(Barking) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he
will make a statement on continued involvement by UK companies in
Russia.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury ()
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question.
The UK and international partners have moved in lockstep since
the invasion to impose the largest and most severe economic
sanctions that Russia has ever faced, designating more than 1,200
individuals and over 120 entities. That includes a ban on new
outward investments in Russia, and £18.4 billion-worth of Russian
frozen assets reported to the Government. On Monday, in alignment
with coalition partners, we banned the import of Russian oil and
oil products into our markets. In conjunction with partners, we
have prohibited UK ships and services from the maritime
transportation of Russian oil unless the price paid is at or
below $60.
The Government do not comment on individual commercial decisions.
The process of divesting themselves of assets in Russia will be
complicated for companies, which need to ensure compliance with
financial sanctions. However, since Russia’s illegal and
unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, we have seen commitments from
many firms and investors to divest themselves of Russian assets.
The Government have been clear that we support further signals of
intent to divest of Russian assets. In March this year, the then
Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—said he welcomed
“commitments…made by a number of firms to divest from Russian
assets”,
noted that he
“supports further signals of intent”,
and said that
“there is no case for new investment in Russia.”
That remains the Government’s position.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for granting this urgent
question. I thank the Minister for his reply. However, after
listening to it, I would simply say to him that the Government
have constantly talked about taking back control, and if there is
one issue on which they should take back control it is this:
ensuring that no British company invests in Russia.
Today is the 286th day of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. In
February, three days after the war started, BP said it
“will exit its 19.75% shareholding in Rosneft”,
Russia’s main oil company. Despite this promise, BP remains one
of the largest shareholders. According to the excellent research
by Global Witness, it is set to receive £580 million in dividends
on the back of bumper profits fuelled by the war. Does the
Minister agree with me that it is utterly shameful that a large,
publicly listed British company profits from the sale of oil that
is funding Putin’s war?
Does the Minister further agree with the words of Mr Ustenko,
President Zelensky’s economic adviser? He wrote to BP and said:
“This is blood money, pure and simple, inflated profits made from
the murder of Ukrainian civilians.”
BP’s claim that it is locked in as a shareholder is both
laughable and easily solved. To put this into perspective, BP’s
dividends are equivalent to over one quarter of the total
military and humanitarian aid provided by the UK Government to
Ukraine.
Does the Minister agree with Mr Ustenko that BP and any other
company still invested in Russia’s fossil fuels must donate the
entirety of its wartime profits to the victims of the war? Does
he further agree that it is our duty to ensure that companies are
not damaging Britain’s national interest? Will this Government
therefore work to persuade BP to donate the entirety of its
Russian dividends to the reconstruction of Ukraine, and if that
fails, will the Minister commit to acting and forcing it to do so
through a special windfall tax?
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and pay tribute to her for
her long-standing record of holding Governments to account on
issues such as sanctions and international finance—I was
previously Justice Minister when we had the strategic lawsuits
against public participation issue. She has been very active,
including across party lines.
I entirely understand why people feel so strongly on this
subject, and I feel strongly too—what Putin has done in Ukraine
is appalling—but I am not going to comment on a specific UK
company or taxpayer or their commercial decisions. I have set out
the range of measures we are taking, and it is important to
stress that while we all want companies that have committed to
divesting to do so, there are of course issues. I do not say this
with specific prejudice to any individual, firm or company, but,
for example, should a firm divesting from Russia by selling its
shares sell them in such a way that they returned to an
individual entity that was sanctioned, there would rightly be
condemnation of that. This is not a straightforward process—and I
repeat that I do not say that in reference to any specific
company.
I totally agree that we should do everything possible to support
the people of Ukraine, and we can be very proud of the enormous
effort our country has made. The right hon. Lady rightly talked
about our duty, and I believe we have a duty to support Ukraine.
We are second only to the United States in the amount of aid we
have given to the people of Ukraine, now totalling over £6
million, and, as I understand it, we have been training its
soldiers—22,000 of them—since 2015. This country has done its bit
in relation to Ukraine. We are proud of that, and of course we
want to do more and go further, which is why we work with our
partners; that is why only on Monday we announced a decision in
partnership with G7 states and Australia in relation to Russian
oil across the piece. We have a record of taking decisive action,
and in terms of the Treasury, of the most powerful sanctions
against Russia on record, which is hitting its economy. We of
course have no dispute with the Russian people, who will feel the
impact of that, but we are doing everything possible, bar direct
military action, to support the people of Ukraine.
