Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

Considered in Committee

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1



Provision of Loans or other Financial Assistance to Ukraine

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Reports on loans or other financial assistance to Ukraine—

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare reports on the operation of assistance provided in accordance with section 1(a),

(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.

(2) Each report must provide details of the amount of—

(a) monies provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine under section 1;

(b) the United Kingdom’s share of the principal loan amount and interest accrued under the scheme; and

(c) receipts of extraordinary profits from the Russian immobilised sovereign assets under the scheme.

(3) Each report must also provide a summary of discussions between His Majesty’s Government and other G7 governments about discussions on any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace the arrangements referred to in section 1(a), including any discussions concerning—

(a) the range of Russian assets to which the arrangements might apply, and

(b) the use of those assets.

(4) The first report must be laid within the period of 6 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Each subsequent report must be laid within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.

(6) The duty under subsection (1) ceases to have effect 12 months after the arrangements referred to in section 1(a) or any subsequent arrangements of the kind referred to in section 1(b) cease to operate.”

This new clause establishes an annual reporting requirement relating to the UK share of loans to Ukraine and receipts from the extraordinary profits from the freezing of Russian state assets and to any G7 discussions to extend the arrangements.

16:54

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Madam Chair.

We had a very constructive debate on Second Reading of the Bill. In particular, I wish to express my appreciation for the universal support that the House has shown for the provision of this vital funding. It is clearly a subject close to the hearts of many of us across the House. I look forward to further discussion on this important Bill today.

As the Committee is aware, the extraordinary revenue acceleration is an ambitious scheme designed to provide Ukraine with a total of $50 billion in additional support, to be repaid by the extraordinary profits generated on Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union. The United Kingdom’s contribution of £2.26 billion is joined by pledges from the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan.

The Bill contains only two clauses. They are both straightforward. Clause 1 grants the Government the legal spending authority to fulfil the commitment we have made to provide Ukraine with the UK’s contribution to the extraordinary revenue acceleration. The clause empowers the Treasury or the Secretary of State to provide the Government of Ukraine with funds approved by Parliament as a result of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine scheme, or

“any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.”

Payments made under clause 1 will be those that are necessary to perform the UK’s commitment to the ERA scheme.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In of course welcoming the Government’s measures, I note that the Minister referred to the extraordinary interest from the frozen Russian assets. Have the Government permanently set their mind against any possible actual seizure of the assets themselves, perhaps in agreement with other G7 members or EU members?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. As we debated on Second Reading, this is a commitment across G7 partners and with the European Union to take action on the proceeds of the assets that are held. For other complicated legal reasons, there is no intention to seize those assets at this time.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of the cross-party support for this measure, but to back up my colleague, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the $3 billion from the UK is generous and will make a difference, but the $300 billion in frozen assets would be utterly game changing. I accept the Minister’s argument at the moment about some of the more complicated legal issues. I know that he accepts the very serious situation that the Ukrainians are facing on the front, defending all of us. May I encourage him merely to continue to look at this issue and see whether he can work with G7 colleagues to find a way of unpicking the difficulties that he has highlighted?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement, which I take in good faith. He will know that these matters are multilateral and subject to negotiation with other allies and G7 colleagues, but he will also know, as I am sure the whole House does, that we go into 2025 with a strength of resolve across those G7 countries to do all that we can to help Ukraine continue to mount its defence against the illegal invasion from Russia.

Any other payments beyond the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine or any other country that are unrelated to the ERA scheme are not covered by the provisions of the Bill; this money is in addition to other grants and payments that have been referred to in the House previously.

The clause contains provision for the UK to provide funding towards subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to, modify or replace the ERA. This provision allows for flexibility in the unlikely event that the scheme itself should significantly alter. It is not intended to be used without this change in circumstances.

Clause 2 simply sets out the short title of the Bill.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for opening the debate. The Conservative Government were a vociferous advocate for mobilising Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We drove G7 and European partners to try to coalesce around the most ambitious solution possible to achieve that outcome. The announcement on 22 October marked progress on that journey and is a step in the right direction. We understand that the Government’s position is that the United Kingdom’s contribution should be earmarked for supporting Ukraine’s military expenditure, including on air defence, artillery and other equipment. The Opposition would support that. We need to persevere with our efforts to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to counter Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion.

