Ukraine

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement on Ukraine made by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows:

“It is less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of our predecessors. We see before us clearly the test of our times, a crossroads in our history. With permission, I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace following Russia’s vile invasion of Ukraine.

It begins in this House, where on Tuesday I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War—a recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a rediscovery of the old post-war argument, long held on these Benches, that economic security is national security; because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people.

The tough choices that we made last week are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry, using our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of our country. That is why, last night, I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era: a partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5,000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones.

My efforts continued on Thursday, when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now, what happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something that nobody in this House wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear: we must strengthen our relationship with America. For our security, for our technology and for our trade and investment, they are, and always will be, indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic—in fact, if anything, the past week has shown that idea to be totally unserious. While some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking a side, this week has shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace that we all want to see in Ukraine.

I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the President last week, because it is an opportunity that I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions that we had on European security, including his clear support for Article 5 of NATO. I welcome the understanding, from our dialogue, that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the President’s continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this House should doubt for a second is sincere.

I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself that he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices. They were speaking for the whole of our country—a reminder that this Government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward the strong cause of a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.

Then, on Sunday, I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada—a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine, responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom, close as they are to the front line with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment.

It was a productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy: that the UK, France and our allies will now work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan with four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the House. First, we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. To that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday, we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Secondly, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating its future—that is absolutely vital. Thirdly, we agreed that, in the event of a peace deal, we will continue to boost Ukraine’s defences and Ukraine’s deterrence. Finally, fourthly, we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace.

After all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago; that was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength, and that does require, urgently, a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now, and, as this House would expect, Britain will play a leading role—with, if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe must do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent, but to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing.

I want to assure the House that I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia, and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. They have launched cyberattacks on our NHS and made assassination attempts on our streets. In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse, and Putin’s appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow.

A strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace: that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests and, in its pursuit, Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, the security of our country and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The adage that a week is a long time in politics has rarely been so graphically demonstrated than over the past seven days. In that time, we have seen the brutal treatment of the Ukrainian President by the President of the United States, the suspension of all US military support for Ukraine, and the beginnings of a co-ordinated European response to this new and dangerous situation.

In all of this, the Prime Minister has played a statesmanlike and positive role, and we commend him for it. No doubt we all found his presentation of the letter from the King to Trump cringeworthy, but there is no doubt that it helped to create a positive atmosphere for the talks which ensued. It was a small price to pay for a relatively positive outcome.

Nothing can excuse the new American position. It not only rips up the basis of our support for Ukraine but undermines Europe’s assumption that the US would in all circumstances be a strong and dependable ally. Today’s comments by JD Vance, which disrespect UK forces and their contribution alongside our American allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, are just the latest evidence of an arrogance and an ignorance that are chilling.

The response which the Prime Minister is adopting—to try to broker a re-engagement between the US and Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine—is to be strongly welcomed. But I think it is a mistake to believe, as the Statement does, that under this presidency our relationship with America, at least in terms of security, can be strengthened to any significant extent.

Trump has made it clear that he does not accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe. We need to accept this and plan accordingly. This has major and unpalatable consequences in terms of military expenditure, but also provides opportunities for the UK to regain a leading position in Europe and for our defence industries.

In the short term, we welcome the loan to Ukraine backed by the interest from frozen Russian assets and the use of UK Export Finance to fund the purchase of missiles to be manufactured in Belfast. But these are relatively small interventions and much more is going to be needed.

One idea which is gaining traction is the establishment of an international rearmament bank, which would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine’s ongoing struggles. Do the Government plan to pursue this?

Another proposal which we have discussed often in your Lordships’ House is for the seizure of Russian assets—the capital, not just the interest. In yesterday’s questions on the Statement, the Prime Minister said that this was being looked at but that it was very difficult. At the moment, this proposal seems to be being taken only half-seriously. I accept that legislation might be necessary to enable it to happen, but I am sure that Parliament would fast-track such a measure. Can the noble Baroness give us any indication of the timescale for further work on this proposal and whether the Government are prepared to legislate to implement it?

