Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

At end insert “but regrets that the Bill as introduced does not include provisions to allow immobilised Russian state assets, reserves, or any other property to be used to fund financial assistance to Ukraine”.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the regret amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I too am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and her take on the situation in British agriculture at the moment, which is quite interesting.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I will not press my regret amendment to a vote. I will do nothing to delay the passage of this Bill and, in the highly unlikely event that there is a vote on the Bill, I shall vote for it. I support the Bill, but I have had to adopt this tactic because I cannot table a simple amendment I would like—because it is a money Bill—to add a little additional power to the Bill. I simply cannot understand why the Government are not taking that power, as the United States and Canada have done. Having said that, I congratulate the Minister on his speech and congratulate the current Labour Government for being as robust on Ukraine as my right honourable friend Boris Johnson was when this appalling war first started. I

I am proud of the financial assistance that this United Kingdom has already provided to Ukraine. We have committed £7.8 billion in military support and £5 billion in non-military support. In hard cash terms, the United States has given $135 billion, Germany $16.5 billion and I think our £12.8 billion is $15 billion. However, in terms of GDP we find that Estonia has committed 3.5% and Denmark 1.8%. Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland and Poland also stand out as the highest donors in terms of GDP. The closer you are to Russia, the more you have to fear and the more you spend on defeating the aggressor. In GDP terms, the US contribution is only 0.32%, Germany’s is 0.57% and we are at 0.55%.

Nevertheless, in these difficult financial times we have done a remarkable job in assisting. Of course, as the Minister pointed out, we have done other things as well. We have trained over 51,000 Ukrainian troops and sent over 400 different types of military capabilities and kit, including drones, boats and munitions. Defeating Putin is a point the United Kingdom—including the present Government—repeatedly makes at the United Nations and we have imposed sanctions on over 2,100 individuals and entities, including 100 ships and shadow tankers. We are taking a leading role in the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine, co-hosting the London Ukraine Recovery Conference in 2023.

Then we come to the G7 summit in Italy in June 2024, which is the father of the Bill before us. The official communiqué said:

“We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven … gathered in Apulia … reaffirm … Ukraine’s fight for freedom and its reconstruction for as long as it takes … we decided to make available approximately USD 50 billion leveraging the extraordinary revenues of the immobilized Russian sovereign assets, sending an unmistakable signal to President Putin”.


The important words there are

“leveraging the extraordinary revenues of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets”.

So what are those assets? The figures vary, but total immobilised Russian assets are believed to be from $280 billion to about $300 billion. About $240 billion is in the EU, up to $28 billion to $30 billion in the United Kingdom and the rest elsewhere. The US does not have much at all. The $50 billion loan will be advanced to Ukraine under the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme—the ERA—and is due to be paid back to lending countries from the interest that we are making from those immobilised Russian assets. The UK, as the Minister said, is about to extend our share of £2.26 billion under the ERA loan scheme, to be repaid from approximately 15 years-worth of interest on those Russian state assets that have been immobilised in the EU.

That $50 billion in ERA loans is, however, merely a temporary financial buffer. It falls far short of addressing Ukraine’s long-term needs, with damage requiring reconstruction surpassing $486 billion, according to the World Bank’s February 2024 assessment, and western contributions to Ukraine’s defence expenditure of roughly $105 billion annually.

The little amendment that I wanted to make to this Bill was simply to add after the words “money provided by Parliament” a sentence that said, “or out of any assets, reserves or any other property held within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom directly or indirectly by, for or on behalf of the Russian Federation”. That would permit us, if we so decided—it is a permissive power—to utilise the whole of the $30 billion of Russian assets that we have. I am very happy to use taxpayers’ money in the Bill, but I am more keen to use Russian money. The whole purpose of my amendment today is to ask the Government: why on earth not take that permissive power to utilise Russian assets? Why are those words not in the Bill?