Matters since Second Reading have been fast moving, so let me pose some questions to the Minister. Since Second Reading, the United States has given Ukraine $20 billion, funded by the profits of frozen Russian assets. That economic support forms a significant part of the overall $50 billion package agreed by G7 member nations and announced in June. The US Treasury said that it had transferred the $20 billion to a World Bank fund, where it will be available for Ukraine to draw. Money handled by the World Bank cannot be used for military purposes.

The US Administration had initially hoped to dedicate half the money to military aid, but that would have required approval from Congress, which the President did not seek. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on what discussions the UK Government have had with the US Administration, Canada and the European Union about the use of funds provided for military purposes. Are any strings attached to the funds that will be provided by the UK? As the US has already provided its share of moneys anticipated in the G7 package, can the Minister advise the House on the timing of the UK’s contribution? I think it was made clear on Second Reading, but it would be helpful to have an update, given the move by the US since then.

As the Minister and the Government have advised, the loans that the UK will pay will form part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan agreement by the G7. The loans that the UK will provide will be repaid by the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, established by the European Union under regulation 2024/2773 on 24 October. The ability of the UK to have its loans repaid depends in large part on a decision by the European Union to maintain its freeze on Russian assets. The EU renews Russian sanctions every six months, and efforts to extend that to a three-year review cycle were rebuffed by Hungary earlier this year. Will the Minister confirm that there is a risk, in the event that the EU does not extend its sanctions on Russia, that the costs of the loan will be borne by UK taxpayers, and what mitigations he might consider if that situation arises?

Finally, the EU controls more than two thirds of Russia’s $300 billion of sovereign assets that have been frozen by western allies following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Of those EU-held frozen assets, 90% are held by the Belgian-based financial services company Euroclear. The profits from the EU-held assets, estimated to be between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion per year, have been used to arm Ukraine and finance its post-war reconstruction. We understand that the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said in an interview with The Guardian on 12 December that the European Union should use the billions in frozen state assets to aid Ukraine. She emphasised that Ukraine had a legitimate claim for compensation, and described the Russian assets held in the EU as

“a tool to pressure Russia.”

The Minister responded to earlier interventions, but can he confirm the UK Government’s position? Has he discussed the matter with the EU and Belgium, and does he have any plans for the UK to go further on the use of those assets?

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to speak to new clause 1, which I have signed, but I first want to reiterate my support for the Government and the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is absolutely right and proper that Russia pays for the damage it has done to Ukraine and its people. The Bill is an important first step in providing that financial assistance from Russian assets to Ukraine. Echoing the comments from around the Chamber, we need to move with allies towards a position of seizing Russian assets, but it is a positive first step that we are using the proceeds of the interest on those assets to support Ukraine.

On Second Reading, I mentioned that

“Canada has passed the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, which collects data on Russian assets, freezes them and publishes the value, which currently stands at 135 billion Canadian dollars”.—[Official Report, 20 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 312.]

I asked if the Government could disclose Russian assets held in the UK in the same way. New clause 1 goes a long way to providing that. It would ask the Government to lay a copy of a report before Parliament showing under the Act, as it will hopefully become,

“monies provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine”

to the following level of disclosure:

“the United Kingdom’s share of the principal loan amount and interest accrued under the scheme”

and

“receipts of extraordinary profits from the Russian immobilised sovereign assets under the scheme.”

It would to an extent mirror what our close ally Canada has done. Although I do not expect to divide on new clause 1, I would appreciate it if the Minister would comment on how he will report progress to the House, disclose the level of Russian state assets that are here, and state how much of the interest accrued from those assets has been mobilised to support Ukraine in its war efforts.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for outlining some of the things in the new clause we have tabled. I want to outline in some detail what is in new clause 1 and what we hope to achieve with it, and hopefully the Minister will be able to respond and outline some of his thoughts around reporting in particular.

New clause 1 would impose a reporting requirement on the Secretary of State to keep Parliament informed about three critical aspects of our support to Ukraine under the scheme. The reports would detail the monetary support provided to Ukraine, including the amounts disbursed and how that fits into the broader multilateral agreement. That ensures transparency and allows Members and the public to understand the precise scale of our financial commitment. The reports would also provide clarity regarding our share of the principal loan amount and any interest accrued. Such information is vital for proper scrutiny and public trust, ensuring that funds allocated are achieving their intended purpose.