For the longer-term move to 3% of GDP for defence spending, we have suggested that the Government should initiate cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached on how this might be funded. Do the Government have any plans to do this?

Every passing day demonstrates that the UK and our European allies are going to have to accept a step-change increase in responsibilities for our own defence. The Prime Minister clearly accepts this also, and he has our firm support in moving to achieve it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments about the role of the Prime Minister. I know that the pride in how the Prime Minister has acted has not been confined to this side of the House and I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have sought out me and my colleagues to make that point. It is when things are at their most challenging that we see the best in those who step up to take the action that is needed. Even when that can be very difficult, it is always better to make those attempts to make things work better than to walk away or, as the Prime Minister said, to take sides on the issue.

The noble Lord, Lord True, made a similar comment and spoke of his pride in the Prime Minister and our Government. I can tell him that the Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and President Zelensky on both Friday night and Saturday night. Both noble Lords are right that witnessing the—I do not know quite how to describe it—meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump was uncomfortable for everyone. But the first reaction of the Prime Minister is: how do we mend this breach and how do we take things forward from here? I think that is the only response that a Prime Minister should have to something like that.

On the frozen assets, which both noble Lords raised, the Prime Minister spoke about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was, uncharacteristically, a bit churlish about it. It is very difficult: it is not a case of just bringing forward legislation in this country; other countries have to be involved as well. Indeed, there have been discussions, as you would imagine, this week, but there is ongoing work on that that will continue at pace.

On the Chagos Islands, there is no deal at present. This would be brought to your Lordships’ House as a treaty in the normal way. There is nothing to comment on regarding finances for that.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me to say something more about the pause. To be honest, this is so fast-moving at the moment—he will have seen President Zelensky’s statement that he made tonight, and we do not know yet if that has had an impact. We have not got any information about what that pause may engage and what it may mean at this stage. When we do, we will be happy to share that information, but the noble Lord will appreciate that, from when the Prime Minister made his Statement yesterday, I have been getting updates during the course of the day, because things are moving quite quickly, and I would not want to say anything that was wrong.

I thought the description from noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the Prime Minister’s invitation from the King to the President as “cringeworthy” was not appropriate. The Prime Minister and the King have been very clear in their support for President Zelensky, and I thought the meeting of the King with President Zelensky was one everybody welcomed. The Prime Minister said yesterday—and I have spoken to him about this as well—that, when President Zelensky came to Downing Street, the spontaneous response from the public was quite emotional. Zelensky was very moved by it, but I think the Prime Minister was as well. It is an emotional time for President Zelensky; his country and his people have been through a lot. We have seen that emotion in him and how he rises to the occasion. It is challenging, but I think all efforts must be welcomed.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked about the rearmament bank. That was raised in the House of Commons yesterday, and the Prime Minister’s response then was very positive. It is one of the issues that the European leaders discussed, along with issues around what comes next. He is right: this is not the end of it; this is the start of it. It is going to be difficult. The idea that Europe has to step up and take a greater responsibility for our defence is something that everybody now recognises, and that is what we will continue to do.

