Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Friday 26th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and the pertinent questions she asked. They are valid questions, and I hope the Minister will reply to them in detail when he winds up.

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, to his place and note his excellent maiden speech. He remarked what a relief it is when people get your name correct at the start. In my first week here, I received a bill from the restaurant addressed to “Lord Pelvis”, but I dutifully paid.

To some extent, this debate marks the 10th anniversary of Russian aggression, as alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. It is not two years since the war started; it has been going on for a decade. I will start where my noble friend Lady Suttie started in her excellent contribution: the human toll and the traumatised communities. She was absolutely right to single out the elderly in Ukraine.

My noble friend Lady Suttie also mentioned, as did my noble friend Lady Brinton, those oppressed within Russia. There are those who have not had the economic means of avoiding the consequences of the sanctions or who have even been sent to fight on the front line based on a lie, being lied to on the way. There are also those like Vladimir Kara-Murza, who received the Liberal International Prize for Freedom. I had the pleasure of speaking at the presentation of the award to his wife with my noble friend Lady Brinton. These individuals within Russia should be part of our consideration during these debates because they are also victims of Putin’s aggression.

We also know that those Ukrainians we have provided shelter to in a storm require ongoing support. That has been an interesting thread throughout this debate: many spoke about the need for the UK to offer continuing support. This means that it will be not just FCDO and Defence Ministers—as grateful as we are for them—but, as was alluded to, Home Office and DWP Ministers who are now part of this priority.

I and my noble friends have visited the Verkhovna Rada on a number of occasions. Indeed, I was in the Maidan in 2014 shortly after, and I saw the charred buildings that have been referred to. I have seen the resilience of the parliament in the Rada; let us not forget that, at the outset of the aggression two years ago, Russian special forces were sent there to assassinate and kidnap. Throughout the horrors of the attacks in Kyiv since, MPs are still active in their committees and debates, as a parliament. Yes, as one MP told me, they have received AK47 training, but, equally, they are working in their constituencies and ensuring there is remediate recovery and restoration of services. The bravery of MPs, civil servants and those ensuring that services continue is a testimony to the resilience of the Ukrainian people and what it represents. It represents democracy being strong in war, not weak. A democracy defending itself against autocratic aggression and attempts at subjugation is a model for the rest of the world.

At the beginning of the year, the Financial Times highlighted that about half of adults globally will be voting in elections in 2024. It is a remarkable feat. However, it also said that democracy is not just about voting in occasional elections:

“Respect for human rights, rule of law and checks and balances, including robust institutions and independent media are also indispensable”.


It said:

“By these measures, freedom is in retreat or on the defensive in much of the world”.


As we have this debate today, we would think that that is the case. However, it ended by saying:

“Democrats should not despair”.


For every sham election that there will be in Russia in March or in Iran coming up, there have been elections in Taiwan and Poland, where we have seen democrats and liberals—with big and small “l”s—be successful.

Another thread in this debate has been the question of what success or failure may look like for Putin and what may be the ingredients that might bring this about. On one reading, it is, of course, territorial possession and the subjugation of Ukraine. On another reading—this is where I have more sympathy—it is halting the advance of the rules-based international order. We need to be clear-eyed. A new, dysfunctional Security Council, a re-establishment of a form of non-aligned movements and divisions within the global South and richer countries, including within the Commonwealth, are one element of this. If the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in his excellent contribution, is correct that one man can end this, unfortunately we may need to rely on elections to do with some other men, including that between Biden and Trump, or those within the Senate. It is out of our hands.

Nevertheless, we see Prime Minister Tusk now taking on Prime Minister Orbán. There are those who will be supporting the rules-based international order. Of course, what is the alternative? Russia and China, which do not support the rules-based international order, prefer a multipolar world, as they would term it. For them, a rules-based international order is one of hypocrisy—one where there are double standards in the United States, Europe and the UK. However, from our perspective, a multipolar world is one where Russia and China will seek to impose their systems on their near neighbours and to disrupt and to divide.

These elements and their likely impact are of a global nature. What are the elements that are within our hands here at home? There are elements that we have in our own command. The first are the UK’s relationships with the global South. Ministers will not be surprised that I mention the fact that from these Benches we have regretted the retreat on the UK commitment for official development assistance. This is not only just noticed in the global South but has an impact. Every time a rich country retreats on its official development assistance, Sergey Lavrov is there on a visit to highlight the hypocrisy and the double standards. It is in our strategic interest that we have official development assistance at the 0.7% level.

We have heard much about defence increase and I support that, including the calls from the noble and gallant Lord. However, defence increase without requisite diplomacy and development increases will simply not be effective or proactive. When it comes to delays in visa applications, or when, as the Foreign Secretary said to me, funds have been diverted away from supporting minorities such as the Rohingyas because of our support for the Ukrainians, this plays into a narrative from Moscow.

Secondly, like my noble friends Lady Suttie and Lady Brinton, I welcome what the Government have done on immobilised assets in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and other Ministers know that when we have debated Russian sanctions, these Benches have offered our strong support at every opportunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said, we now have £21.6 billion of immobilised assets within the UK. Across Europe as a whole, there is €300 billion.

I asked the Minister about this yesterday and I will repeat that, from our perspective, there is an extremely strong case to look with urgency at a windfall tax on the interest and the assets that are immobilised. The European Union has now decided to do this. This will release €2.3 billion, which it will use as part of the funds to support the Ukrainian people. The UK now has measures in place through legislation that will allow us to do that. What we need is the political will and consensus for us to act quickly. Our friends in Ukraine and in its parliament are calling on us to do it. We should heed those calls and act. Not only will that mean that we will release much-needed funds for the Ukrainian people, but it will send a strong signal about the proper use of the rule of law and our intent that those with wealth will not circumvent sanctions and frozen assets to the countries that unfortunately harbour many of those people.

As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is winding, I would be grateful if he could clarify the welcome commitment for military support that the UK has provided. A year ago we debated this in the House and the Government gave their commitment to provide Challenger 2 tanks and other military equipment. Will the Minister make it clear that what we committed to last year has been deployed and is operational? There is little point in us making announcements that we will give military support if it is not operational and not deployed. In her frank new year address, the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, said:

“Ukraine lacks ammunition. Europe has not delivered what is needed. We will press for more European production. It’s urgent”.


She also highlighted the fact that, of the 1 million artillery rounds that the EU had promised Ukraine by March this year, less than a third have so far been delivered.

I will close with some recent words from the historian Timothy Garton Ash that go back to the challenge that we ultimately will face as the United Kingdom within the rules-based international order:

“Vladimir Putin is determined to defeat and destroy an independent Ukraine. Ukraine is equally determined to resist. But what are the rest of the world’s democracies resolved to achieve in this epoch-defining struggle? The answer we give in 2024 will not only shape the future of Europe. It will also tell us something important about the relative strengths of early 21st-century democracy and autocracy”.


That is correct. Ukraine’s war is our war. Indeed, it is for the very world that we believe in.