortages in the UK, as Ukraine is
becoming a significant exporter of goods such as cereal products
to the UK. What plans do the Government have to protect UK food
supplies if Putin opts to disregard sanctions and presses
ahead?
We have an important trade relationship with Ukraine, which is
why it is so important that we support Ukraine economically. That
is why we have built in extra trade co-operation, and why it is
so important that we deter the Russian Government from an
incursion into Ukraine.
|