(New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure the entire House agrees with the Minister that the UK
has done a tremendous job in supporting Ukraine ever since it was
illegally invaded, but what we want is a way for the Government
to intervene to stop private companies somehow drilling a hole in
the bottom of the bucket, as it were, while we are pouring in
water at the top. Is there really nothing that can be done to
impound, confiscate or levy a tax against money that has been
raised in this unacceptable way?
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his great expertise on
these matters but say to him that we have to differentiate. We
have taken explicit and direct action on firms within the
sanctions regime—120 entities and 1,200 individuals have been
sanctioned and, as I said earlier, £18.4 billion-worth of frozen
assets have so far been reported to the UK Government. There has
been a clear commitment from a number of important UK and indeed
global businesses to divest from Russia—I am not specifically
talking about any one—but we must recognise that there is
complexity in that. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor back
in March, he was very clear about what the Government want in
terms of divestment, and we obviously support companies in taking
that action, but I am happy to look at what further can be done
in this space and to work with colleagues.
Mr (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking ( ) for tabling this urgent
question.
Right now in Kyiv, the temperature is around freezing. Putin aims
to weaken the resolve of the Ukrainian people by freezing them
over this winter. But with every Russian missile that falls on
energy infrastructure, he does not weaken the resolve of the
Ukrainian people—he strengthens it. The resounding answer to the
question posed by President Zelensky—without electricity or
without you?—should be heard loudly and clearly in Moscow.
To support the efforts of the Ukrainian people, many British
companies have ceased their Russian operations and divested
themselves of their interests. Those decisions have cost
businesses money, orders and jobs, but they have made them
because they want to do the right thing. And other businesses are
paying higher energy costs as a result of the war. But some
companies either continue to operate or have not fully divested
themselves of their interests.
The excess profits made by energy companies have rightly been
called the windfalls of war. Energy is the central pillar of the
Russian economy and the profits from it fuel the Russian war
effort. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has told the
House today that the dividend due to BP as a result of its stake
in Rosneft is worth about £580 million. Those funds may be frozen
at the moment, but what do the Government believe should happen
to those funds when they are eventually released? Do the
Government believe that those funds should be used for the
welfare and benefit of the people of Ukraine, whose country is
being devastated by Russian aggression? How many other British
companies are still operating in Russia and why are they still
operating? What is the Government’s position on money they could
be making there, which could also be described as the windfalls
of war?
We are united across this House in our support for Ukraine and
for the incredible bravery shown by both its armed forces and its
people. The question the House poses today is how will the
Government make sure that British companies are not profiting
from the appalling Russian aggression we have seen in Ukraine?
The right hon. Gentleman poses a number of very important
questions. On a general point, he talks about strengthening the
resolve of the people of Ukraine. This country can be rightly
proud of every step it has taken to strengthen that resolve, and,
I must say on record, of the leadership of two former Prime
Ministers, as well as the current Prime Minister. They have shown
extraordinary leadership appearing in Kyiv under huge pressure
and supporting President Zelensky, alongside the support we have
given to the Ukrainian armed forces and our massive humanitarian
aid. I know there is consensus on that, but we should not in any
way be defensive about the steps we have taken to support the
Ukrainian people.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about companies doing the right
thing. He is absolutely right that companies are divesting and
exiting from Russia. We welcome that. I explained about the
statement made by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor back
in March, which is obviously something we welcome. I think there
are some complexities in that process and I will not be drawn on
individual firms. That is long-standing Treasury policy for very
good reason.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the windfall tax. We have a
windfall on North sea oil and gas which will raise £41.6
billion—an enormous sum of money. Why are we raising that money?
It is in part precisely to fund the extraordinary support we are
putting in place to help British people and British businesses
through this winter. He talked about the impact on companies of
Putin’s war and the impact on people. Yes, of course, the
harshest impact is on the people of Ukraine, not least the
bereaved families, but there is an impact on our people with
higher prices, including energy prices, here and throughout
Europe and the world. Our windfall tax funds that support so that
this winter we are doing everything possible to support our
businesses and our people, alongside massive support for the
people of Ukraine.
