Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord with his very considered remarks, most which I agree with entirely. His points reflected the three words that I thought could sum up this debate—the need for urgency and clarity, and at scale. These are the priority areas where we would wish to see the Government continue to move. Notwithstanding, as my noble friend Lady Smith said, that we support the Government’s work on this entirely, those aspects, the next steps on how we are going to be moving at pace, will be of fundamental importance.

We are still technically debating the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As a long-standing former Minister and Chief Whip, he knows that this is a Budget Bill and that he cannot amend it in this place, but, as anybody who has seen the speakers’ list will know, he also knows how to get the last word. I commend him for that, because these Benches agree with the thrust of his argument. If there is anything that we can do to help him persuade his noble friends on the Front Bench to support our positions on seizure, he can count on our support.

The debate also had the outstanding maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. My former constituency was on the north side of the border, so I used to deal with NFU Scotland rather than the NFU. I recall that at my first meeting with NFU Scotland as a brand-new Member of the Scottish Parliament, I thought that I had listened attentively, but it was rather complicated, with lots of very difficult, technical words. I jotted them down, but at the end, I went home and had to ring up the then president of NFU Scotland, who was the noble Baroness’s counterpart. I said, “I’m really sorry. I’ve looked at my notes and can’t now remember what the animal disease or the animal medicine is, because the words are so complicated”. He said, “Jeremy, you don’t need to understand what we say; you just need to understand that you do what we say”. With the clarity of the noble Baroness’s contribution, I hope that Ministers will do what she says in this House, and she is most welcome.

The sober element of this debate was the recognition that the toll on the Ukrainian economy and country has been enormous. We often try to get a picture of what the toll is on the Russian economy; sometimes we get information showing that there is a significant toll on it from our sanctions and from external actions. The news, which I think was from just last week, that one rouble is now worth less than one US cent is one illustration that a toll is being taken, but as my noble friend indicated, there is still too much sanction circumvention and there are still too many areas where the Russian economy is gaining—whether it is the shadow fleet, which we are still seeking to pursue, or other elements of avoiding sanctions. Constant work is of fundamental importance in this area.

I have previously raised something with regard to British Overseas Territories which I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. How are we ensuring that all the actions and all the work that we are doing are consistent across all parts, including the overseas territories?

With regard to the impact on Ukraine, it is now estimated that there has been well beyond £500 billion of war damage. That is just a modest estimate by the World Bank. It is inconceivable that Russia will voluntarily pay compensation, so any thought that if it retrieves assets, they will voluntarily be used for some form of reconstruction in a ceasefire agreement is for the birds. A fundamental question therefore needs to be asked: why would we not use the entirety of the assets for the reconstruction purposes which we know Russia will deny in the future? Given that Ukraine is suffering a budget deficit of well over £10 billion and that, in context, it allocates more than £40 billion—about half of its entire budget—to the defence sector, which shows the scale of what Ukraine is having to do, timing is of fundamental importance, as well as scale.

It is welcome, of course, that there is the G7 consensus on this, but it was agreed in June last year to use the profits on immobilised assets. It was in January last year, when we were in Grand Committee on the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations, that I called on behalf of these Benches for the equivalent of what the Bill is now. The timing is of importance, but it is also not just about the cost of recovery and contributing to Ukraine now; it is also an argument about accountability.

Our friends in Canada have passed legislation. Given the other debates that we have secured, including in the other place on 6 January this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend indicated, and given the points that my honourable friends in the Commons made in Committee of the whole House on the Bill, the argument is not simply about funding Ukraine’s efforts now for its economy and the war. It is also about ensuring that there is Russian accountability. If part of the argument is that the Putin regime should be held to account for what it is doing, why would it then be able to profit and, in effect, have assets back and be able to use them?

We probably know—the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, perhaps alluded to this—that there is a distinct incentive for Putin to have some form of ceasefire: to pause, recoup and then string this on. There is therefore no long-term security, and if part of the funds are simply being immobilised so that the profits from them can be used rather than the asset value itself, then unfortunately there is an incentive for Putin not to have a long-term solution. I suspect that that is why there is a last-ditch attempt in the last days of the Biden Administration, as CNN reported yesterday, for them to move towards the seizure aspect. I hope that the Minister might have an opportunity to respond to that.