Since it is morally and legally right in international law to keep the Russian money immobilised but spend the interest raised on it to help the reconstruction of Ukraine, it must also be legally right in international law to spend the capital assets themselves to help Ukraine. Canada and the United States have taken this path. In 2022, Canada introduced legislation that enables its Government to seize state and individual assets frozen in Canada in cases of grave breaches of international peace and security. In 2023, the United States passed the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act—the REPO Act—which allows immobilised Russian sovereign assets seized and transferred under US jurisdiction to be sent to Ukraine.

Some have suggested that our Treasury has blocked this because of a misguided fear that it will deter foreign investment in the City or the UK, since it could send a message to foreign investors that the UK will suddenly seize their assets without good reason. That is just not the case and is not going to happen. The concerns that seizure would lead to the withdrawal of global reserves held in the G7 currencies and their ultimate devaluation are grossly exaggerated. The practical impact of indefinite immobilisation, as we have done, and confiscation is exactly the same. Three years of immobilising these Russian assets have not led to a flight of capital from the US dollar, the euro or Great British pounds, and there are no grounds for believing that confiscation will have that effect either.

In January 2024, the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed an agreement on security co-operation. Among the 66 paragraphs or articles were the following:

“The Participants reaffirm that the Russian Federation must pay for the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine. Russian sovereign assets in the UK’s jurisdiction will remain immobilised until the Russian Federation has paid for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The UK, working with its partners, will continue to pursue all lawful routes through which Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine … As a priority, the Participants will continue to work together with others, including G7 states, to explore options for the development of appropriate mechanisms to provide reparation for damage, loss, or injury caused by Russian aggression”.


That is what the last Government said, but what do the current Government say? It seems exactly the same, I am pleased to say.

On 6 December last year, in answer to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Banner, the Minister said:

“This Government is clear that Russia must be held responsible for its illegal war. That includes its obligations under international law to pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. Working with allies, we continue to pursue all possible lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet those obligations. Our agreement with G7 partners to provide approximately $50 billion in additional funding to Ukraine, repaid by the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets, is an important step towards ensuring Russia pays.”


Note the words, “an important step”—not the only step. The only way that Russia can be made to pay is to use all the immobilised assets held in the UK, EU and US. These should be transferred to an international fund, as the Council of Europe has called for.

It is morally right to use those assets; it is legally right under international law to use those assets. The whole point of my Motion today is to plead with the Government to take those permissive powers, to use when the time is right. Will the Government please explain to me and the House in more detail why they are not taking that route? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, on a superb maiden speech, which impressed everyone in this House. I particularly liked her remarks on food and nature. British farmers can grow more food and we can also do nature recovery; the two are not mutually exclusive. I may be one of the few in the House who is not surprised at the noble Baroness’s powerful speech- making because, for the last six years, I was the deputy chairman of Natural England, and at times I felt that her powerful rhetoric was targeted against us as we sought to implement some of the ELM schemes. Nevertheless, she made a very powerful contribution to this House and she will be an excellent replacement for the late Henry Plumb in my opinion.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported, in various ways, the amendment I put before the House. In particular, there was powerful support from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I thank her and my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Kempsell for their very strong support. I have now had to change my opinion on a matter. I always believed that no one under 50 could make any worthwhile contribution in this House, but the two noble young Turks behind me have proved me utterly wrong.

I am also grateful to those who gave some sympathetic support, including the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. Please do not tell my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, but I have to praise the two Lib Dem spokespersons who gave qualified support; they support the concept of what I was trying to do.

I must say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that of course, like many others, I profoundly disagree with what he said. But I admire and respect the fact that he said it in this House. While we may disagree with him, we respect his right to speak. It is something that other institutions outside this building could take note of—to let people speak their minds, even if we profoundly disagree with them.

I will pick up on just two points he made. First, he said that the Council of Europe, of which I was a member, expelled Russia. I voted for that to happen, but I was agonising about it. I like Churchill’s expression that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. I thought that maybe if we kept the Russians inside, we could communicate with them. But what they did in Ukraine was so evil that I voted to have them expelled. The noble Lord also made the point that by expelling Russia we deprived 135 million Russians of the right to go to the European Court of Human Rights. That is true, but a fat lot of good it did them when they did have the chance to go, because Russia never implemented any of the decisions of the court.

