Ukraine: Frozen Russian Assets

Question

15:40:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to release frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine.

My Lords, alongside our G7 allies, we have been clear on the principle that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine. We are considering all lawful routes to ensure Russia pays. We are also providing Ukraine with an additional £2.26 billion, earmarked for military spending, as part of the G7’s $50 billion extraordinary revenue acceleration loans, which will be repaid using the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets in the EU.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that excellent Answer. I think she knows that I have written to the Chancellor, as I wrote to previous Chancellors, asking that the £2.5 billion which Abramovich got for the sale of Chelsea Football Club be unfrozen and sent to Ukraine, where it is urgently needed. If the Government were able to take quick action on this, it would be welcome on all sides of the House.

I thank the noble Lord for sending me a copy of the letter he has written; it is very helpful, and it is now with officials. I commend him for the tenacity with which he approaches this and every other issue, but this issue in particular. He is right to do so, and he must keep pressing the Government on this. We are moving as fast as we can, but it is good to have the encouragement and support of Members of this House.

My Lords, is there not considerable irony in the fact that Ukrainian capital resources will be used to refund some of America’s costs in the war, but the Russian aggressor’s capital assets are not being used to refund Ukraine? Will the Prime Minister be raising this issue during his visit in Washington, at the very least regarding its use as leverage in any negotiations on an end to the fighting?

The principle we apply here is that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine, but we want to make sure that we do that in a way that is legal, and in co-ordination with our partners and allies. The conversations that need to be had to bring that about will be taking place.

My Lords, the Government have been saying for many months since they came into power that they have been considering the use of frozen Russian state funds for reparations for Ukraine. Do the Government accept that the time for a decision has come, before it is too late?

We all want to see Russia pay to rebuild Ukraine; it is right that that happens. The way that is done needs to be legally sound, and it needs to be done in co-ordination with our allies. That is the approach we are taking. I appreciate the encouragement to speed, and I acknowledge that we have been in this position for some months now. I accept what the noble Lord says, and I take his question as a spur to action for the Government. I can assure him that we are keenly seized of the argument he makes.

My Lords, these Benches have argued consistently that the assets should be seized and aid should not be cut. But yesterday, the Government announced drastic reductions to programmes that would support victims of sexual assault and rape in conflict. Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong if the Kremlin gets its money back from the United Kingdom, but our support for victims of sexual crimes in conflict does not get their lives back? At this last minute, before the programmes are cut, will the Government reconsider and ensure that not one penny supporting the victims of sexual assault in this conflict will be cut through overseas development assistance reductions?

The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday when he made the Statement in the other place that programmes in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were to be prioritised. The decision that was taken yesterday was difficult but important, and it is one that I completely support. It was the right thing to do: we must provide the additional resources to our defence to provide security. This is essential. It is not a situation that anybody is happy about, but I am afraid that politics, governing and leading are about tough choices. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to make those tough choices, and I am proud of the decision that he made yesterday.

My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity across the House that, as we mark the sombre third anniversary of this illegal and barbaric war, we stand wholly and entirely with the brave people of Ukraine, and we support the Government in their actions on this. I understand the Minister’s point about the difficult legal complexities of seizing Russian assets outright; I would like to see that done but I understand that it is difficult. Have the Government considered using these assets as collateral for long-term loans to help to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, while avoiding the unintended financial consequences that I know the Government are concerned about?

In a sense, that is already what is happening because the interest on the assets is being used to repay the loan that has been made. We are contributing around £2.6 billion to that, alongside partners in the EU, United States, Canada and Japan. That is the right thing to do, and I know his party supports it. I take the opportunity again, as we did last night, to thank the Opposition for their unwavering support for the Government in our approach to Ukraine, just as we supported his Government since the beginning of this conflict.

My Lords, many of the frozen assets are properties, and many of those properties are empty. I look across the Thames and see a great building where Abramovich had four floors. Will the Government explore the possibility of using those empty buildings, in particular for Ukrainians and immigration?

That is an interesting idea; it is the first time I have heard that suggestion. I will take it back and ask that it be explored by officials. It is important, though, that whatever we do is legally sound and is done collaboratively with our partners and allies. Whatever we do, we have to be acting within the law, because part of our argument against what Russia has done is that it was a breach of international law. We take our obligations very seriously, and we want to make sure that whatever we do, alongside our partners and allies, is legally sound.

My Lords, as of January, UNESCO has verified damage to 476 cultural sites: churches, museums, libraries—noble Lords know what they are. This is not mere collateral damage; it is a deliberate attempt to destroy identity, culture and heritage. The 100-year partnership agreement commits us to working together to avoid looting, to restore this heritage and to counteract this cultural erasure. What consideration has been given to the use of these frozen assets towards that important shared endeavour?

That is such an important point. Often, when we talk about reconstruction, we are talking about airfields, roads and railway tracks. The cultural assets of a country that has been under such threat as Ukraine has experienced are so important in rebuilding that sense of identity—the Ukrainian sense of self and confidence—and in the message that that sends. We will do everything we can to support Ukraine in that, as we have said, in our 100-year partnership. On whether those assets can be used, the same argument applies that applies to any other form of reconstruction, and it must be done legally and correctly, in accordance with law.

My Lords, the Minister will know that there are millions of pounds of frozen Libyan assets in London, and that there has been a long campaign by victims of Libyan Semtex supplied to the IRA for compensation through that. Will she look again at this? Other countries have managed to get the compensation. Will she also please put into the public domain the Shawcross report, which we are all waiting to see and which looked into this whole issue?

The point about doing this legally applies equally in every situation. I will look into the question the noble Baroness raises about the Shawcross report, but I want to be completely clear that we are examining all legal routes available to us in order to get the money that should rightfully be spent on reconstructing Ukraine.

My Lords—

My Lords—

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, please.

It is fine to talk about frozen assets and say that Russia should pay, but I want to switch gears a little bit. It looks like the Americans are focused on getting Ukraine partly to pay through this rare earth deal. I read that Zelensky was going to fly over on Friday to sign the deal. Do the Government think we should be involved in some way in a deal like this? President Macron pointed out to Trump that the European Union had put up more money than the US, and today the FT has an article with a very simple graph showing that the EU is a bigger contributor than the US—and actually, the UK looks pretty big too. When it comes to the question of sending troops, not having anything on the rare earth deal and then chasing the Russians, it feels like something is missing. What is the Government’s position on that?

I hear what the noble Lord is saying, but, as he has given quite a full summary of public statements over the last few days, he will be aware that it is probably not helpful for me to speculate from this Dispatch Box on conversations and the agreements that may or may not be reached in the coming days, tempted as I am. The thing that concerns us all is to find a way to end this conflict and restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and that whatever deals are done are in line with what Ukraine and its leadership wants. That is the firm ground on which this Government stand.