To help us understand the position—this is where clarity comes in—I hope that the Minister will be able to look kindly on what my honourable friend James MacCleary put forward as an amendment to the Bill. It was to seek government reports: an immediate report but also, for clarity, a report regarding our

“share of the principal loan amount”

and what is able to be seized, if we had the intent to do that. There are ways in which the Government could demonstrate more clarity—as the United States has done, having been asked by Congress, and as Canada has done—as to what the scale of the opportunity is.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify another question for me. How much of what has been committed so far under the G7 programme has been disbursed? My understanding is that, as reported, the US committed £20 billion as a portion to the World Bank in December but that only £1 billion has been disbursed. I wonder what the status is likely to be for when the disbursements will be in place, especially the UK contribution. If the intent of this fund is for the purchase of munitions on a very urgent military operation, it goes without saying that any delay to the disbursement is not to the advantage of our Ukrainian friends and allies.

Let me close by reiterating what my noble friend Lady Smith said at the outset. We believe that it should be the UK’s intent that we move on this, as far as seizure is concerned, and that it is unjustifiable that these assets should be utilisable by Russia in the future. Russia’s actions should not be forgiven by it being able to recoup assets which we have found justifiably should be frozen. Those assets should be seized at pace and at scale and be used for the defence of Ukraine and as part of its reconstruction. That would also show accountability for those terrible crimes that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to this Second Reading of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, and to the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, on her incredibly powerful maiden speech. She brings a wealth of experience to your Lordships’ House, particularly on agricultural and rural issues, and is widely respected for her stewardship of the National Farmers’ Union. We might not always agree, but I very much look forward to her further contributions in debates such as this.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for the unity the House has shown in supporting Ukraine. I am very grateful in particular to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Smith of Newnham, for their support for the Bill. Many noble Lords have spoken movingly about the ongoing plight of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion. It is important that we keep them in our minds today as Ukraine endures a third winter at war. The consequences of Putin’s war are profound: thousands dead and wounded, families torn apart, and enormous damage wrought to Ukraine’s infrastructure and economy that will take many years to rebuild. Despite the carnage that the Russian war machine has wreaked, including scores of innocent civilians killed and thousands of communities devastated right across the front line, the spirit of the Ukrainian people endures, and their resolve to defeat Putin’s army remains undiminished.

In case it needs saying, I profoundly disagree with the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I am heartened by the fact that there has otherwise been near uniform support across your Lordships’ House. The Government’s position remains resolute: Putin must fail, and we must stand with Ukraine for however long it takes, including by working with our G7 allies as part of this scheme. The Government will continue to stand with Ukraine as it wages this fight for freedom. That is why, to date, the Government have provided £12.8 billion in combined military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. The UK has also introduced the most wide-ranging sanctions regime ever imposed on a major economy, depriving Putin of vital finance for his war machine.

My noble friend Lord Beamish asked about circumvention of sanctions, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, also mentioned. The Government are assessing and enhancing the UK’s sanctions enforcement. This includes working with international partners to build capacity and technical expertise within our own systems and to improve sanctions compliance in their private sectors, as well as deploying increased UK sanctions resources across our overseas network. This is a fight not only for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the safety of its people but for the future of Europe’s collective security and prosperity. That is why the Prime Minister has committed to providing £3 billion annually to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Maintaining international pressure on Putin also requires working in close partnership with G7 allies. The Bill before your Lordships’ House does just that. It would unlock £2.26 billion of new funding for Ukraine, backed by profits generated from immobilised Russian assets as part of the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. The scheme demonstrates our shared commitment and solidarity in the face of Russian aggression and will provide approximately $50 billion of additional funding overall to Ukraine, taking account of the combined contributions of our G7 allies.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised Ukraine with her counterparts during her recent visit to China. In China last week the Chancellor was clear that, although we must co-operate in areas of mutual interest, we will confidently raise concerns where we disagree. She expressed her real economic and trade concerns with the Chinese, including on economic security. We have secured China’s commitment to improving existing channels so that we can openly discuss sensitive issues and our economy. If we do not engage with China, we cannot express our very real concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested that we are not meeting or matching our words with actions, a sentiment echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. The UK has already provided £12.8 billion of military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine since the war began. We are committed to providing a further £3 billion of military aid each year for as long as it takes. This is a significant investment. The new spending the Government are committing as part of the G7 scheme is in addition to these existing commitments and is proportionate to our GDP share within the G7 and the EU.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Kempsell, asked why the Government have not gone further by seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. This is also the focus of the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I fully understand that strong views exist on this issue, and I assure noble Lords that we will continue to actively consider all possible lawful avenues by which Russia can be made to meet its obligations to Ukraine under international law. I of course agree that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. However, the Government believe that any action taken should only be in tandem with the G7. It is in this spirit of collaboration that we have agreed the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme, and we continue to work closely with our G7 partners. Our focus now is on delivering this scheme rapidly to provide the immediate support that Ukraine requires.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked whether I am instinctively in favour of going further. I can only say that I am in favour of considering all legal routes. She also asked about those legal routes that we have taken. Due to Euroclear’s unique business model as an international central securities depository, it is able to generate extraordinary profits on the holdings of these assets, which legally accrue to Euroclear rather than to Russia. We do not believe the specific circumstances that provide profits generated in this way can be emulated in the UK as we do not believe that any UK-based financial institutions employ this business model. The UK is not required by the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism to provide any extraordinary profits made from assets held in the UK; we are simply providing a financial contribution to that scheme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked whether the UK’s contribution to this scheme will count towards the NATO target of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. The UK’s contribution will be provided to the Government of Ukraine as a loan from the UK Government to spend on military procurement; it is not direct UK defence spending. The £2.26 billion loan will therefore not count as NATO-qualifying UK defence spending; it will be in addition to current NATO- qualifying UK defence spending. The noble Baroness also asked when the Government will meet this target, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. The Government have made a clear commitment to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, and this commitment has not changed. We will set out the pathway to 2.5% at a future fiscal event.