I am not aware of any plans for cross-party discussions on government budgets at present, but we are aware of the impact and implications of this. We have been clear that we are seeking to move to 3% of GDP on defence spending in the next Parliament, and that commitment remains. At the moment, we are very determined that we give Ukraine all the support it needs. Key to that support is the sovereignty of Ukraine, and any deal on its future must involve Ukraine around the table.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has shown himself, by general acclaim, to be a superlative diplomat over the past few days, but he is dealing with a moving target. Since that Statement, we have had both the pause in the supply of military equipment from President Trump and the conciliatory response from President Zelensky. The lawyers will say that one’s intention is shown by the consequences of one’s actions. Clearly, one consequence of the pause of the supply of US matériel has been a major tilt in favour of Russia in the battlefield as Russia tries to gain more territory before an eventual ceasefire. Surely this cannot be the intention of President Trump.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not sure I got the last part of the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Essentially, if the intention is shown by the natural consequences of one’s action then it is clear that the natural consequence of the pause is to give a major advantage on the battlefield to the Russians. Surely that cannot be the intention of President Trump.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I would hesitate to guess what President Trump’s intention is. We have been clear that our support for Ukraine is unwavering, but we do not know yet what is involved in the pause, or indeed whether the pause will take place. We have seen the same reports, but if I get more information, I will be happy to come back. Whether President Zelensky’s response has had an impact, we are not yet sure.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Prime Minister for the stance that he has taken and the work he has been doing with European and other allies; this is extremely important. The proposal to bring together a plan for a just and lasting peace, which is acceptable to Ukraine and which denies Putin a victory, is essential work. However, as we have seen from the announcement by the White House about the pause in military support to Ukraine, that work is ever more urgent. Can the Minister reassure this House that the Government are redoubling their efforts with their allies to come forward with a proposal that can be put to the United States of America? Can she indicate whether the Prime Minister has received any suggestion or indication from the Trump White House that it is willing to consider seriously any proposal that comes forward?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: we have to redouble our efforts. President Macron and the Prime Minister in particular are working on a plan at some pace. I do not know the details of all the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Trump; I know they are frequent at present. At every stage, the Prime Minister has said that we will present this to President Trump and the American Administration, and we will urge them to support a plan. President Trump has made it clear that Europe has to stand up and that is what Europe is doing. Countries are working together. That is the start of a process and there will be further meetings of those European leaders represented there. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is very important that we get a plan and then take it to President Trump to seek to get agreement for that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join in the praise of the Prime Minister’s performance in the last few days, which has drawn a great deal of admiration. It is clear that he is operating in very difficult circumstances, and one understands some of what he feels he has to say. Of course the transatlantic relationship is very important, not least in security, but the Prime Minister referred to President Trump’s “clear support” for Article 5 of NATO. Unfortunately, that is not something that many of us perceive. Can the Minister tell us whether the current circumstances are giving a real boost to the attempt to have a reset with the EU, including on security and defence co-operation? What news can she give us on that front, not just on the very welcome intergovernmental co-operation with our European allies but on us plugging into some of the EU defence-industrial co-operation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s description of the Prime Minister’s “performance” and of him feeling that he has to say things do not do justice to the gravity of the situation. It is not a performance; the Prime Minister holds strong views that we will work with our American allies, because the most important thing here is that we work with President Zelensky to seek peace. We want a stable and enduring peace, with Ukrainian sovereignty. Yes, the President did commit to Article 5 of NATO. and yes, one of the Government’s early commitments was defence and security co-operation with the EU.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and echo other comments in your Lordships’ House about the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in recent days. In Norfolk last week, I spent time with some of the brave Ukrainian men and women who are being trained, over a very short five-week period, by the Irish Guards and instructors from a range of international allies under Operation Interflex, learning the vital skills that they need to defend their nation in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. Will the Minister give assurances that this commitment to Operation Interflex and to train Ukrainian men and women remains absolutely ironclad and will continue for as long as it is needed?

Although support for the uplift of the defence budget has been shown on this Bench, we are disappointed that it has been achieved, after little debate, by taking from the overseas development budget. Building on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will the Minister accept that, if and when we go further and spend 3% of GDP on defence, we will need to have a wider public conversation about how that will be funded?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I think that most people are not aware of the depth and breadth of the support for Ukraine. He made a powerful point on training and Interflex. The answer to his question is yes, that does continue and we are committed to it. I understand the disappointment around the cut to the ODA budget. It was a great disappointment to us as well; it was done with no pleasure or glee. The right reverend Prelate may be aware of the comments made by the Prime Minister in the other place yesterday that he wants to

“work with others … across the House … on other ways of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/25; col. 29.]