(The Wrekin) (Con)
There is no doubt that the UK has led the Ukraine war effort with
the United States, and there is no doubt that the UK has led the
international sanctions regime, but this urgent question is about
UK companies. Does the Minister share my concern that DP Eurasia
is selling pizzas in Russia, Unilever is selling Cornetto ice
creams in Russia, and HSBC is still servicing Russian corporate
clients? Does he think that is acceptable? What more action can
the Government take to encourage those companies to remove their
services and businesses from Russia and to divest themselves
fully, rather than just give interviews to corporate magazines
and offer warm words?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is for good reason
that we do not entertain specific discussions on individual
companies and their commercial interests, but we have been very
clear on the need to divest. We have an outright ban on
investment in Russia, and I sincerely hope that companies are not
abusing that. I am not going to suggest that the companies he
mentioned are doing so or comment on those specific cases, but I
am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, or receive correspondence
from him, if he has concerns in that regard.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
It seems to me to ring a little bit hollow to say that companies
are still trying to unwind their various operations in Russia. If
some companies can do that quite easily, can the Minister explain
to me why companies such as Infosys are still working in Russia?
As I said to the right hon. Member for Barking ( )—I apologise if this becomes
a relatively repetitive point—I am not going to comment on
specific individual companies. As I say, there is very good
reason for that, and it is a long-standing Treasury policy that I
think any Government would follow.
We have set out our policy. In my opening answer to the right
hon. Member for Barking, I read out the statement from the Prime
Minister when he was the Chancellor. We have been very clear that
we want to see companies divesting from Russia. There are some
complexities in there—of course there are—but the direction of
travel is very clear.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
As a Member of the House of Commons Defence Committee, I visited
Ukraine about three weeks ago. We were welcomed literally with
open arms, so grateful are the Ukrainians for staunch British
support. They know a hard winter is coming, so may I make a
practical suggestion? They clearly need more weapons, but they
also desperately need generators in order to keep hospitals and
other critical facilities operating even if they lose main power
stations to missile strikes. Is there anything the Minister and
the Government can do to encourage UK companies of all types that
might be able to spare even one or two generators from their
stocks to get them to Ukraine, where they would be put to
incredibly good use?
My right hon. Friend speaks not only with his expertise on the
Defence Committee; he also served in His Majesty’s armed forces
and, of course, as a Defence Minister. He makes a very important
point, and I was delighted to hear about his visit. It is
inspirational to me and, I think, to the rest of the country when
we see leading British politicians going over to Ukraine and
showing that we are not afraid to go there. We will give the
Ukrainians every form of support that we can.
On the specifics of that support, my right hon. Friend makes a
good point about generators. I do not know the specific answer on
that, but I do know that the Foreign Secretary recently set out
measures to provide ambulances. Of course, the energy network is
being affected by attacks from Russia, so military support
remains so important, because that is how we enable the
Ukrainians to defend themselves so that they can thwart these
attacks. It will be tough, and there will be further attacks—this
is not going to finish tomorrow—but we are doing all we can, and
it helps when people such as my right hon. Friend are going out
there and showing the support of the British people.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry, but this is just terribly complacent. It is 3,218
days since the annexation of Crimea, and there are still British
companies that seem to be invested in Crimea, let alone British
companies—including Infosys, from what I understand; the Minister
did not refute that point earlier—that are still operating in
Moscow and Russia with a staffed office. He says he will not
comment on individual companies, but he does it all the time:
that is what sanctions are. That is the whole point of sanctions.
Some £778 million-worth of Russian oil has ended up coming into
10 British ports this year, having been transferred from one ship
to another on the route here. This is complacency. We have to
have a total effort from every Government Department to make sure
that we stop funding Putin’s illegal war.
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes his point with his usual
passion. The point I was making was not to refute or in any way
entertain points about individual companies; I am simply saying
that it is long-standing Treasury policy not to comment on
individual taxpayers or companies, or on their commercial
activities, and I suspect that would be true of any Government.
The hon. Gentleman mentions oil. I remind him that on Monday, in
alignment with coalition partners, we banned the import of
Russian oil and oil products into our markets. In conjunction
with partners, we have prohibited UK ships and services from the
maritime transportation of Russian oil unless the price paid is
at or below $60 a barrel.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
As the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine,
and as a constituency MP with a large Ukrainian community, I
gently prompt my hon. Friend the Minister to urge BP, if it is
unable to sell its stake in Rosneft, to take the profits and
commit them to the reconstruction of Ukraine and to aiding the
victims of Putin’s barbaric invasion.
My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the many Ukrainians who
have made their home here and, of course, the many UK nationals
who have opened their homes to them. It has been an extraordinary
contribution. The reason we do not comment on individual
companies’ commercial affairs is that, for a start, these are
matters of commercial sensitivity. I appreciate that there are
strong feelings on this point, but that is a consistent policy
irrespective of the issue at hand.