I will touch briefly on the nature of the UK’s contribution to this G7 scheme. The funding we are providing will be used for budgetary support earmarked for military procurement, bolstering Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence and providing vital equipment and support to the front line. As my noble friend Lord Beamish said, this funding is additional to the £3 billion of bilateral military support which the Government have committed to providing for as long as it takes. The Bill’s sole purpose is to provide the Government with the spending authority to deliver our contribution to this scheme, or any subsequent arrangements that supplement or modify it. It is not designed to facilitate any other spending on Ukraine or spending for any other purpose. The Bill enables the Government to sign the loan agreement with Ukraine and begin disbursing funds to it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked specific questions about how disbursals from the fund will work—a point also raised by noble Lord, Lord Kempsell. The Government intend to begin disbursals early this year to ensure the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to disburse the UK’s £2.26 billion loan in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25. The G7 has agreed that all funds from this scheme will be disbursed by the end of 2027, although we plan to begin disbursals much sooner.

To further address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, this is a bilateral loan whose parties are His Majesty’s Treasury and the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. The Government have begun talks with their Ukrainian allies to agree the terms of the provision of this funding. We do not intend for there to be geographical restrictions on where funds may be spent, and are instead ensuring that the purchase of much-needed vital military equipment is prioritised. There will be opportunities for the UK defence industry to benefit where this provides good value for money for the UK and for Ukraine. The Government are aware of the corruption risk in Ukraine and we are taking steps in our loan negotiations to mitigate it. I cannot comment on these negotiations in detail as they are still ongoing.

On the UK being repaid for this loan, as my noble friend Lady Goudie said, under the terms of the scheme the UK will be repaid by the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU on a six-monthly basis as they accrue. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulation, known as the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. This came into effect on 29 October 2024.

My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton spoke about international support for Ukraine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the United States’s contribution to the scheme and the approach that will be taken by the incoming Administration. Although it would be wrong to speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration may make, the UK Government have welcomed sustained bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort.

In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Purvis of Tweed, the US has already dispersed its $20 billion contribution to our financial intermediary fund at the World Bank. The EU has already passed and implemented its legislation, which covers all the European countries listed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My point was less about the US providing $20 billion to the World Bank; my question related to how much Ukraine has actually received.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have that information to hand, but I will happily check for the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked whether the UK’s contribution to the scheme would increase if the United States or another participant chose to withdraw. I can confirm to noble Lords that this would not affect the UK’s contribution, which will remain at £2.26 billion. We are clear that that is the right and balanced approach, reflecting our fiscal pressures and Ukraine’s needs. The £2.26 billion figure is also proportionate to our GDP share within the G7 and the EU. We will of course continue to co-ordinate with G7 partners on the scheme going forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked for an update on the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club. The Government are working hard to ensure the proceeds from the sale reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money. Creating an organisation of this scale is complex and officials continue to hold discussions with relevant parties to reach a resolution. As you would expect, we must review the details of any such arrangement to maintain the integrity of our sanctions regime.

In conclusion, we must ensure that Putin has no path to military victory in Ukraine. That means continuing to provide military and economic support to enable Ukraine to defeat Putin’s war machine. The combined $50 billion of new funding, delivered together with our allies in the G7 and backed by profits from immobilised Russian assets, will provide a crucial boost to Ukraine as it continues its third winter at war. It represents an investment not only in Ukraine’s future but in the security and prosperity of Europe more widely, and it demonstrates the shared resolve of the international community in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. I welcome the fact that noble Lords from all sides of the House have been united in saying that we must stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. This Bill will allow us to honour that commitment.