He has already met with the president of the World Bank to look at some of the options. We have a deeper commitment to returning to 0.7% as we are able to do so.

I think that the public are becoming more aware of the need for defence spending. It has been taken for granted for many years. We had the dividends of peace post the Cold War. The world is changing. We have to be part of that discussion and that awareness by doing our bit to explain to the public and engage with them on why this is necessary.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, on that very point, is it not the case, if we do increase defence expenditure substantially to replace the withdrawal of American expenditure to some extent and for other reasons, as it seems we have to, that this represents a totally different situation from that which existed last July, at the time of the general election? Is it not the case that pledges given not to increase taxation in those circumstances have less relevance today? Surely it would be fairer all the way around if the cost of defence expenditure fell on the broadest shoulders that can bear it, not on the poorest people of the world.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two points there. First, the strategic defence review is coming up, and we will have the response of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is not here at the moment. He has spoken already about the strategic defence review that he is leading, and the Government will be informed by that. It is probably above my pay grade to touch on the Chancellor’s toes before the next Budget. The Government are taking all these issues into account to look at how we can best do this, but we have also had quite stagnant growth in this country for some time. Increasing the growth of our economy will be crucial to looking at how we fund all our commitments overseas and public services here.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I join the unanimous support that the House has given to the efforts of the Prime Minister, and we all congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has sought to do in the past few days. Alas, however, his efforts have not yet met with success—and it is clear, is it not, that even in the few days that have elapsed since this House last responded to a Statement in the other place on this issue that the crisis has become more acute and that, though it grieves me to say so, we cannot rely on the United States under this President. I quite understand why the noble Baroness cannot say that and why the Prime Minister cannot say that, but it is, sadly, the truth. Is it not clear that, given what has happened even in these last few days, however difficult it may be, we have to have an urgent increase in the defence budget, greater and sooner than the Prime Minister indicated last week?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right, and it is at times like these that any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure that we get the best for our country. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and we must do what it takes to achieve that. The Prime Minister, reaching out across the Atlantic but also across Europe, has taken a leadership role with other European leaders, which has been really important for this country as well. The noble Lord will know that defence spending is not something that you can turn on like a tap, and in getting to 2.5% there is a lot of work to be done, but we will be led by the strategic defence review, which will indicate where we are leading. But the Government will always take a change in circumstances into account.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join others in commending the Government for their Statement and their actions in recent days. It is perhaps symbolic that Belfast will be at the heart of the UK support in the aid that we are providing to Ukraine, because it symbolically shows that support from Ukraine is not just from all quarters of this House but from all parts of our nation. I agree with the Government that we want to see peace, and a just and lasting peace, but the Government are also right in saying that the best opportunity for that is through strength and deterrence. In the light of the pause in support from the United States, which many of us fear will be a long-term cessation rather than simply a pause, what assurances can the noble Baroness give the House that this country and other participants in the coalition of the willing will be able to ensure that there is sufficient aid going to Ukraine and, vitally, that it flows quickly enough to ensure that a gap is not created that Putin’s regime can try to exploit, leaving Ukraine vulnerable?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right—and I do not want to say anything more about the pause at this stage, because we simply do not know enough, and we do not know the impact of President Zelensky’s response. But we are well aware of those challenges. I mentioned the strategic defence review, and a national armaments director will be in place soon to look at those issues as well. But the security of Ukraine is not just about aid to Ukraine; it is also about the security and protection of this country. We need to be aware of that at all times. If we ignore the security of Ukraine issues, we have seen on our own shores before—as we saw in Salisbury, for example—that Russian aggression is an issue for this country, not just for other countries overseas. So we will work with Ukraine.