Secondly—I am coming to my conclusion—the noble Lord asked who was calling the shots. Well, it will be President Trump calling the shots on how much money the United States gives in military aid to Ukraine. He will call the shots on what non-military aid the US gives to Ukraine. But he will not be calling the shots on the immobilised Russian assets, because America has hardly any of them. Over 90% of those assets are held by the EU and United Kingdom. So, while he might dictate other measures, he cannot stop the EU and the United Kingdom taking this permissive power to spend that money.

I will not breach the conventions of the House by regurgitating the points I have made, but I just want to clarify one thing. My amendment is not calling for us to immediately confiscate those assets and start spending them in Ukraine. We cannot do that in any case because the Council of Europe—I think it is the Government’s policy as well—wants to see an independent fund. When the assets are confiscated, they will be transferred to that independent fund to then be given to Ukraine and spent on reconstruction.

We do not have that fund yet. My amendment is simply calling for us to take the permissive power so that, when the time comes, in conjunction with our allies—I am not asking us to confiscate that money tomorrow—we will not have to pass any new law; we will have the permissive power to use that money in the defence of Ukraine. That is the only point I wanted to stress and clarify. As I said at the beginning, I am not in the business of delaying this Bill any further. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Lord Blencathra’s amendment withdrawn.

Budget Statement

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I can tell him that I have lived in Cumbria for 30 years, and I welcome the Budget. I suspect that most of my former constituents would have welcomed it as well.

I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, not only on her work as a coalition Minister but because today is her birthday. Even if I could remember her age as printed in the Times, I would not dare say it—I do not want to suffer like Sir Tim Hunt and be driven out of the club for some inappropriate sexist remark—but I congratulate the noble Baroness.

I want to concentrate on the minimum wage. Fifteen years ago, I opposed the minimum wage and thought it would damage job creation and was an unnecessary interference with business. I was wrong and so were my Conservative colleagues, and we acknowledge that. The minimum wage was the best thing Tony Blair ever did, and since its introduction I thought the minimum wage was working quite well and I did not pay much attention to it.

However, two years ago I was appalled to discover that some of our largest and most profitable companies were paying the minimum wage to their employees, and that the taxpayer was having to top up those wages with housing benefit and tax credits. Okay, I know that most of your Lordships knew that long before I caught up with what was happening in the workplace. I found it obscene—and I find it obscene—that low-paid workers who are paying their taxes are subsidising many highly profitable companies who are earning their profits on cheap wages.

I became an immediate convert to the living wage and I am delighted that the Chancellor has set out a programme to implement it by 2020. I know that some critics will rightly say that it is still not enough to live on—that it is not a real living wage—but at least we are heading in the right direction, and in politics if you have the direction right and the concept right, that is not a bad start.

All my political life, the CBI has been a whinging organisation, never satisfied with any Government. As a teenager, I remember CBI spokespeople slamming the Callaghan Government in 1976, 1977 and 1979, and then a few months later, after Margaret Thatcher was elected, they were slamming her equally hard, too. What did they have to say on the living wage plans in the Budget? They said:

“To increase the minimum wage on average by 6 per cent a year in this parliament is quite a gamble for businesses, which will struggle to leverage the productivity to pay for it”.

But what did Simon Walker, the director-general of the Institute of Directors say? He said:

“There will be a bit of gulping but I think it’s right and I think our members can actually manage it”.

Quite so, and once again we see in the CBI the unacceptable face of capitalism—willing to take another cut in corporation tax but not wanting to reward the lowest-paid workers who have made the profits.

Indeed, I urge the Chancellor to go further and faster with the living wage. I know my noble friend the Minister cannot dare to comment on this in his wind-up or he will be drummed out of the club, but I suggest that all companies with profits over £500 million or with executives earning more than £5 million or handing out dividends of more than 4% per annum should be made to reach the £9 per hour by 2018. Examples of companies paying more than 4% in dividends are: GlaxoSmithKline, Shell, Wm Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, BP, Anglo American, Centrica and a dozen other large companies. It is interesting, looking at the website for London, that the companies paying the living wage in London are mainly small and medium-sized enterprises. Last year, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Tesco had combined profits of £3.8 billion—okay, they were down from the £3.9 billion that they made in 2013 and the £4.1 billion in 2012—yet pay only the minimum wage.