Home Office: ODA-funded Support

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I acknowledge some of the points that my noble friend has made. There has been disruption to the FCDO’s ODA budget. In addition to the additional £2.5 billion that was allocated to help to manage those, the publication of the FCDO’s provisional ODA allocations for 2024-25 demonstrates our commitment to openness and transparency, and enables FCDO teams and their partners across the world to forward-plan.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister referred to the Illegal Migration Act. The Home Office assumed that it would be able to score on ODA all the costs of the that Act, but it cannot. I asked for clarification of the consequences for the taxpayer of having to fill that gap for the cost of the Act from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, on 12 July. He did not reply on that day, so I wrote to him through the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on 14 July. I confirmed with his office just this afternoon that the letter had been received but I have not received a reply. I am glad that the Leader is in his place because he speaks passionately and sincerely about this House being able to do our constitutional duty and ask questions of the Government and hold them to account. The Home Office simply does not wish to reply to letters when it does not like the questions that are in them.

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining the regulations. I realise that all they do is follow the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, to change the list of countries designated as high risk and therefore subject to enhanced due diligence requirements in relation to anti-money laundering, counterterrorism financing and counterproliferation financing. In that respect, so far so uncontroversial.

It has to be said, however, that the list is somewhat surprising—both for those on it and, in particular, those not on it. The changes made by these regulations are also somewhat surprising: they remove Morocco and Cambodia from the high-risk list. It seems rather odd that Cambodia, which is generally regarded as among the most corrupt countries in Asia, is no longer treated as high risk. I am very fond of Cambodia and have spent a lot of time in that country, but that does not change the fact that it is extremely corrupt.

According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Cambodia is ranked 150 out of 180 countries on the index. This is a slight improvement on previous years, but still considerably lower than many countries that remain on the high-risk list, such as Albania at 101, Panama at 101, the Philippines at 116, Barbados at 65, Burkina Faso at 77, Iran—which is on the blacklist—at 147, Jamaica at 69, Jordan at 61 and Mali at 137. I could go on. In fact, Cambodia has a worse corruption score than all but seven of the 27 countries that remain on the FATF high-risk list. It is not only Transparency International that ranks Cambodia badly. With perhaps more relevance to this regulation, the Basel AML Index ranks Cambodia as having globally the seventh worst money laundering and terrorism financing score. Despite that, we are reducing the level of due diligence that the regulated sector will have to apply to it. Seriously, is there anybody in this Room who believes that Cambodia should be treated better than, say, Gibraltar, Barbados or even the Philippines? I should like the Minister to look me in the eye and state that she really believes Cambodia is not a high-risk country for corruption.

This starts to beg the question about the value and legitimacy of the FATF high-risk assessment process, known as the mutual evaluation assessment. That value is called into even greater question when we look at the countries not included in the high-risk designation. I will give a high-profile example: until February of this year, Russia was a member of the FATF. In February, the FATF suspended its membership because of the war against Ukraine—somewhat belatedly, one could say. I emphasise “suspended”; Russia has not been expelled. It is evidently a paragon of virtue when it comes to money laundering and terrorism financing because, unlike the British territory of Gibraltar, Russia is not designated as high risk and therefore not subject to enhanced due diligence. It is odd, then, that we have spent so much time passing Bills in this House specifically to deal with the stolen laundered money coming from Russia. Almost unbelievably, in its last review of Russia in 2019, the FATF praised Russia’s efforts to prosecute terrorist financiers and suggested that AML/CFT is afforded the highest priority by the Russian Government. This is a country that finances and supports organisations such as the Wagner Group, while Putin’s Government is generally regarded as a kleptocracy. Other countries not on the list, and therefore not subject to enhanced due diligence, include such famously uncorrupt ones such as Somalia, Venezuela, Libya, Turkmenistan, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe, to name but a few. All score worse than Cambodia in the corruption index; all are apparently low risk, according to the FATF. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the FATF’s “robust assessment processes”; frankly, those do not stand up terribly well to scrutiny, if this list is anything to go by.

It is worth quoting the recently departed FATF CEO, David Lewis, who was very highly regarded. He said the agency structure of “mid-level bureaucrats” means that it does not have the scale to take on the big global financial crime issues. He said that they are

“very comfortable dealing with the finest minutiae of technical detail, but aren’t comfortable or able to have big picture discussions and are often only in their jobs for one of two years”.

He stated that genuine reform of the FATF is difficult to achieve, with typically two to four countries blocking consensus, meaning it is rare that you can get any meaningful change, which probably explains the list we are looking at.

