Russia: Sanctions Statement The following Statement was made in the
House of Commons on Monday 31 January. “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...Request free trial
Russia:
Sanctions
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 31 January.
“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 Kiev.
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.”
3.19pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I hope I can show a bit of
unity with the Minister and he will not get so upset.
This House remains united in solidarity with the people of
Ukraine, and we continue to support the principle of sovereignty
in the face of aggression. Any sanctions must be targeted and
extensive if they are to be the most effective. We must take aim
at corrupt elites and comprehensively cover the most crucial
sectors of the Russian economy. However, as much as it is welcome
that the Government are preparing for these measures, I am
concerned that they will not be paired with much broader measures
needed to crack down on illicit Russian finance in the United
Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, wrote to me on 9 December following
my questions relating to the full implementation of the ISC
Russia report. In that letter, the noble Lord refers to a
“cross-government Russia unit” but gives very little detail. Of
course, the ISC said that there appears to be a plethora of plans
and strategies with direct relevance to the work on Russia by the
organisations it oversees. The integrated review acknowledged the
need to bring together elements of our work across the strategic
framework at home and overseas, using all the instruments
available to government in an integrated response. I hope that
this afternoon the Minister will be able to tell us what has
happened and where the details are on this strategic framework
approach.
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, yet in response to yesterday, the Foreign
Secretary simply said:
“We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5
April.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; col. 60.]
It is shocking that the Foreign Secretary did not have a proper
answer to my honourable friend’s question. We have been giving
out these visas to thousands of Russian oligarchs. Some £4
million has been donated to the Conservative Party by seven
individuals who have deep and highly dubious links to the
Kremlin. Can the noble Lord tell us what action the Government
will take on the visas, and when they will do so? More
importantly, when will we see the economic crime Bill, which will
be so necessary to ensure a joined-up approach on these issues?
When will the Government consider introducing a register of
overseas entities Bill, foreign agent registration laws or new
counterespionage legislation? We are still lacking detail on when
we can expect Bills—which have previously been announced—to
repair the gaping hole in our defence. Will the noble Lord tell
the House when we can expect the promised computer misuse Bill
and the counter-hostile state Bill to be brought to the House?
Can the Minister say when the Government’s cyber co-ordination
centre will be operational to help tackle these threats? These
are all actions required to be taken urgently.
I believe that, to be successful, sanctions must form part of a
unified and coherent response across our allies, and I understand
that the noble Lord shares this aspiration. Can he say what steps
we are taking to work with the G7, NATO and the OSCE to ensure
that we act in unison with all our allies on these important
matters?
Sanctions are always effective deterrents, but the Government
must also pursue a diplomatic solution. I mentioned yesterday, in
response to the Statement on the report, that I found it pretty shocking that the Prime
Minister cancelled his phone call to President Putin at a time
when such talks are vital to peace and security. Can the Minister
say this afternoon when the Prime Minister will make sure that
those discussions take place? Will that call be rearranged? It is
vital that we have answers to all these questions.
(LD)
My Lords, I put on record my appreciation for the Minister
telephoning yesterday and alerting me to the Statement. He is
courteous and approachable, and it is very much appreciated. I
hope that his overseas visit was a success. However, as the noble
Lord indicated, a telephone meeting with President Putin was
postponed and a maskless Foreign Secretary contracted Covid and
was unable to travel. It is embarrassing to me, and perhaps
others, that the whole world now follows what we see at home:
failures in leadership and an increasingly grubby Government.
However, we support moves to shore up the ability to ensure that
there is a severe economic response to unwarranted Russian
aggression towards Ukraine. Two weeks before Christmas, the EU
and the US reached an agreement on what expanded economic
sanctions would be. Our announcement, which is welcome, is a
consequence of this. But, as with most things, it has a little
bit of overselling attached to it.
UK FDI stocks in Russia are currently £12.3 billion —an increase
of 25% during Liz Truss’s tenure as International Trade
Secretary. Since the unacceptable invasion of Crimea, UK FDI
stock in Russia has gone up by 50%. What actions will the
Government take to stem this flow? I previously asked what
contingency arrangements are in place for guidance for UK
businesses that are currently conducting legitimate business that
will become illegitimate as a result of any actions. The European
Central Bank has done a sensitivity study with banks on exposure
to Russia. Has the Bank of England done the same? What guidance
is being provided to global oil and energy trading and shipping
insurance with trade with Russia, which is primarily done through
the City of London and will be the target of US and other
sanctions?