We have been very clear on the need to divest from Russia. We
have put in place a strong sanctions regime and banned further
investment in Russia. I think that sends very strong signals, but
we should not detract from the fact that this country is second
only to the United States in what it is doing to support the
people of Ukraine.
(Bristol North West) (Lab)
Last week I met Andrii Zhupanyn, a counterpart of mine from the
Energy Committee in the Ukrainian Parliament. His priority was to
source as many generators as possible to back up the Ukrainian
energy system, so may I ask the Minister a specific question?
Will he, at the very least, write to the chief executive officer
of BP to suggest that the moneys gained by the company be used to
pay for generators for Ukraine?
I should say that we have seen a positive attitude and support
for Ukraine from across the House. On the specific issue of
generators, I will go away and look at it. I will write to the
hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh
and Wickford (Mr Francois), because I do not have the answer to
hand.
I will not comment on what individual companies do. We in the
Treasury are responsible for UK tax and spending decisions, and
we have been extremely clear in setting out a windfall tax, which
will be funding energy support for our constituents this winter
and now, in fact, next year. That is very generous support, and
it is ultimately connected to the impact on our country from
Putin’s illegal invasion. All of this is about supporting the
people of Ukraine but also helping our people with the wider
shocks resulting from that invasion.
(Gillingham and Rainham)
(Con)
I very much welcome what the Minister said about the United
Kingdom stepping up to the forefront in support for the people of
Ukraine militarily, economically and diplomatically. As the
former Minister for sanctions, I agree with him that the United
Kingdom took decisive action, but may I ask him to clarify a
specific point? On the oil price cap coming at $60 per barrel,
that is not set in stone. It can be subject to review, taking
into account implementation, international adherence and
alignment, market developments and the potential impact on
coalition members. When does he expect that review to take place
so that we can take further decisive action, looking at the
levers that are really having an impact?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great expertise
on these matters. The key point is that the action in relation to
oil was agreed at G7 level with Australia. He talked about the
review, and it is very much about the constant dialogue we have
with international partners—that is where we will be reviewing
these things. Obviously, it is a step we have only just taken,
but I am happy to confirm that, as ever, the Treasury keeps all
these matters under review.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
On 17 November, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans () asked the Prime Minister
whether he agreed that
“private citizens in the UK should follow the example of several
British businesses and sell any shares they have in businesses
that still operate in Russia”.—[Official Report, 17 November
2022; Vol. 722, c. 837.]
For some reason, the Prime Minister was unable to give my hon.
Friend an answer on that occasion, so I wonder whether the
Minister might be able to answer that question today.
That is an important point and I understand why the hon. Lady
asks about it. In March the Prime Minister—as Chancellor—set out
our very strong position on urging companies to divest, making it
clear that there was no further case for investing in Russia. As
for what happens with individual shareholdings, I said that I
would not comment on specific companies and, to be fair, the hon.
Lady has not asked me to. However, as I hope we can all
acknowledge, it is not necessarily straightforward to divest. We
want companies to do that, but as I said to the right hon. Member
for Barking ( ), if firms divest their
shares, they have to be clear that any new owners will comply
with the sanctions regime and that they will not be sold on to an
entity or individual who is part of the regime. It is not
straightforward, but that does not mean that we do not want every
possible step to be taken to divest.
(West Bromwich West)
(Con)
The flipside of this narrative is that companies are doing the
right thing. I am concerned—I have read such reports
locally—about companies that have divested their interest in
Russia but are now struggling to get legal and audit services. As
a result of having that previous interest, companies are
reluctant to touch them. It is bizarre that companies and
organisations that have done the right thing cannot access those
statutory services. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he has
conversations across Government, particularly with the Department
for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and professional
service providers, to ensure that companies that do the right
thing on Russia are not penalised as a result?
My hon. Friend—I think he was a lawyer by training—gives a good
example from a sector where one can imagine that might be
happening. If firms are complying with the regime, other firms
should have no fear of working with them. If he wants to raise
specific cases with me, he is, as ever, welcome to write to me.
He makes a very good point and it is on the record.
(St Helens South and Whiston)
(Lab)
The French and Norwegian energy companies have successfully
managed to exit Russia while BP has not. That is embarrassing,
and the stain on Britain’s reputation needs removing. We appear
to be undermining our efforts to support Ukraine and its people.