The salaries of CEOs and executives in the FTSE 100 rose by 15% in 2014 and the gap between the highest-paid executives and their lowest-paid employees has never been wider. In 1998, chief executive salaries were 57 times larger than the average worker’s; now, they are 178 times larger. And there is no correlation whatsoever between huge salary increases for executives and company worth, company growth or company profits. So I say to Mr Cridland of the CBI, who has just retired: if you think your companies will struggle to pay their lowest-paid workers a 6% per annum increase, they seem to have had no difficulty paying their directors 15%. Not to be left out, of course, last year BBC staff got a 2% pay rise, but their so-called stars got 22%. So even that lovely left-wing organisation treats its workers no better than the capitalists do.

Before my noble friends think I am making a bid to be Mr Jeremy Corbyn’s policy guru, I must state that I do not believe in capping top pay, but I do believe in everyone in a company sharing in its success. That is proper capitalism, and we see it practised by John Lewis and Waitrose, which already pay above the minimum wage. As has already been said, yesterday IKEA announced that it would pay more than the minimum wage. The founding boss of Iceland Foods said last weekend as he slammed big retailers who pay only the minimum:

“Of course this is going to be painful but we’ll do it with a smile on our face. I’m all in favour of this living wage and if everyone has to pay it then it’s better all round”.

He went on to describe the claims of some supermarkets that staff discounts made up for low pay as “brainless”, and said that they had a moral duty to pay higher wages.

I turn briefly to apprenticeships. I agreed with every single word that the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, said on the apprenticeship levy. I say to my noble friend the Minister that if we can appoint the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—whom I think the Secretary of State for Transport appointed to a committee on HS2— I hope we can consult the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, or find a role for him in advising on how the levy could work. I applaud the levy for apprenticeships provided that it does not lead to the recreation of all those bureaucratic industry training boards we had in the 1970s. The CBI again criticised it, saying:

“A volunteer army is always better than conscription”.

That is not true, as we discovered in the Second World War. It would be foolish for the Chancellor to intervene if all the businesses were coming forward and training the workers we need but they are not, and it is not fair that some companies do no training and poach workers from others. So since the volunteer army of willing employers has not materialised, it is time to try conscription—but keep it simple.

When we introduce the Bill on Sunday trading, leaving aside other arguments about Sunday trading, if the big shops are to get a chance to open for longer on Sundays, I hope the Chancellor will say, “If you open for longer on Sunday and make extra profits, then you pay the full minimum wage for your Sunday workers”.

In conclusion, capitalism is the only system that works. Socialism has been tried in many countries over the past 90 years or so and has always brought poverty, famine and devastation. Free trade, private enterprise and responsible capitalism improve the living standards of everyone and make the world a safer place, but periodically it needs a harsh reminder of what responsibility is. If I may use a less vulgar anatomical word, I rather liked the comment of the unnamed Cabinet Minister who said that the Budget,

“was designed to give British industry a kick up their lazy”,

backsides. I look forward to the day—I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham hinted at this—when a person working a 40-hour week gets a wage from an employer that the person can actually live on without taxpayer support. I know we are still a very long way away from reaching that goal, but this Budget has started the journey and I commend it.

Medical Innovation Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Friday 27th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a deep and personal interest which I have had for the past 16 years since I was first diagnosed with MS. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Saatchi on the way he has introduced his Bill, on the content of the Bill and on the way he has conducted himself over the past three years. It is a lesson to us all. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who has reassured us that there are adequate safeguards in the Bill and that we should not have concerns about any additional risk of doctors being sued for inappropriate or overinnovative behaviour.

The objection to the Bill from the medical profession is, in the main, that innovation happens already and the Bill is not necessary. I do not see that as in any way taking away the need for the Bill. If the Bill is not causing any slowdown in innovation, it is reasonably safe to let it through.