Can the Minister explain why economic crime has been downgraded
in the UK over the last few years? When was Minister of State for Security, he was Minister
of State for Security and Economic Crime. is Minister for Security and
Borders. There is no Minister for economic crime. As my noble
friend Lady Ludford said yesterday, although the Foreign
Secretary has said that there will be “nowhere to hide” for
Russian oligarchs and their money, they have been hiding in plain
sight in Chelsea, Belgravia and Mayfair.
As a December report from Chatham House indicated, the grim
details of London’s world centre of kleptocracy have created a
wider malaise in England’s legal system. Given this Conservative
Government’s inactivity, so clearly identified in Parliament’s
Intelligence and Security Committee reports over many years, it
is legitimate to ask whether the Government are crying wolf
again.
Yesterday, the Business Minister was unable to give details of
what will be in the economic crime Bill. The noble Lord, , asked the Home
Office Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, why there
have been
“few, if any, successful prosecutions”
on unexplained wealth orders. She replied:
“There have been some, and as I have explained to the House, it
is quite complex and sometimes these things are very difficult to
secure. There is more work to be done.”
Of course these are difficult and complex matters, but they will
not be less so next week. Therefore, that is not an excuse for
inaction.
Referring to President Putin, the noble Lord, , asked:
“given that he has invaded Crimea, assassinated his opponents
here in the UK and looted Russia’s economy, thereby impoverishing
… Russian citizens, why have the Government not considered doing
this anyway?”
Under the anti-corruption regulations, those that will be in
scope under the new measures are currently in scope for
sanctions. The Minister replied:
“The noble Lord is absolutely right. I am not party to some of
the discussions going on in the FCDO and elsewhere, but he
highlights the point that we have a major problem with regard to
the influence here.”—[Official Report, 31/1/22; cols.
617-18.]
I think that the whole House welcomed that admission, after
months of denials by the Government. We have a major problem, and
if we are now being asked to put in place new measures, which may
well be welcome, we have legitimate questions to ask about this
Government’s motivation to properly clamp down on those who are
doing us harm.
Will the Government finally accept the case for fast-tracking
beneficial ownership legislation and the Bill that has been
introduced in the Commons by ? Will they urgently accept
the amendments on golden visas proposed by my noble friend ? If the Government are
serious about this, they have two key opportunities now—will they
take them?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for their support. I
fully accept that it is right that we are challenged with
questions as Ministers and on important issues such as the
situation in Ukraine. It is important when we look towards
Ukraine that the Government, together with all parties and voices
across both Houses of Parliament, come together in calling out
the challenging and ever-increasing presence of Russian troops,
almost in a crescent shape, across Ukraine and Belarus; this is
causing particular concern in the eastern part of the country.
There is also the annexation of Crimea, of course.
Notwithstanding us having just done a Question on ministerial
travel and where Ministers wish to work— as I said to the noble
Lord, Lord Anderson, it is a requirement that we work beyond what
we may be conducting in our business—I am grateful to both noble
Lords. I also sought to call the noble and learned Lord, . I hope that he received the
message I had to leave for him; I regret that I was unable to
speak to him in advance.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, rightly asked
questions on various issues of illicit finance. I will certainly
outline some of the steps that the Government have taken on the
specific issue of the economic crime Bill, which was raised by
both noble Lords. This also came up in the other place with my
right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and my right
honourable friend the Prime Minister reiterated, during the
democracy summit, the Government’s commitment to seeking to
introduce it this year. I assure noble Lords that I have also
made sure, in terms of my own responsibilities at the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office, of the importance of this
Bill.
In terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised about what
will be in the Bill, the Government have already, as he will be
aware, produced the national economic crime plan; there are
various elements within that. We created the National Economic
Crime Centre in 2018 and, including previous legislation, there
was the ground-breaking Criminal Finances Act 2017. In addition,
the recent UK spending review announced new investment of £18
million in 2022-23 and £12 million per year in 2023-25 for
economic crime reforms, as well as £63 million to reform
Companies House, which will go in part towards addressing some of
the issues that noble Lords have raised, on beneficial ownership
in particular.
I note the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed to. Of
course, the Government are committed. I took through the
legislation—with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as I recall, on
the Opposition Benches—of the SAMLA Bill. We gave a commitment
and continue to work, for example, with our overseas territories.