The Treasury must ensure that the £580 million dividends that are
due are used to provide aid to Ukraine and its people. Will the
Minister ensure that if that does not happen, we will legislate
to ensure that it does?
I understand why people make the link between what they have
heard alleged about the shareholding of a particular company and
how that should be spent, in an ideal world. I cannot comment on
an individual company or its commercial interest and I am not
going to, but I understand why people make that point. It
therefore falls to us to talk about where we can act. The hon.
Member talks about humanitarian assistance. We have given more
than £6 billion of assistance—military aid and humanitarian
assistance—and that is second only to the United States in scale.
It is having a huge impact. We can safely say that the world, and
least of all Vladimir Putin, did not expect Ukraine to fight back
as it has done. One reason for that is the armaments and training
provided by the United Kingdom.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
European payments for Russian oil and gas have totalled more than
€100 billion since the illegal invasion of Ukraine began. I
welcome the efforts of this and other Governments to end the use
of that oil and gas, but the fact remains that millions of
barrels of oil a day are still being resold through third-party
countries back into our markets. Can the Minister give us some
detail about the efforts to stop that illegal resale, which is
just giving succour to Putin and his illegal war?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I said, not only have
we banned the import of Russian oil and oil products into our
markets but, in conjunction with other parties, we have
prohibited UK ships and services from the maritime transportation
of Russian oil unless the price paid is at or below $60—in other
words, the onward trade from within our respective jurisdictions.
Effectively, he also makes an important wider point about the
amount of money that has been spent in Europe on Russian energy
historically. There has to be a long-term answer to that.
Ultimately, we as a country, and with our European and G7
partners, have to wean ourselves off all forms of Russian energy.
The way we do that, as he knows—he represents a Cumbrian
constituency—is by investing in nuclear and UK energy production,
as well as by living up to our net zero commitments and driving
up even further our offshore wind capacity, which, I am proud to
say as an East Anglian MP, is the largest array of offshore
capacity in Europe.
(Eltham) (Lab)
Should not the position of the Government be that UK companies
must not profit from activities that sustain Putin’s war? And
having said that, should the Government not say to those
companies, “Where you do profit, we will use all the powers at
our disposal to sequester those funds and make them available for
the regeneration of Ukraine”?
We have set out precisely that with the commitments that the
Prime Minister made in March, when he was Chancellor, on the
desire to see businesses divesting from Russia. The hon. Member
for Eltham () is aware that there have been
many high-profile public cases of firms divesting, and other
colleagues have spoken of companies in their constituency. They
all use the phrase that the shadow Minister used, which is “doing
the right thing,” and I totally agree. Ultimately, that is why we
have our very strong sanctions regime.
(Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking
( ) on securing this important
urgent question, and I associate myself with the calls for
generators for Ukraine. For Putin to be defeated, and for him to
know that he will be defeated, it is essential that there remains
rock-solid support for Ukraine from the UK and the west. Not only
is that about defence materiel, military equipment and
humanitarian aid, but it means ensuring that no British company,
for whatever reason and in whatever way, benefits Putin’s regime.
The Minister mentioned a desire to achieve certain things, but a
desire is not enough, so will he go away and look again at what
more can be done in legislation—if necessary, through new
legislation—to ensure that that situation stops, and will he make
a statement to the House next week?
We always keep our sanctions regime under review. In particular,
we are looking with our international partners at what more can
be done on illicit finance and so on. [Interruption.] The hon.
Member talks about desires, but these very strong sanctions are
having an impact in practice on Russia’s economy. We are
sanctioning 1,200 individuals and 120 entities. We have already
heard reports of frozen assets worth £18.4 billion. What matters
above all—this is what he wants—is that we stand with the people
of Ukraine and show that we support them. No country, other than
the United States, has done more than we have, and we should be
proud of what we have done. I absolutely guarantee that the
Government will work night and day to keep supporting the people
of Ukraine in the wake of this terrible invasion.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
May I raise the issue of a UK company, the Lawn Tennis
Association, being fined $1 million by the ATP—Association of
Tennis Professionals—tour for banning Russian and Belarusian
players from all tournaments, including Wimbledon, with further
sanctions potentially to come? That is on top of a similar fine
and ruling from the Women’s Tennis Association. Will the Minister
join me in condemning the ATP and the WTA, which have both shown
an extraordinary lack of empathy towards the people of Ukraine?
Given that they were rightly urged by Ministers to ban Russian
players from the tournaments, might the Government pay the fines
for the LTA, should any appeals fail?