Finally, and most importantly, the reports would shed light on any extraordinary profits arising from immobilised Russian sovereign assets under the scheme. While we cannot legislate here to seize those assets directly, the provision ensures that the question does not simply fade away. By requiring regular reports, we maintain focus on the issue and keep pressure on the Government to engage with our G7 partners. If, at some future point, there is an opportunity to use Russian state assets more directly for Ukraine’s recovery, Parliament will be fully informed and ready to act.

The reports must highlight any discussions the UK Government have had with other G7 countries about future steps, including expanding the range of assets considered or using them in new ways. That ensures ongoing diplomatic transparency and accountability. Parliament will know if the Government are pushing for more ambitious measures internationally or if they are hesitating while others lead. In practice, the first report would appear within six months of the Bill’s passage, with subsequent reports every six months until one year after the relevant international arrangements cease to operate.

The structured timeline guarantees sustained oversight, rather than just a one-off glance. Given the complexity and duration of the challenges Ukraine faces, such ongoing engagement is critical. It sets a framework for continued scrutiny, encourages more ambitious future action and underscores that, despite the Bill’s limited scope, our resolve to hold Russia accountable remains unwavering. Through those measures, we would ensure that Parliament remains fully informed and ready to stand by our Ukrainian allies when the opportunity to take bolder steps arises.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. The battle for Ukraine is one of the defining issues of our age. In February 2022, Putin launched an illegal and reckless invasion of a sovereign European democracy. Seeing that happen in the third decade of the 21st century was a sobering moment; we had seen nothing like it on European soil since world war two. It put beyond any doubt the revanchist and irredentist ambitions of the Russian regime, and the need for all freedom-loving democratic peoples to resist those ambitions at all costs.

The Ukrainian people are fighting not just for Ukraine, but for all of us—for the values we hold dear: democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and freedom from global gangsters like Putin. By helping Ukraine to stand strong against Russian aggression, we are sending a clear message to dictators and autocrats around the world that we will not tolerate violations of national sovereignty or the use of force to change borders.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Last week I met Ukrainian refugees in my constituency who conveyed not just their gratitude for our country’s steadfast support for their war action against Russia, but their sense of desperation because many of their visas run out early next year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should act quickly to give those people the certainty that they will continue to be welcome in the UK for the foreseeable future?

[Gregor Poynton]

I agree with my hon. Friend about visas. We need to do everything we can to support the Ukrainian people, whether here in the UK or abroad.

Our support for Ukraine is an investment not just in its future but in the security and stability of Europe and the world. Russia’s war against Ukraine has not only devastated the lives of millions, but challenged the very foundations of the international rules-based order. The brutality of Russia’s actions, the targeting of civilians and the displacement of more than 8 million Ukrainians are stark reminders of the atrocities that war brings to ordinary people. This is a tragedy for the Russian people, too. Many tens of thousands of Russian troops have been needlessly killed in Ukraine—victims of the vainglorious and deranged ambitions of their leader. Our quarrel is not with ordinary Russians; it is with the regime that oppresses and lies to them.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has shown resilience, courage and an unwavering determination to protect its land, its people and its freedom. President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have stood firm in the face of adversity. As I have said before, they are fighting not just for Ukraine, but for all of us. Let us make no mistake: if we do not send the weapons and financial support that the Ukrainians need to fight this war, we will one day have to send our sons and daughters to confront Putin and his regime.

I am proud to say that our unwavering support for Ukraine unites Members on both sides of the House, and it has united our country, too. I am very proud to walk around my Livingston constituency and see Ukrainian flags in windows and gardens as a sign of our solidarity. From providing military aid to offering humanitarian assistance, and from imposing sanctions on Russia to offering refuge to those fleeing war, we have acted with purpose and resolve, and many British people, including individuals in this House, have opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees.

The UK has provided £450 million in humanitarian assistance since the start of this full-scale invasion, including £20 million to double this year’s support for Ukraine’s energy system, and £40 million for stabilisation and early recovery, which the Foreign Secretary announced in Kyiv in September. The Labour Government have stepped up for Ukraine. The UK will deliver £3 billion of military aid to Ukraine every year for as long as it is needed—their fight is our fight. The UK’s military, financial, diplomatic and political support for Ukraine is ironclad. The Bill provides the Government with the spending authority to enable the UK to provide the Ukrainians with financial assistance, as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme, which is an important part of this effort. It represents an advance of approximately $50 billion, repaid from the extraordinary profits made on immobilised Russian sovereign assets held in the UK.