Concerns are often raised about the FATF’s lack of transparency. The minutes of plenary sessions that make these risk designations are not published and it is clear that political horse-trading plays a significant role in the decision-making process. To be fair, there is no doubt that the FATF has had a positive impact on global financial crime since its inception in 1989, but there are growing doubts about its ability to cope with the challenging global situation we currently face. In an article for RUSI, Tom Keatinge of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies makes some helpful suggestions about how the FATF could be improved. He suggests, first, greater transparency: it should provide greater assurance of independence and oversight. Its activities should be overseen by an independent board and its evaluation should be independently reviewed, not subject to the evidently politicised horse-trading that occurs currently. The minutes of the plenaries should be published, or the plenaries themselves could be livestreamed. Secondly, it needs to create a dedicated technical-assistance capability to ensure that unintended negative consequences, such as financial exclusion and the use of the FATF recommendations by autocratic regimes against civil society organisations, are addressed.

Thirdly, he suggests that the FATF needs to show greater ambition. Ultimately, the question is whether it is addressing financial crime effectively. It currently evaluates how effectively its recommendations are implemented, but not the extent to which financial crime is addressed as a result. He suggests an independent review of the FATF’s effectiveness, which seems a simple and sensible suggestion 45 years after it was founded.

Fatima Alsancak, also of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, suggests that Russia is a good

“case study in the deficiencies of the … FATF mutual evaluation process, which allows countries with high levels of institutionalised corruption to complete their evaluations despite the lack of integrity in their AML systems”.

She goes on to say:

“It is essential for the watchdog to revisit its standards”,


and again highlights the need for greater transparency in the decision-making and listing process.

I was going to ask why South Africa, Nigeria, Croatia, Cameroon and Vietnam are not the list, but the Minister answered that in her opening statement. I mentioned earlier that Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, is on the high-risk list. Will she please comment on that, too?

There are important questions to answer about the value of the FATF evaluation process. We should not rely passively on what are, frankly, flawed recommendations. Do the Government agree that FATF’s procedures and the high-risk list itself appear to have important deficiencies and, if so, what are they doing about it? Do they agree with the recommendations that I referred to earlier?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who made a probing and persuasive argument about the deficiencies in some of the process. I have two questions for the Minister.

In a debate on a previous instrument, in which I spoke, the Government made the case that, with the new freedom as a result of Brexit, they would immediately make the decision to remove British sovereignty by having an automatic updated list of the Financial Action Task Force. I thought that rather inconsistent with the argument that we had left the European Union to gain freedom: the very first act was to give that freedom away.

The noble Lord highlighted the inconsistencies, and I will add another. The Minister has heard me talk about the Wagner Group and its lack of proscription, and the fact that it operates almost with impunity in many countries. One of the countries in which it has been operating, which is not on the list, is Sudan. It is beyond me that the UK, having done excellent work through our diplomats, development and security operations in that conflict-afflicted country, would not want the ability to act immediately in putting Sudan on the list, whose two warring parties, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, are operating across organised crime, including conflict. Why would that not be a high-risk third country? If the Minister is saying that we have made the decision simply to adopt an external organisation for making determinations of what would be high-risk third countries, what was the point of seeking the sovereignty to make decisions ourselves?

My second question relates to the United Arab Emirates, which maintains its position on the list. I have asked for the text of the UK-UAE investment agreement, but it has not been forthcoming. Why not? If there is an investment agreement that binds the UK into certain preferential market treatment for financial vehicles within the UAE, and the UAE is on a UK list of high-risk third countries, we should, as a matter of good governance, be able to see the text of the UK-UAE investment agreement and to consider what elements in it ensure that we comply with all the elements that would be required of our financial relationship with the UAE. This is even more important given that, in Grand Committee debates on the sanctions regime for Russia, we have raised the joint ventures that operate between the UAE, Russia, the Wagner Group and countries such as Sudan. I hope the Minister will be able to respond by saying that new regulations will be brought forward at pace to ensure that these loopholes are now closed.

--- Later in debate ---

More broadly, noble Lords asked why the UK aligns with the FATF when, under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, we can create our own list of high-risk third countries. There are benefits to aligning with the international standard-setting body: the FATF has a detailed and extensive set of standards, which countries are monitored against, and it uses a peer-review mechanism to conduct that monitoring. In aligning with the FATF, the UK is in line with international standards and the identification of countries is underpinned by a consistent and technical methodology. As a result, enhanced measures are implemented in a co-ordinated manner by the international community, which can magnify the preventive effect. But it remains open to the UK to review our list and amend it accordingly if our assessment of the risks deems that to be necessary. To date, that has not been the case.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I look forward to the Minister writing to me, because I was a little alarmed to hear her say—if I heard her correctly—that the UK would work with Sudan on this. There is no one to work with in Sudan at the moment and, if a case cannot be made for the UK not to act on Sudan, which has a civil war, with two warring partners and with considerable financial interests on each side—SAF and RSF—then I cannot see a case that would be stronger.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will write on Sudan to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as I committed to do, and I will copy in the Members in this debate.