We have exchange of notes operational with key members of the
overseas territories family, but they are all now committed to
ensuring that operational public registers are fully functional
by 2023.
Sanctions were mentioned, which I also want to bring into the
context of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised
about Russia. When we introduced the global human rights
sanctions regime, as noble Lords will be aware, we broadened the
scope. The global anticorruption sanctions regime has been used
specifically to target those individuals from Russia, sanctioning
14 individuals involved in the $230 million tax fraud in Russia
uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky himself.
I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary
alluded to the issue of tier 1 visas. Of course, while this is a
Home Office lead, it also involves the National Crime Agency, and
we will continue to bring the full weight of law enforcement to
those who threaten the security of the UK and our allies. More
broadly, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the current
changes we are bringing and the remit—that is, which individuals
and organisations they would apply to. Just to be clear, under
the current regime, the UK has been able to sanction only
individuals linked to the destabilisation or undermining of the
territorial integrity of Ukraine. This new approach, with the
governance structures—I am not talking specifically about who or
which organisation may be designated—will allow us 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. The noble
Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned a number of those sectors.
Of course, I will work—as I have previously—with noble Lords
across the House, but particularly with the Front Benches, to
bring both greater detail through direct questions in your
Lordships’ House and more detailed insights on the approach. The
noble Lord, Lord Collins, will smile at this, but I am not going
to speculate on the individuals or organisations that may be
sanctioned under this broader regime. Of course, the noble Lord,
Lord Purvis, is right that there are implications in certain key
sectors. The issue of guidance and not just the implications for
those who may be sanctioned but the wider impact on those sectors
and industries is an important consideration. I assure the noble
Lord that that is very much part of our thinking.
If I may, I have a final point, which picks up on some of the
questions that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about specific
acts and specific points. I will, of course, follow up my letter
to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as well and copy in the noble
Lord, Lord Purvis, and other noble Lords.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised about
leadership, he may be aware—but he may not be—that my right
honourable friend the Prime Minister is currently en route to
Ukraine; he may well have arrived. He is having talks directly
with President Zelensky. We are also announcing further support
of £88 million, particularly looking more broadly at the economic
and energy impacts of any steps that Russia may take. The noble
Lord raised the issue of the call to President Putin. That is
being prioritised, looked at and arranged. Certainly, we hope
that it will happen very soon.
On the general point about my right honourable friend the Foreign
Secretary, the noble Lord said that, again, it shows a lack of
British leadership. I challenge him in this respect. Looking back
over the last two months at the engagement of my right honourable
friend the Foreign Secretary on the issue of Ukraine, on 1
December, she met the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, and on 2
December, she met the Russian Foreign Minister. I am sure I speak
for all noble Lords around your Lordships’ House in wishing my
right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary a speedy and full
recovery. She is certainly looking to undertake her
responsibilities in terms of engaging directly in Moscow. She
announced yesterday that she is looking to travel to Moscow
within the timeline of the next two weeks; subject to her
recovery and ensuring that all processes are in place, we are
looking to do exactly that.
My right honourable friend has also met with the G7, as the Prime
Minister has already. On 13 December, he had a call with
President Putin. He had a further call with the Ukrainian
president, President Zelensky, whom he is visiting. The Foreign
Secretary had a phone call with members of the OSCE. She had
phone calls with UN Secretary Blinken on 23 December—to name just
one of them—and with the EU policy chief, Josep Borrell. On 30
December, she had a phone call with Foreign Minister Le Drian,
Secretary Blinken and German Foreign Minister Baerbock, and, most
recently, she had a call with the German Foreign Minister. My
colleague, Minister Heaton-Harris, spoke with Deputy Foreign
Minister Titov on 26 January. The Foreign Secretary had a call
with the Dutch Foreign Minister on 1 February, and, as I said,
she intends to visit Moscow, health permitting.
I can provide a full list of engagements. I have not counted
other Ministers; indeed, I hope to be in Estonia next week as
part of our responsibilities on the Media Freedom Coalition.
However, part of my engagement with the Estonian Foreign
Minister, where our troops are based, will be on the situation of
Ukraine.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, the noble Lord, , is taking part
remotely. I invite him to speak.