We must continue to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression, and pursue Putin for his war crimes. Our response must be one of strength, resilience and unity for as long as it takes.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

At a time of existential threat to Ukraine, I have been heartened by the tone from across the House towards the Ukrainian people. It is critical at this moment in history that this House and all European Governments step up and do not give up. While I welcome the details of this short Bill, we should be focusing on the untapped countermeasure and counter-offensive that is at our disposal. Like a number of colleagues, I gently say to the Minister that we should think about the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine in its non-violent economic and political reconstruction. The UN General Assembly has already endorsed an international mechanism for compensating Ukraine, but we cannot wait for the war to be over before we enact that countermeasure. Back in 2022, Ukraine lost 29% of its GDP, so if it only receives its compensation at the end of the war, that will be far too late.

17:15

By using the $300 billion in Russian central bank assets held by free and open countries now, we can give Ukraine a lifeline as it continues its honourable defence of its country. I believe that this action would be not just morally justified, but underpinned by sound legal grounds. The true centre of gravity in this war is Ukraine’s economic endurance against Russia’s strategy of attrition and ruin, but despite the efforts across Europe, there is currently a leadership vacuum when it comes to pushing through the use of frozen Russian assets to assist the decisive action that is needed for Ukraine’s victory. We are seeing Putin’s increasing isolation, with civil unrest in Russia, and it is imperative that we take advantage of that.

To date, European countries and the United States have provided roughly $3 billion per month to the Ukrainian people in order to keep their Government functioning. I think all Members of this House would endorse that approach, but in the long term, it is neither right nor practical to expect western taxpayers to foot the bill for reconstructing Ukraine when there are legal means for Russia to pay. There can be no credible scenario whereby Russia gets its money back after waging an unprompted war against Ukraine while the victims go uncompensated. That would effectively give the rights of an aggressor precedence over those of its victims.

We must show that the UN rulings and international law have teeth, and that Russia will face consequences for waging its illegal war. We cannot live in the blind hope that Russia will fulfil its legal obligations. As such, I gently say to the Minister that taking action now and using those frozen Russian assets as a form of down payment on the reparations that Russia will one day have to pay is a route that the Government should pursue at the earliest opportunity.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of this Bill, and to pay tribute to the Government for their support for Ukraine and to the consensus across the House that Ukraine must be supported against the barbaric and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) said. The invasion of one European state by another in February 2022 was something I never thought I would see in my lifetime—we all thought that had been consigned to the history books, where it belongs. I am very pleased that we are backing the Ukrainian people in their struggle, and I hope that in time, the Russian people can vote in free, fair and democratic elections to choose their own path.

I also pay tribute to the community of Northumberland, who have come together to welcome families from Ukraine in Hexham, in Riding Mill, and in other towns and villages across my constituency. When I am out and about in my constituency, I am always struck by the Ukrainian flags that I see, sometimes in the most incongruous places—on country lanes, on the sides of churches and in private homes. It really gives me a renewed optimism to see those flags flying beneath the beautiful Northumbrian sky. One question that has been put to me by constituents, and on which I would like to gently probe the Minister, is the future of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Many families who have taken in Ukrainian refugees have asked me to pursue clarity on that scheme, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give some assurance about it, or some timetable for it.

Ultimately, this short Bill is needed to promote and protect one of our sovereign democratic allies, to protect our institutions, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said—to avoid the need for further conflict in the years to come. Putin’s war machine could quite easily continue to impinge on our lives and on people’s lives across the rest of Europe.

[Stephen Gethins]

I would endorse the comments that have been made by colleagues. I think we sometimes need a little bit of perspective. In my constituency and in Tayside and Fife—the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) will be well aware of this—we have defensive barriers that were built during the second world war. The barriers in Tayside and Fife were built by Polish and, as they now are, Ukrainian soldiers who were standing up to tyranny. They built those defences to defend Scotland, and to defend the rest of the United Kingdom as well. They knew that there is no point in standing up to tyranny just in one corner of Europe; we have to do it throughout Europe. Those defences stand as a testament to the time when the Poles and the Ukrainians stood by us. Now is the time for us to once again stand by them.