That is an interesting point. My colleagues have been clear on
the record about where we stand on that. I will not comment on
any specific appeals, but our sanctions regime, to which he
referred, is very strong and is working in practice. We are
always committed to looking at what more we can do as a
Government and working with our international partners.
(Kingston upon Hull East)
(Lab)
Fenner Dunlop has existed in Marfleet in my constituency since
the company Fenner was established in 1861. It manufactures
conveyer belts for the mining industry. It refused to trade in
Russia and has done the right thing. As a result, it is reviewing
the business in Marfleet and 71 jobs are potentially at risk.
Everybody can see that the company needs to be commended—it is an
excellent employer—but the reason the Minister is having
difficulty mentioning specific businesses is because one of them
is Infosys. Does he want to put his finger on why he is
struggling to talk about that business?
As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question.
All I will say about the company in his constituency—in Marfleet,
I think—is that companies divesting their interests in Russia
will undoubtedly have an economic impact at home. They will have
gone into that market for a commercial reason and there will be a
commercial impact if they divest. We have to do everything
possible to show our resolve to the people of Ukraine. That
includes strong economic sanctions, even if they have an impact
here, but by far the biggest economic impact is on our economy
from the enormous surge in energy prices and the resulting
inflation. Global inflation will drive the economy around the
world to experience a hiatus in growth. We want to see growth
return, and one of the reasons that we have windfall taxes is to
raise funding to support our constituents and businesses through
this winter.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary cannot have failed to notice the
exhibition in Portcullis House showing the gross human rights
abuses committed by Russian forces in Ukraine. As well as
justice, the victims of these war crimes deserve compensation,
but so far that has not come from seizing and distributing the
assets of Putin’s allies or the Russian state. Why can it not
come from BP and others’ Russian earnings?
I always enjoyed working with the hon. Gentleman in my previous
position at the Ministry of Justice. He makes an extremely
powerful point. The abuses that we have seen have been horrific,
and he is right to draw attention to them. A great range of
activities are taking places in that regard—for example, the
significant support that we have given to the International
Criminal Court at The Hague so that it can look into those
abuses. Of course, it will be very difficult until we get a
resolution to the conflict, which is why the most important thing
we can do in all these cases is to continue supporting the people
of Ukraine, their armed forces and the humanitarian effort.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
I fully support the right hon. Member for Barking ( ) in her efforts. Would not
one way to dissuade UK companies from investing in Russian oil
assets and to encourage disinvestment be to prohibit any such
companies from benefiting from the North sea windfall tax
investment allowance?
The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, knitting
together two points. To be fair to him, I have to say that he has
consistently attended all the recent Treasury debates at which I
have been present. I am grateful to him for that.
We should not confuse divesting and investing. We are clear that
there is an outright ban on investing in Russia: the Prime
Minister said back in March, when he was Chancellor, that there
was “no case” for such investment. Divestment is happening. It is
a process that for some companies will take time, but I think we
are all clear that we want to see it happening.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the windfall
tax. While it will raise more than £40 billion to support our
economy, help us fund public services and, above all, support
people with energy bills this winter, it does have a generous
allowance. Let me be clear about the reason why, which goes back
to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness
(): while we want to raise funds
from the levy, we also want to incentivise investment in energy
security. Ultimately, the long-term answer to the question of how
to defend ourselves against being held to ransom over energy
prices is by ensuring our energy security for the future.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Exchequer Secretary for his answer to this urgent
question. It is clear to me and to the House that he is doing his
best to address the issue in a firm way.
We have seen not only the continued involvement of UK companies
in Russia, but the ongoing involvement of Russian companies and
kleptocrats in infiltrating UK companies potentially to commit
fraud. What steps will the Exchequer Secretary take to ensure
that UK companies are discouraged from any involvement with the
Russian economy and ensure that a harder stance is taken to
protect our economy from the promotion of economic crime and
infiltration by Russia itself?
As ever, Mr Speaker, you have saved the best till last. I am
grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. There is a
legal side to protecting our economy—the sanctions regime
protects it from the impact of sanctioned individuals and
companies—but I think the most important way to protect our
economy is by providing support this winter to our businesses and
constituents, including constituents in Northern Ireland. We will
be bringing forward many energy schemes with specific application
in Northern Ireland; I know that he takes a keen interest in
them. We are working with BEIS to ensure that we deliver those
programmes in Northern Ireland, as well as in the rest of the
United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point.
Ultimately, we are supporting not just the people of Ukraine, but
our businesses and our constituents.