The UAE is making swift progress on its FATF action plan. It has several actions still to complete, focused on money laundering investigations, transparency of beneficial ownership and the investigation of money laundering cases. We hope to see further progress on those areas, as it looks to deliver on its action plan.

I have not managed to cover in detail all the points raised by noble Lords. They have gone slightly wider than the countries in question on the listing today, but I understand noble Lords’ interest in the process that we use to update these lists, adhering to international standards. I will read Hansard and ensure that I write to noble Lords if I have not addressed any questions.

Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I shall be quick, my Lords, because we have been at this for some time.

I was just saying that the Post Office has been continuing to prosecute innocent people. Suddenly, it has found 4,767 new documents, which will of course have to go into the inquiry, delaying it further. I suggest that it is not co-operating at all fully with the inquiry. Nevertheless, its chief executive got a bonus of £455,000 last year, so he must be all right. Fifty executives also got bonuses relating to the inquiry. I ask the Minister this, very gently: can the Government finally get a grip of this organisation? Most importantly, will they read the start of Wyn Williams’s report, which was published yesterday and says that the compensation schemes are running late? It also states:

“Under the legislation now in force all payments of compensation … must be made by 7 August 2024. My current view is that this will not be achieved”.


That is a terrible reflection on Ministers over the years—it is not just the present lot but many other people—but I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort that, once and for all, the Government will get a grip of this horrible project.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it will spare the blushes of the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Weir, for them not yet to be in their places to hear me say that I agree with everything that they said. The debate that we have had, while more respectful and with more decorum than the extraordinary scenes in the committee of the House of Commons on Monday, does not undermine the seriousness of the measures that we are being asked to approve. “Yes Minister” could probably have had an episode on how to bring forward regulations with considerable impact and long-term consequences, but with an innocuous title, by taking powers very early, before they are necessary, without consulting those who have to implement them and without giving any data on their likely impact and, as a security measure, removing members of a committee which is asked to approve the regulations because you know that they will be significantly concerned about them.

I hope that this is not a trend. As the Minister said, this is not about implementing the Windsor Framework, but I hope that it does not start a precedent for how the Windsor Framework will be implemented. We were told, notwithstanding noble Lords’ concerns in a debate that we had on the Windsor Framework and the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on the wider issue with the framework, that it was starting a new chapter. I hoped that that new chapter would be about transparency, openness, consultation, trying to build consensus, notwithstanding how difficult it would be, and bringing people with the Government on implementation, but this is in stark contrast to the way forward.

Stephen Farry MP intervened on the Minister on Monday calling for support for the business community in GB trading with Northern Ireland. I reiterate that call. It is necessary to carry on the support that is being provided to businesses to overcome some of the difficulties in the Government’s initial protocol so that they can overcome the difficulties that they will face with the implementation of the Windsor Framework. The Road Haulage Association said very clearly that this measure will bring new burdens on business and add to bureaucracy. That is not unfettering. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, was absolutely correct: this is fettering internal UK trade.

The Minister in the House of Commons said that this SI was the result of “a hard compromise”. That language was not used by the Minister here. It is, to some extent, more honest to say that it results from a hard compromise but when the Government have made that compromise, they then have to own it and act honestly and openly.

Let me give one example of where there is still confusion. I commend the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. I hope the Minister will have clear responses to its strong recommendations and concerns. They were not made lightly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, indicated, but followed proper consideration from a balanced perspective. That should be taken into consideration.

The Government used the example of a granny in GB sending a birthday parcel to her granddaughter in Northern Ireland. That would not be affected by this SI, but if the granny used online purchasing from a company that then used another company to dispatch the parcel to the granddaughter, it would be covered by the SI. We do not live in the 19th century as far as how people send parcels. The Government need to be clear about the estimated number of parcels that are likely to fall under each of the lanes, the percentage that will now be opened for checks and the likely impact on the businesses that would be dispatching and receiving them. The Minister in the House of Commons said that the Government could provide only estimates at this stage, and there is no impact assessment, as there should have been.