I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) about the way that Ukrainians have come to our homes and have enriched our society and our communities. I know they are keen to go home, but we can just give them that little bit of certainty. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for his work and that of others on frozen assets. That speaks to the enormous challenge that Ukraine is facing, and that the rest of us are therefore facing at exactly the same time.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister in seeking to untangle those assets. I welcome his remarks—I really do—but some of the administrative burdens are as nothing compared with the burdens that have been carried by Ukrainian troops on the frontline in Kursk, Donbas and elsewhere, and compared with the challenge we will see from conflict and a refugee crisis should that front collapse at any point. I know he gets that, and there is agreement across the Chamber on it, but I think it is worth underlining.

I also welcome the remarks made by the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), about engaging with our European partners on this, because that is pivotal. I fully endorse his remark about where a number of these funds are being kept, and about how if one moves, we all need to move. There is unanimity in this Committee, and I have been struck by the outstanding work done by a number of colleagues, That unanimity and resolve reflect the magnitude of the challenge that each and every one of us faces if we do not stand up to tyranny and secure the future of Europe right now.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, which allows us, alongside our G7 partners, to provide £38.6 billion of loans to Ukraine to be repaid using profits from sanctioned Russian assets, and I wholly support this Government’s commitment to stand unequivocally with Ukraine. I believe that Putin and his cronies should be the ones who pay for the damage they have caused across Ukraine. To that end, while this is a very welcome first step, does the Minister agree that we should be doing all we can within the rule of law to seize frozen Russian assets, both private and state, and use them to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine?

Moreover, may I gently suggest to the Minister that we must secure a swift resolution on the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club? In March 2022, Roman Abramovich pledged to sell Chelsea football club and donate the £2.5 billion—nearly seven times the value of the humanitarian assistance that the UK has pledged since the invasion in 2022—to support victims of the war in Ukraine. However, as I think all Members know, two years on from the sale, this has hit a stalemate, and regrettably no money has been delivered to the victims of the conflict.

With that in mind, the Government should commit to a number of recommendations that the campaign group Redress has worked on, and all of which I support. The first recommendation is taking steps to ensure that the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club are swiftly transferred to a charitable foundation in the UK, or adopting other existing mechanisms set up to deliver reparations to victims of the conflict. The second is ensuring that a substantial percentage of the funds is used for reparations for victims of the conflict, particularly victims of gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian, such as survivors of conflict-related sexual violence. The third recommendation is to engage Ukrainian civil society, victims and survivors in guiding the repurposing of those funds. The fourth and final recommendation is to establish a working group between the Government, civil society and survivors to ensure that funds are distributed in an effective and timely manner.

I very much welcome the substantial progress that the Government have made in the past few months in standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people, including the recent announcement of a new anti-corruption champion, the further designation of vessels in the Russian shadow fleet and increasing collaboration across Government to tackle Putin’s war economy, bearing down on both the Kremlin and the wider network of cronies who enable his unlawful and persistent invasion of Ukraine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said, the Bill is an important step, and I welcome further initiatives to support the Ukrainian people as they continue their struggle to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Putin’s unlawful invasion.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). He has demonstrated why he will be such a valuable addition to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I congratulate him on his election to it. I associate myself with his comments and those of other Members. We often find ourselves disagreeing over the smallest of details, so I am proud that we can all come together on an issue of such magnitude in unity with the people of Ukraine. Long may that cross-party support continue.

Earlier this year, as some Members may know, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. I went over with an Estonian charity, driving a couple of military pick-up trucks over from the UK as part of a much larger convoy that went into Kyiv. Those vehicles were handed over to the Ukrainian soldiers, and it brought home that there was not only support and solidarity in this country for Ukraine, but solidarity across the whole of Europe. That is why we are coming together on the measures in this Bill. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to go again, and I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). We were both on a call earlier, and I know that he and other Members have also made trips to Ukraine and been part of aid convoys to help people, and long may that continue.