3.39pm
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, during last Wednesday’s Statement to the House, I
suggested that, prior to supporting a proxy war military
intervention, and now sanctions, all concerned should read
material from the National Security Archive at George Washington
University, which reveals assurances given to the Soviets on NATO
expansion—an issue at the heart of the Russian case. Was my
suggestion followed up or ignored? Will not those undertakings
given to the Russians not go away and, in the end, become central
to this whole debate on both sanctions and the potential for
conflict?
(Con)
The noble Lord is right on his specific suggestion but, on his
broader point about the importance of diplomacy, that is exactly
what Her Majesty’s Government are doing, along with our key
partners. It is important, though, that Russia also recognises
that it is about its actions. Let us not forget that Crimea was
annexed—what, eight years ago?—and it has subsequently continued
to take aggressive stances on the borders of Ukraine. I said
earlier that we have now seen over 100,000 Russian troops
amassing across three different fronts. These are not mere
exercises; they are attempts to intimidate Ukraine. It is
important that we stand with Ukraine and underline the support
that we give to it, including what the sanction would be if there
was a Russian incursion or invasion into any parts of Ukrainian
territory. It is important that Russia understands that message,
which is articulated not just by the United Kingdom but by us and
our allies. I assure the noble Lord that the door of diplomacy,
as I said in my previous answer, is very much open and the UK is
at the forefront of that.
(Con)
My Lords, is it not possible to secure the involvement of the
United Nations Security Council more fully in the Ukrainian
situation? Is that not the formula we followed back in 1982 when,
despite Russian resistance, Resolution 503 was duly passed? It
authorised, among other things, the noble Lord, Lord
West—Commander West, as he then was—to set sail for the south
Atlantic. Sadly, 22 of his brave colleagues did not return.
(Con)
My Lords, I am very appreciative, as I often say, for the
insights, experience and wisdom within your Lordships’ House. On
the specific point that my noble friend raises in relation to the
United Nations, as he will note, a meeting on this very issue
took place at the Security Council. On initiatives which could be
taken, we should never close the route to diplomacy. I believe
Russia is now in the chair of the UN Security Council, so surely
there is a greater onus on the presidency to demonstrate how it
can bring different countries together.
(CB)
My Lords, I welcome the balance that the Minister and the Foreign
Secretary have struck between maximising the pain for corrupt,
mafia-like elites while minimising damage for ordinary Russians,
who have suffered quite enough under Vladimir Putin. Can the
Minister say whether cutting Moscow from the SWIFT financial
system and cancelling the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline are
being given serious consideration in the event of an invasion of
Ukraine? Will he also elaborate on the co-ordination of the
efforts with our closest allies that he has been describing to
the House?
(Con)
My Lords, I can certainly provide more details on the noble
Lord’s second question. Yes, we are working with key allies, as I
indicated, over the course of the last two months and beyond. We
have been working with our key European allies and directly with
the EU. We have been working with the United States, as well as
partners further afield, on how we can act together on the
situation in Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the
importance of sanctions and working together in a co-ordinated
fashion. I assure the House that we are doing exactly that. On
the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I fear that if
I was to say anything further it would run to speculation. But,
as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said
yesterday in the House of Commons, whether our approach is
diplomatic or looking at the issue of economics and the cost of
Russia, everything is very much on the table.
(Lab)
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend , can the Minister
tell us, as and when the Prime Minister talks to President
Putin—inevitably, the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO will be
raised as a Russian concern—what precisely is the Government’s
position on the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO?
(Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, on the central point of
Ukraine joining NATO, it is first and foremost a defensive
alliance. A country can make an application and it is considered
by all members of NATO. No country should be told specifically
that it cannot be a member of a particular alliance; it is very
much for Ukraine to request its membership and for members of
NATO to decide.
(LD)
My Lords, the presentation in Washington has often been—as I have
seen in recent days—that the United Kingdom has only really acted
under American pressure. That does not look good in Washington.
Can the Minister reassure us that that was not the case? While we
are tackling this issue, late as we are to it, can the Government
ensure that we take a broader attitude to the question of Russian
influence within the British elite, which the ISC Russia report
flagged up three years ago? We need now to deal with not just the
immediate question of the Ukraine crisis; there is a much broader
question. Lastly, have the Government done any impact assessment
of, for example, the implications for the property market in
London and the south-east of imposing sanctions?
(Con)
On the noble Lord’s last point, I suppose I should declare an
interest: I am a property owner in London and the south-east. In
all seriousness, without going into too much detail, as I
said—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, had to leave,
but I recognise the courtesy extended by his note to me—we are
looking at the broader impact, as the noble Lord indicated.