The objection from many in the legal profession seems to be that it will limit the chances of people being able to sue their doctors for negligence. If that is the case, that is a jolly good thing because I worry that in this country we are heading towards the American model where doctors seem to be afraid to prescribe an aspirin in case they get sued.

With all due respect to noble—and noble and learned—Lords on either side and to the medical profession, we have not heard much from the patient’s perspective this morning, and if your Lordships will forgive me, I will selfishly and arrogantly speak from the patient’s perspective.

I am lucky. I have slow-progressive MS. Those who get motor neurone disease or Parkinson’s disease are in a much worse position. Every time I see my consultant, I do not take my lawyer in tow behind me, waiting to sue him if he has given me wrong advice. Our discussion is always: what are the Americans up to? What is the breakthrough? Is it time for beta interferon? Should I change from injections of copaxone to something else? It is always about searching for that hope that there is something that will fix it one day.

I believe that we are getting close to a fix on multiple sclerosis. Certainly for relapsing and remitting, we are getting close. I think that if you were to do a study, if hypothetically the Department of Health were to say, “We have got a new drug. Could we have volunteers to try it?”, overnight you would find 10,000 people with multiple sclerosis saying, “Yes, we’ll give it a go in proper trials”. Worldwide, you might find 1 million willing to give it a go.

A breakthrough was announced in the United States in October last year by the Scripps Research Institute. It discovered that a drug called benztropine, which is currently on the market, has been on the market for many years and has been approved to deal with the side-effects of Parkinson’s, completely restored the myelin sheath in mice and rats. The institute is going on eventually to conduct some clinical trials. This drug is approved for use in this country, again for Parkinson’s patients. I think it has been approved for many years, and we know the side effects. But American GPs have greater rights to prescribe off-label than British GPs.

I believe the General Medical Council was consulted a couple of years ago about giving British doctors the right to prescribe off-label. That was strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry—I think we can all understand why—and the GMC dropped the proposal. American doctors can prescribe any licensed drug off-label if they feel it is in their patient’s best interest. British GPs do not have that right. So although there may be many people in this country being prescribed benztropine legally because they have Parkinson’s, the tens of thousands of us with multiple sclerosis, for whom it has been discovered the drug may work, cannot legally or properly get it. I hope that this Bill will be able to change that scenario. Ideally, the GMC should look again at its guidelines. Ideally, it should allow British doctors the same right to prescribe off-label if they think it is in their patient’s interest.

I was greatly heartened by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on participant-led research. I discovered a few years ago that the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London was about to conduct some clinical trials on the use of botulinum toxin. I persuaded, forced and blagged my way on to that study; I was patient number 51. We conducted the study and I signed every waiver under the sun. I was not interested in suing if something went wrong, but I wanted the hope that it would change and improve things. It did. That drug was life-changing in dealing with some of the side-effects of multiple sclerosis, and NICE has now approved it.

I assure your Lordships that in any study you undertake, in any research you do, you will find that there are tens of thousands of us, particularly those suffering the worst diseases such as motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s, who will volunteer to participate in clinical trials. We do not want to wait five years while another pile of mice and rats are experimented on. This rat is willing to become a guinea pig at very short notice.

I cannot see any medical harm from my noble friend’s Bill. I can see that there may be a loss of income for some in the legal profession, but my concern is to get medical treatment when I go to see my consultant or doctor—not to give a lawyer an excuse to sue my doctor if he gets it wrong. The medical profession is being held back, slightly, because of the fear of litigation. If my noble friend’s Bill allows more of us to participate in a rapidly organised clinical trial, or even to test out drugs that have been approved for one use and may be beneficial for another, we should be allowed to do so.

I have never sat in this Chamber or the other place and demanded rights for this or that, but those of us with some of these illnesses can make a contribution as we head to our eventual end game. It is not just trying any quackery or weird invention in desperation. There will be properly conducted trials along the lines of my noble friend’s Bill, with all the safeguards which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, suggested. I therefore support my noble friend’s Bill.