This Bill is another tool in the arsenal when it comes to fighting one of the world’s greatest tyrants. Ukraine’s fight against Russian tyranny is not just for Ukraine’s sovereignty, but for the freedom and security of the whole of Europe. One striking thing in making that journey is realising just how flat Europe is. I know that seems a silly point, but it brings home that there is nothing stopping Putin at the borders of Ukraine if we do not stand up against him now. The fact that another of the world’s tyrants, Assad, is now cowering in Moscow demonstrates the importance of curtailing Russia’s aggression.

I am proud that this Government and the Government before have stood foursquare behind Ukraine. As other Members have said, the Bill will land a deafening blow on Putin’s war machine and unlock a £2.26 billion contribution from the UK to the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, which crucially will not be paid by Ukraine or by British taxpayers. It comes from dodgy cash from profits owned by sanctioned Russian assets held in the EU.

I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), who listed the various ways in which the previous Government and the current Government have supported Ukraine. Long may that continue. It is so important that we continue to stand four-square behind Ukraine for as long as it takes. I urge the Committee to do all in our power to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as urgently as is feasible, especially as we approach winter, when the battle conditions will become even tougher. Finally, I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the Ukrainian forces fighting on the frontline, the British troops involved in training and equipping them and all those showing resilience in the face of Putin’s illegal war.

[Darren Jones]

In closing, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and the hon. Members for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for being here for this important debate.

17:30

All of us across the House want the same thing: for Ukraine to win the war and for the UK to provide the best possible support to make that happen as quickly as possible. I assure the House that this will remain a priority for the Government, and the Bill is an important step towards that goal.

I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). I will explain why the Government will not support it. The new clause would impose reporting requirements on the Secretary of State in relation to the ERA. As I see it, those would broadly fit into two categories. The first would require financial reporting to Parliament on the progress of the £2.26 billion ERA loan itself. That would include providing information on the disbursements made by the UK and our share comparatively to the G7, and providing details of the repayments that we will receive from the EU’s Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism.

The second category would involve producing a written summary for Parliament of discussions between the UK and our G7 allies regarding any subsequent schemes. The reference to subsequent arrangements tracks to the language in paragraph (b) of clause 1, which provides the Government with the flexibility to provide funds to Ukraine via alternative arrangements that are supplemental to, modify or replace the ERA: for example, where necessary, to respond to unforeseen future events or material changes in circumstances beyond our control. I will approach each of those categories in turn.

The additional financial reporting requirements in subsection (2) of the new clause are unnecessary because the information required to be reported under that subsection will be reported in any case through the Treasury’s existing channels. The first tranche of the loan will be disbursed from the Treasury in the financial year to 31 March 2025. The spend will therefore be reflected accordingly in the Department’s detailed annual report and accounts for this financial year alongside disclosure of any narrative associated with the spend.

The annual report and accounts will be laid in Parliament before they are made public; that usually happens in mid-July. Any future spending and repayments in future years will be reflected in the annual report and accounts in the normal way. The Treasury plans to make the ERA support package separately identifiable in the notes to the accounts, which will allow the financial impact of the scheme to be readily understandable. That will be included alongside full disclosure of the risks—for example, credit risks and market risk—associated with the ERA spending.

I turn to subsection (3), which would require the publication of a summary of discussions between the Government and other G7 lenders on subsequent arrangements. As the House might expect me to say, the Government should not tie their hands by agreeing to provide a public report on the nature of private discussions between G7 lenders. That would threaten to undermine the UK’s credibility with our established partners and allies; I hope that is an obvious point. Privacy allows our international partners to speak candidly to us and vice versa, which is key to our diplomatic efforts. The House will understand that that is especially important for matters of global security, such as the debate before us. When discussions are made and milestones reached, the G7 issues statements and communiqués in the normal way. We do not want to undermine that process with mandatory additional reporting to Parliament.

The Government are committed to transparency and accountability, however, and Parliament will be updated in the usual way when major decisions are taken. That includes through oral and written ministerial statements, as the Chancellor did when the UK’s contribution to the ERA was announced in October, but that does not extend so far as to provide a running commentary, which would ultimately serve to undermine our ability to resolve sensitive matters, including those relating to Russian assets, with our closest allies. I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause and hope that my answers were satisfactory in explaining the Government’s position.