On the issue of engagement in Washington, I assure the House that
we have been engaging on the front foot. Let us not forget that
we have been engaging on this issue longer than the current US
Administration. We have always made the case as strong partners
of Ukraine—one can ask Ministers present and past in the
Ukrainian Government. I have sat with a number of them at the
United Nations who have indicated their strong support, not
through us asking them, but quite genuinely, for the leadership
the United Kingdom has showed in solidarity, support and
friendship for Ukraine.
(CB)
My Lords, the House will understand when the Minister says that
it is not in the Government’s gift alone to remove Russia from
the SWIFT financial system, but he can say, can he not, if they
believe it would be a proportionate measure, if the invasion of
Ukraine goes ahead?
(Con)
My Lords, I know the noble Lord is probing me for more details,
but I shall not say any more. I am fully aware of the sensitivity
and impact where such steps are taken. As noble Lords will have
followed, and as I sought to inform those on the other three
Benches in your Lordships’ House, the broader nature of what we
can do once the legislation is effected will allow us to sanction
organisations and individuals much more broadly and at direct
cost to those entities which are Russian or which are owned by
Russian entities and operating within the UK.
(Con)
My Lords, in the event of general economic sanctions being
applied—obviously, let us hope that the diplomatic measures that
the Minister outlined will bear fruit—given that Russia and
Ukraine between them produce one-third of the world’s wheat
supply, we will probably see a massive hike in the price of
wheat. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of
that on UK food prices, and what contingencies are being put in
place to find alternate supplies?
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. I think
the implications of any sanctions and support are well
recognised. I point my noble friend specifically to the steps we
have taken just now in support of Ukraine directly, which will be
impacted in the first instance, and the new funding I alluded to
earlier, looking specifically at the issue of Russian energy
supplies. That indicates the seriousness with which the UK
recognises the impact of such sanctions.
However, it is important that Russia understands very clearly and
unequivocally that its actions of not just taking but retaining
territory, annexing territory, as it is threatening to do now
further in Ukraine are firmly unacceptable, not just to us but to
our allies and the world community generally. Therefore, it is in
Russia’s hand to reflect on what is being said, but this is
serious. This is a serious point in the crisis, and it is
therefore important that we engage diplomatically and directly.
That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the
Foreign Secretary have said directly to their respective
counterparts that they wish to meet to discuss with them. One
hopes that the diplomatic channel will bear fruit.
(Lab)
My Lords, like other Members of this House, I support the
sanctions that were announced in this Statement. It is crucial
that we do not undermine the steps that our Government are taking
to get the message to the Russians. The problem is that if the
Russians read the international press today, they will get a very
different message. The headline in the Washington Post is:
“Britain, the tough-on-Russia ally, is being undermined by
London”.
On Bloomberg.com it is:
“‘Londongrad’ Undermines U.K.’s Tough Talk on Russia
Sanctions”.
In the Sydney Morning Herald—with the Secretary of State having
just come back from there after a very important visit—it is:
“Billions parked in ‘Londongrad’ undermines Britain’s tough talk
on Russia sanctions”.
We can impose sanctions on all of the people identified in this
very welcome Statement, but we will not be able to seize their
assets because we do not know who owns the assets. If we have to
wait until 2023 to have a register that allows our Government to
know who owns the assets, then these sanctions will deter no
one.
(Con)
My Lords, London already operates a public register. When I
referred to 2023, that was in the context of our overseas
territories. We already have a scheme for OTs, called the
exchange of notes, which the noble Lord will be aware of. I know
directly through its operation, and through speaking to, for
example, tax authorities and crime agencies, that they are able
to access the necessary information. However, I agree with the
noble Lord that there is more to be done on this issue. I
outlined some of our plans for greater transparency at Companies
House to show greater levels of ownership. I assure the noble
Lord that the broadening of what we are seeking to do through the
legislation proposed will allow us to target individuals and
organisations quite specifically and to freeze their assets as
well.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister and others have referred to an invasion of
Ukraine as a trigger for sanctions. Can the Minister tell me what
that invasion will look like? Does it include cyberattacks? Does
it include subversion by special forces, who are already in parts
of Ukraine, and other such grey activities? How are we going to
identify an invasion if the 100,000 troops massed there are just
there for strong-arming and for show and will not themselves
actually be involved?