The point was made, which I reiterate, that the Prime Minister has brought together the coalition of the willing across Europe. One thing that has been a problem in the past is that we tend to move as slowly as the most reluctant member, and the Prime Minister is saying that we have to lead from the front and ask, “Where are the willing?” So we have the coalition of the willing so that we do not delay in any way at all and do as much as we can as quickly as we can.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending £3 billion in military aid until 2030, but my plea is that we are smart in how we spend it: first, that we ensure that we use it to re-energise the land industrial base in the UK, which we have allowed to atrophy over many years; and, secondly, that we recognise that the nature of warfare has changed. Historically, in the land domain, the depth of the battlefield was 80 kilometres; it is now 800 kilometres, and capabilities need to change to adapt for that. Can we ensure that we use this money as a catalyst to develop our own capabilities so we can then use those capabilities to ensure that we meet the Chief of the General Staff’s aim of doubling the lethality of the British Army by 2027?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. It is the purpose of the strategic defence review to look at all those issues and bring them to government. There is also an issue around defence procurement and always ensuring that we get the best value. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry and I am well aware of the problems that have existed with procurement. By reviewing procurement and being informed by the strategic defence review, we will do our best to get these issues right.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I warmly welcome the tone of the Leader of the Opposition Benches tonight, and what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said. The Prime Minister’s measured public tone deserves applause; I join those who say that he is handling this crisis very well. The measured public tone entitles him to send private messages, and the bit of his statement that I most liked, I think, was that the Ukrainians must be at the table when their future is negotiated.

Thirty years ago, American peacekeepers negotiated at Dayton, very successfully, a solution to the Bosnian war. Richard Holbrooke was brilliant. All parties were there in Dayton, Ohio. We were there—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, who is not here tonight, was there. The warring parties accepted US mediation: there was an understanding among them that the US and its allies would be there to enforce the deal and ensure that all parties respected it. That was what enabled parties to come to an agreement. It would be very good if the Prime Minister would encourage the President of the United States to maintain open channels of communication with Kyiv. That is rather important. We should not criticise the President for talking to Moscow. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do. What he said to Moscow, of course, I do not know.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his experience of these issues; we would all do well to heed him. He is right: a peace negotiated without Ukraine at the table will not endure and be sustained. He is also right to refer to a security guarantee, which has been part of the issue in negotiations. The important thing is that everybody strives for peace. It is clear that there are different ways and different views on how that can be achieved. The two crucial points that the noble Lord mentioned—Ukraine at the table and a security guarantee—are the only way to have something that will endure.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on President Putin’s appetite for chaos. I assume that the Government believe that he should not be rewarded for that. I should like to ask the Leader two questions. First, there are other countries in the near neighbourhood of Russia which are very anxious because the UK has been a critical supporter in resilience to the interference of Russia, whether it is in Moldova or the Baltics. That has been under UK’s ODA. Can the Leader ensure that the UK’s ODA support, which is up to £500 million under the integrated security fund, will be protected from the cuts to ODA that are proposed to fund defence expenditure?

Secondly, on the assets that we are seeking to use the interest of, I am assuming that the Government believe that Russia and the Kremlin’s apparatchiks should not have that money back. In that case, we should be receiving, as my noble friend Lord Newby said, the capital interest, with the capital itself going towards funding the Ukrainian recovery.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. The security of the Baltics and Moldova is extremely important, which is why the Prime Minister has had long conversations with those countries recently. He has also spoken to them about how they can be better engaged and we can ensure that we have wider engagement when we talk about Europe as a whole. That will be very important. He has assured them in these conversations that we will look again at the configuration of meetings with those states and other allies to ensure that they are properly represented and their views can be heard, particularly because of their vulnerable position.

The noble Lord will understand that I will not make commitments on particular areas of ODA. My noble friend Lady Chapman talked today about how important the ongoing work is; it is not just a case of pulling the rug out from under people—there has to be a proper discussion and we must look at the impact. It will take some time to work this through carefully. I will draw his comments to her attention.

On Russian assets, we are using the interest now and there are ongoing discussions about that. If it were easy, it would have been done already. It is not through reluctance that it is not being done. It is being actively pursued.

House adjourned at 8.25 pm.