Before I close, I turn to other points made by right hon. and hon. Members in the debate. The shadow Chief Secretary asked me a number of questions. First, of course, G7 allies will co-ordinate our approach to the scheme in the round, including repayments and mechanisms for the future. However, as he noted, different countries are using contributions in different ways. As we have reported to the House, our intention is to use the money for military aid to Ukraine. The terms of the loan and how the loan will be executed is currently being discussed between our Government and the Ukrainian Government and will be managed in the normal way as part of our portfolio of loans.

On timing, as I said, we intend to get the money to Ukraine as quickly as possible next year, which is why we will progress to Royal Assent for this enabling Bill as quickly as possible. The terms of the ERA say that all money should be paid at the latest by the end of 2027, although we intend to be quicker than that. A number of Members raised the correct point that, under international law, Russia is liable for the damage it has caused in Ukraine and must pay for that damage.

A number of hon. Members asked about asset seizures. I have set out the Government’s position on that, but I can reassure the House that although this Bill is not about seizure of assets, the Government and our allies continue to keep all available opportunities under review so that we can pursue lawful avenues to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused. My hon. Friends the Members for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy and for Hexham raised the Homes for Ukraine scheme and visas. I assure them that I will pass those points to my colleagues in the Home Office to consider and respond to in due course.

Members rightly pointed out the support that this country has given to the people of Ukraine, the Ukrainian armed forces and our allies in supporting them. It was timely going into the Christmas period, when we have many images of England on our Christmas cards and our TVs, to note the number of Ukrainian flags on houses, churches and community buildings across the United Kingdom. That is a gesture of solidarity between the British people and the Ukrainian people, and shows that we are keeping them in our hearts this Christmas time, and in our minds as we think about our resolve going into 2025 to do all that we can to help them through these atrocious situations on the border with Russia.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Among some of the excellent contributions we heard in this debate was the remark by the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) that if Putin is not seen to fail in Ukraine, British troops will ultimately end up being involved in some sort of conflict directly. Will the Minister take that message back to his Treasury colleagues? Some of us feel that the arguments about whether 2.5% of GDP should be spent now or in a couple of years’ time rather miss the point, because if we get to the stage where British forces are engaged, we will be spending far more than that. As a Treasury Minister, he should realise that investment in defence in peacetime can deter a much more expensive conflict.

[Darren Jones]

The Government’s position, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is that we will set out the trajectory to 2.5% of GDP on NATO qualifying spend in 2025, following the conclusion of the strategic defence review and the spending review. He will also know that we fund our armed forces not just to be prepared, but to be ready to contribute. But clearly, I cannot comment on hypothetical scenarios in 2025. He was right to allude to contributions in the debate that rightly highlighted the Ukrainian armed forces on the battlefield fighting not just for their own country but for the security of Europe and the United Kingdom. I think we are all clear-eyed about that and, therefore, our responsibility to help them. That is why the Bill is one part of the package of support that we are putting in place and will continue to put in place over 2025.

I think I have answered most of the points substantively, and so I conclude my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

17:39

[Darren Jones]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Once again, I extend my gratitude to Members from across the House for contributing to today’s debate and facilitating the swift passage of the Bill. Today, and throughout the Bill’s passage so far, this House has made clear its strong feelings on the plight of the Ukrainian people. Members of all political stripes have spoken eloquently in favour of continued support for Ukraine in its ongoing fight against Russia’s tyrannical, unprovoked and illegal aggression. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, no matter which party has been in office, the UK Government have remained committed to fully supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.

The G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and this Bill, which facilitates the UK’s contribution, are another demonstration of the UK delivering on that promise. Beyond the ERA, the UK has now committed £12.8 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. Earlier this year, the Government announced that we will continue to provide guaranteed military support of £3 billion per year to Ukraine for as long as it takes, and our ERA commitment goes further still. As hon. Members will know, the Bill unlocks the UK’s contribution of £2.26 billion, which constitutes a fair and proportionate contribution to the scheme based on our GDP share within the G7 and EU. It remains crucial that we pass the Bill as swiftly as possible to begin disbursing funds this winter to meet Ukraine’s urgent needs. Taken together, the ERA will provide Ukraine with an additional $50 billion in support. I pay tribute to our G7 partners for their collective determination to bring the ERA to fruition in just a few short months. We all remain united in our support for Ukraine against Russian provocation.