On a previous occasion in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the issue of measures. The Minister said that this is not about implementing the framework agreement but, conveniently, it is about implementing it in order to get out of having an impact assessment. The Government have said that an impact assessment is not needed because, as the Minister said, this is so limited in scope. When it affects all parcels being sent from GB to NI, it is not limited in scope; and when the definition of those will now have to be inserted after “foreign postal packets”, that is not limited in scope either. When will the Government provide the detailed information about the impact of all that is likely to be covered by these regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Windsor Framework is a bilateral agreement. To the noble Lord’s point, there are detailed governance arrangements around the Windsor Framework. Either side can raise issues through those mechanisms. It is not the case that the EU could just impose new requirements without consultation. Of course, the Stormont brake will be available to the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it is sitting.

With regards to the lack of an impact assessment, that point takes me back to what this statutory instrument itself does. It does not impose any requirements on businesses; it is solely about the powers for HMRC and Border Force. The Government are dealing with the resources available to those agencies in the normal way. I cannot remember who asked about this—it was the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I think—but we will of course ensure that resources are available, in particular to HMRC, to ensure that these agencies can engage with businesses in order to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I understand the Minister’s point with regards to the powers for HMRC under these regulations, but it assumes that HMRC will not then use those powers to ask businesses to carry out certain procedures. If that is the case, there will be an impact on businesses. Secondly, my reading of Regulation 3 is that, for the first time, a postal packet going from GB to Northern Ireland will now be categorised alongside a foreign postal packet. That is what the regulation says.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Again, that takes me back to what these regulations do versus the wider process around how parcels will move under the Windsor Framework. These powers do not and cannot do anything to impose anything on businesses.

I come to a few of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about understanding and beginning to quantify how the new process will work. It is not possible to give precise numbers on volumes of parcels and how they will fall into the different lanes, because volumes are not consistent year on year. However, based on estimates and commercial information provided by the parcel industry, we understand that about 5% of parcels are sent from business to business, with 90% moving from businesses to consumers and 5% from individuals to individuals. Based on those figures, for 95% of movements no difference will be felt in how customs operate now, under the easement that we have to the protocol. Compared to the protocol itself, they will face significantly fewer burdens.

There will be no routine checks or controls applied to consignments, with interventions made only on a risk-based, intelligence-led approach. This is decided by HMRC and Border Force. We expect a very small proportion of parcels to be checked or opened, only when there is reason to suspect circumvention of the rules.

The 5% of business-to-business goods will be treated the same, as if they were moving in freight. They can access the UK internal market scheme and the green lane, and they will benefit from radically reduced checks and data requirements compared to those under the protocol. Businesses can apply to HMRC to become a trusted trader and access the green lane. It is a simple process. Tens of thousands of traders are already in the scheme, and the Windsor Framework extends eligibility to it further. New arrangements under the framework are being phased in over nearly two and a half years. We will continue to use that time to undertake extensive engagement with stakeholders, including businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, trader support services and parcel operators, to provide support and ensure that everyone is ready.

Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, to try to take the noble Lord’s questions on directly, the Government condemn the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPPs. The Prigozhin case can be characterised as a SLAPP, which is an abuse of the UK legal system. We are committed to introducing targeted anti-SLAPP legislation to stop Russian oligarchs corrupting our legal system. The reforms will include a statutory definition of SLAPPs, an early dismissal mechanism and costs protection for SLAPPs cases.

When it comes to the sanctions and licensing regimes, where there are derogations set out in the sanctions regime and the conditions of those derogations have been met, licences may be authorised. There is a specific derogation for legal expenses which is judged on the cost of those expenses, not the merits of any legal case. None the less, I agree with the point that the noble Lord has made: we need to take action in these cases, and the Government are committed to doing so.

On other licences for legal fees, this is a derogation that applies across the sanctions regime so there will be multiple licences issued. There is a general licence available for legal fees and that decision is, on the whole, taken by officials rather than Ministers.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have seen Wagner operatives with my own eyes in Sudan. I was the first in Parliament to call for that group’s proscription. I did so to Ministers in this Chamber on 25 April; I did so again on 23 May, 9 June, 7 July, 15 November and, most recently, 21 December. It is an outrage that a licence from the Treasury has allowed this group to launder money through the English legal system on palpably malicious legal activities. As the Minister has just said, it is an abuse of the system. Why are the Government procrastinating on national security grounds? This group is a threat to our security and our safety, to British nationals abroad and to our allies. Why is this group not being proscribed?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, it is worth clarifying a number of points. In this case, we are talking about a designated person and the derogations under the sanctions regime allow for legal fees. That is clearly provided for within the sanctions regime. I understand that the Wagner Group is subject to sanctions under the Russia sanctions. On the question of proscription, I will have to write to the noble Lord.

Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Lords Chamber

With respect to the inequality debate, as I have also said previously in this Chamber, there are notable differences within certain quartiles and quintiles, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, touched on. But, again, this should be seen in the context that—contrary to a lot of misconceptions—according to the general in-aggregate measured evidence, a narrowing of inequalities is taking place both pre-tax and after tax. That is the case unless one looks at wealth where, because of the consequences of significant house prices, there are, unfortunately, signs of inequalities changing for the worse. It is important that sufficient thought is given to policies which do more to boost the supply of new housing, and then that inequality would not arise at some point in the future. While the technical specifics of this measure may pass a lot of people by, it is important to consider that it will not result in any cash loser and is being introduced as we migrate to a universal credit system, which, in itself, will allow for monthly analysis, response and change. Therefore, it is a relatively straightforward matter.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I have listened to the whole debate. I hope the Minister will clarify the matter further as he referred to other areas where the £935 million reduction in expenditure could be implemented—the city deals and employability and housing. However, I was under the impression that this measure aimed to achieve deficit reduction savings. Page 3 of the Red Book states that this is part of deficit reduction savings. So will he be clear: is this for hypothecated other expenditure or is it for deficit reduction?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this House, in this Parliament, in a unique country in the world, has dedicated its time today to celebrate and to debate the very meaning of our kingdom and our place in the world. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that it is worth noting that almost a quarter of our parliamentary party has chosen to speak in this debate. For me it is a cause for pride that four of our parliamentary party are Ministers on the Front Bench.

The four days of debate on the humble Address draw to a close, and over those days many noble Lords have remarked on Bills that were not in the gracious Speech. Many from the Opposition Benches have looked forward to next year, when they hope to be drafting their own Speech, with the Bills they would hope to see in it. However, I am pleased that there is one omission this year. I am glad that this parliamentary Session will not have, at its start, an independence for Scotland Bill. I fervently hope that one will not be necessary towards the end of this Session. I also hope most fervently that the next gracious Speech shall include measures to provide for powers to be transferred from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, permanently.

There are two routes open to us in the Westminster Parliament: to have to respond to a vote for independence that will mean the end of the United Kingdom or to proactively lead on reforming, modernising and improving this kingdom and how it is governed for the people. This House is perhaps not the best model of reform, but in our deliberations in the coming weeks we have an immense responsibility on all our shoulders. We must seize the opportunity that is presented by the desire for reform that is so evident in the nations, and which we have heard in today’s debate. I am talking about reform not as a response to nationalism but rather as an idea in and of itself—an idea for more decentralised, balanced and accountable governance across the nations. It is also an idea founded in the sovereignty of people. Sovereignty seems to be used too frequently in the debate in Scotland by nationalists in the argument for independence, but sovereignty is also for those of us who believe that we can pool authority and share power but retain independence and identity.

Some in this debate have regretted constitutional affairs and devolved issues being debated with foreign and Commonwealth affairs or development and culture, but in many respects they are all interlinked in the choices that people will be making in Scotland in September. How we see ourselves and how others see us around the world is a central issue in our debate, not only within Scotland but, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown said today, for our country and the United Kingdom as a whole. On Friday I will be marching in the Selkirk Common Riding. More than 300 riders will commemorate the town’s sole survivor from the battle of Flodden, 501 years ago. It will be a tangible reminder for us of how governance in these islands can be bloody and can allow there to be victims of political disagreement. I will march as a member of the Selkirk Merchant Company, which was established in 1694 and has marched every year since then—at one point, to raise funds for the Darien scheme that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, referred to. That is my identity; it is in my heart. We value our past and cherish our identities, but we must lead the future.

Those of us who do not support independence and the political parties operating within Scotland are finding common ground on the principles for further reform in the event of a no vote, and that is immensely positive. There should also be a commitment to deliver legislation in the Queen’s Speech of the new Administration, whichever party forms the new Government. I am particularly pleased that my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael has announced that in the event of a no vote in the referendum he will convene within 30 days a conference on the new Scotland, to bring together those who have put forward proposals for the future of Scotland that can inform legislation in the new Parliament after the 2015 general election. I wonder if it would be a good idea if that new Administration of the UK Government also convened a conference of the new union so that we could discuss and debate all the nations’ relationships across these islands, but particularly reform of this Westminster institution.

We do not need to rest on our laurels in the debates within Scotland, nor do we need to sacrifice debates of the head for debates of the heart, but we as legislators need to take this opportunity and lead for the future. Those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches will be seizing that opportunity with relish.