(Con)
My Lords, I alluded to the expertise and insights in your
Lordships’ House, and perhaps I should be posing this question to
the noble and gallant Lord, who has great insight. The activities
of the Russian state and those supported by the Russian state
already include such things as the noble Lord alluded to. That
has seen some action being taken by the United Kingdom and our
key allies and partners. What is very clear is that the physical
movement of troops—again, the noble and gallant Lord will know
this far better than I—is a real statement of what may come next.
To just pass it off as military manoeuvres when the whole of the
eastern borders of Ukraine have over 100,000 Russian troops in
occupancy is a great cause for concern. Therefore, what we are
seeking to do through the Statement, and, importantly, through
the widening of legislation and action—be it economic action—is
to demonstrate to Russia the real willingness of the alliance and
our partners within NATO and Europe to stand up against such
further aggression.
As I said, eight years ago Crimea was annexed illegally. No
further attempts were made to withdraw troops. I went to Ukraine
before Christmas, and saw the anxiety. The massing of troops in
Belarus, not that far from Kiev, is causing particular concern,
and it is important that we make Statements accordingly. However,
behind those Statements must be concerted action.
(Con)
My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Browne,
said, when the Soviet Union collapsed just over 30 years ago,
people had very little private property. Within a decade, some
people had riches beyond the dreams of avarice. Some of that was
made legitimately, but a great deal was assets of the Russian
state looted by gangsters. A lot of that money then came here.
Why are we not pursuing unexplained wealth orders on these
people? They have all the money in plain sight and we should be
pursuing them now.
(Con)
My Lords, I praise my noble friend’s impeccable timing, as my
dear and noble friend Lady Williams is sitting to my right. My
noble friend talked about the issue of these unexplained wealth
orders and we have acted. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked
earlier about the detail. The same applies for sanctions or any
other step that we may take. There is a positive, in that even
those with the most sinister motives have, within the United
Kingdom, the rule of law. We need to ensure that, whether we are
talking of these orders or of sanctions, due process is followed,
and with a robustness which allows those sanctions or orders to
prevail. The Home Office takes this very seriously, as does the
Home Secretary. I assure my noble friend that we will act
accordingly.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that our agencies have a
very good idea already about where certain money is, who has it
and who it belongs to in these chains, particularly with their
links to the City and the people they talk to. Can the Minister
assure me that we have been monitoring very closely any movements
of money and changes of pattern, because the Russians will be
very aware that this is about to happen? Can he also confirm
that, as a number of noble Lords have said, we are in a position
to move and to hammer these people the moment that this happens,
rather than having to wait two or three years for legislation? We
are able to do things like that if we put our minds to it. The
great joy is that, as a member of the ISC, in two years I will be
able to see all the evidence of whether anyone was doing
that.
(Con)
My Lords, of course the Government take these issues very
seriously. Often when we talk about sanctions, we talk about
where the Government may be looking to sanction an individual or
an organisation, and we resist, for the very reasons that the
noble Lord illustrates. Giving any intimation or indication of
who or what company may be targeted will lead to funds being
withdrawn, if assets are held in the United Kingdom. Therefore,
we look to be informed by our agencies across the piece, but it
is also important to look to the application of law. There are
many wise heads within your Lordships’ House on this very issue.
We ensure that the letter of the law is applied fairly to any
action that the Government may take. Before such a measure is
taken, the background and supporting evidence is considered very
carefully at a cross-government level. The noble Lord refers to
various agencies, and we have some of the best—arguably the best
in the world. Their contributions are important to any final
decision that the Government take.
(LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me with the
question of the breadth of sanctions which are to be sought.
There is a passage in the Statement which says that:
“We will be able to target any company that is linked to the
Russian state”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; cols.
55-56.]
Of course, every Russian company is linked to the state under an
obligation to report any information which may help to advance
the policies of the Russian Government. The effect of this would
be that the Government are seeking power to target any Russian
company, whether it has a connection with Ukraine or with the
United Kingdom.
(Con)
My Lords, I have already talked through the broader nature of
what we as a Government will be allowed to do through
legislation. This is enabling legislation. When we look at each
individual designation—be it an individual or an
organisation—that will be considered very carefully. However, it
is important that Russia recognises that its actions in Ukraine
are being not just noticed but acted upon. Therefore, it is
important that we are seen to act, and to act with our partners
accordingly.
|