We in this House recognise the sacrifice that the people of Ukraine are making. They are fighting not only for their own survival and national identity, but for the security of Europe and the United Kingdom. The Bill will enable the Government to provide Ukraine with the essential support it requires to continue its battle against Putin’s unjust and illegal aggression.

At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that this is probably my last contribution to the House this year, I wish you and the House a very merry Christmas, and say to the Ukrainian people that we hold them all in our hearts over this difficult period. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

17:42

[Richard Fuller]

On behalf of the official Opposition, I thank the Government for bringing forward the Bill and concluding its stages in this House before we break for Christmas. I also thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for the way he has handled the discussions on the Bill at each stage, providing Members with all the information they need at any stage and in answer to all questions. He has done an exemplary job.

I note the uniformity of support across this House from Members, whichever party they represent. However, it goes deeper than that: since former Prime Minister Boris Johnson galvanised the west into defence of Ukraine, through former Prime Minister Liz Truss, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and now, with our current Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the United Kingdom Government have been determined in support of the people of Ukraine. It says something of the depth of support in this country for the people of Ukraine that if we swept away a large proportion of the Members of this House and replaced them with different representatives from across the country, the resolve in support for Ukraine would remain the same.

We must not give up our efforts. Since we started our debates, there have been further actions in Ukraine. I will quote the latest summary from the Institute for the Study of War, which demonstrates the urgent need for the support set out in the Bill that we are passing today:

“on December 14…Russian forces fielded more than 100 pieces of equipment in a recent assault in the Siversk direction and noted that there were 55 combat engagements in this direction on December 13—a significant increase in tempo in this area of the frontline.”

It goes on:

“The GUR reported that a contingent consisting of Russian and North Korean servicemen in Kursk Oblast lost 200 personnel as of December 14 and that Ukrainian drones swarmed a North Korean position, which is consistent with recent reports of North Korean forces engaging in attritional infantry assaults.”

Our support, the military support the United Kingdom provides under this measure, is desperately needed, but the need goes further. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an estimated 8 million Ukrainian citizens have been displaced and 6 million people have left the country as refugees, with many still unable to return. As hon. Members have said, over 200,000 Ukrainian citizens are living in the United Kingdom. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. We should also note the work of British charities and non-governmental organisations, including the British Red Cross, which estimates that, with other Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world, assistance has been provided to over 18 million people in Ukraine.

As we take our break, many of us will be celebrating Christmas. I hope that the Christian message of peace and hope will resonate in the new year, and that all of us in western Europe and particularly in Ukraine can look forward to a peaceful future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

17:46

[James MacCleary]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill and to highlight the importance of our unwavering commitment to Ukraine. I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his detailed response to the points raised in my new clause, which I really appreciate.

When I addressed this House a few weeks ago, I expressed my desire for measures that would go further, particularly to empower the Government to seize Russian state assets frozen in the UK and use them to help rebuild Ukraine—an issue many hon. Members touched on in the Committee of the whole House. It remains, in my view and that of the Liberal Democrats, a critical step that must be taken. While procedural constraints have made such an amendment impossible within the scope of the Bill, the importance of ensuring accountability and justice cannot be overstated. The repurposing of frozen Russian assets is not just a financial issue; it is about ensuring that those who have enabled the Kremlin’s actions face tangible consequences. The UK has an opportunity to lead by example in demonstrating that aggression will not go unpunished.

The Bill, by enabling the UK to participate in the G7’s ERA loans programme, provides vital financial support to Ukraine at a critical time in its fight for freedom. Beyond financial measures, we must continue to stand resolutely with our Ukrainian allies in other ways. That includes providing advanced military aid, bolstering Ukraine’s defences, and working closely with NATO and the EU to co-ordinate our collective response to Russian aggression. The UK must lead by example, showing that our commitment to Ukraine is unshakeable even in the face of uncertainty about the future of US support.

Ukraine’s fight is not just for its own sovereignty, but for the principles of freedom and democracy that we all hold dear. With winter looming and the conflict showing no sign of abating, the UK must be a steadfast partner, ensuring that Ukraine has the resources, support and international backing it needs to endure and prevail. The Bill is a welcome step forward, but it cannot be the final word. Let us seize the moment to demonstrate moral leadership and resolve. Let us ensure that Ukraine’s struggle for freedom remains our shared cause, paving the way for a future of peace and resilience.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 22 October 2024 (Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Stephen Doughty.)