Repurposing Russian Assets to Rebuild Ukraine

Debate between David Lammy and Iain Duncan Smith

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

This is a debate about repurposing. The hon. Gentleman might remember that after the first Gulf war, oil revenues were used to rebuild much of Kuwait. That is the central point that this debate is about. There is a consensus globally on the issue, with the Canadians, the United Nations and US Senators making progress in this regard. The debate is about repurposing. We have to be very careful to get the balance right. It is clear that we cannot leave Ukraine to do this on its own, so the question is: do we have the will to make this happen?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for selecting this subject for debate. I cannot be here to make a full contribution, but I just want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question. During a recent debate in this place, we pretty much came to a consensus that the first stage is to look to repurpose the frozen assets: $300 billion-plus of national assets and maybe $50 billion of individual assets. They are sitting in our hands. They are not the same as reparations; they are funds that are in very clear existence. A lot of international lawyers think it can be done. I just wondered what the right hon. Gentleman thought.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. He is right about the football team we both support—it is not the only thing he is right about, but he is right about that—and he is right that more than $300 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen by our global partners, with £25 billion here in the UK. The central point is that those assets are frozen, so the question is, what are we going to do now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

That is, of course, central to the work my hon. Friend has been doing in his Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill. I think the House could come together to amend the State Immunity Act. I do not want to comment on the Foreign Secretary, except to say that, in my experience, if he has had an overnight flight, he can be a little prickly, but we will not hold it against him.

Since the beginning of the invasion, more than £25 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen in the United Kingdom, and more than $350 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen by our global allies, and those vital assets could be used to help fund Ukraine’s recovery. Since February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and I have been pushing the Government on this issue relentlessly, and I pay tribute to the great work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), who tabled his ten-minute rule Bill specifically to speed up the Government’s efforts in this area.

Each time, the Government’s response to Members of this House has been that the Government support repurposing Russian state assets but that it is complex. We fully accept that, but we do not accept—and I do not think, given its mood, that the House accepts—that this issue is insurmountably complex or that we should not try to meet this challenge.

We accept the concern that, on the whole, it is not good for any Government to seize another state’s assets and that the right to property is fundamental to the rule of law, but there are exceptions to that rule. For example, the law reserves the right to fine people and deprive them of ill-gotten gains. In the same vein, we recognise concerns that repurposing Russia’s central bank reserves could violate Russia’s sovereign immunity but, again, there are exceptions to that rule. We believe that Russia’s continued refusal to comply with international human rights law or to follow the orders of the International Court of Justice are good grounds for such an exception.

Simply put, we believe that Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents a wholly exceptional act, from which exceptional countermeasures can flow, and we are not alone in that belief. As the Minister will know, the Canadians have had legislation in place since December last year to repurpose frozen Russian assets, and it is a similar common law jurisdiction to ours. The European Union is working at pace to ensure that Russian central bank reserves can be repurposed by the summer. Last month, United States politicians laid a Bill that would allow for state assets to be repurposed. Finally, we must remember that the UN General Assembly has voted on this very issue, adopting a resolution that calls for Russia to pay war reparations to Ukraine and for states to transfer Russian state assets into a central bank account to be repurposed. This begs the question: why, then, are the Government lagging behind our international allies in this area? We believe we must rise to this challenge, and we must rise to it now.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again.

Sovereign immunity applies in international law to foreign judicial processes. It is clear in international law that sovereign immunity does not apply to administrative or legislative processes, such as Bills. It is quite possible for us to pursue this by tabling legislation, as America has, to secure that process in the courts. Sovereign immunity applies only to judicial processes, so it would be wholly feasible in legislative terms.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Very few countries now consider sovereign immunity to be an absolute immunity, and there have been many exceptions. Meeting damages, particularly those awarded by international courts and tribunals, is one such example. The State Immunity Act also expressly restricts sovereign immunity.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Russia’s continued refusal to abide by international law provides us with exceptions, and we should now table legislation to make it clear that there are exceptions.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between David Lammy and Iain Duncan Smith

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. and learned Lady knows that there is not a serious Queen’s Counsel in the country who would support the use of the doctrine of necessity in the way in which the Government have sought to use it, and I think that Conservative Members do as well.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that the Government should have used article 16. He said, “They have not yet used article 16”, indicating that they should use it before going down this road. It was, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who I think is the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, who said that triggering article 16 would “prolong and deepen” uncertainty in Northern Ireland and pose another huge risk to stability there. Does this now mean that the Government should have triggered article 16, or that they should not—or maybe that there is a disagreement, or maybe that it will not be decided until after the passage of the Bill?

[Mr Lammy]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal.

“Pacta sunt servanda”. Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it.

Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between David Lammy and Iain Duncan Smith

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is misreading what we did in office. The point is that today, he has an opportunity to vote for a minimum sentence. The question is: is he going to take it?

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) helpfully indicated that 68% of those found guilty of rape are sentenced to more than seven years in prison, which means that about a third of rapists receive only four to seven years. How can that be right? My question to the Lord Chancellor is a simple one: does he believe that a rapist should ever conceivably receive a sentence of only four years in prison? The Government explained that one of their reasons for rejecting our amendment was because they did not agree with statutory minimum sentences, yet clause 100 of this Bill creates a statutory minimum sentence for repeat offenders of certain crimes, including drug offences and burglaries. Why does the Lord Chancellor feel that those crimes are serious enough to warrant a minimum sentence, but rape is not? A recent poll showed that almost 80% of the public would support our proposal, with only 7% opposed. I call on the Lord Chancellor to show that he believes the same.

The Government’s rape review specifically recognises that one of the reasons that almost half of victims of rape withdraw is the fear of giving evidence in court. We know that the pre-recording of evidence is hugely important in limiting the distress of already traumatised victims, and that rolling out section 28 would allow more rape victims to see justice done quicker. Why, then, are the Government re-piloting something that has already been piloted twice? The lack of ambition is staggering. This is typical, frankly, of a Department that is obsessed with endless reviews and utterly averse to radical action. The Government have already failed far too many victims of these horrific crimes; hopefully that will change tonight.

Following the tragic death of Sarah Everard, the Opposition tabled an amendment that would extend whole-life orders to someone guilty of a murder, abduction and sexual assault of a stranger. A whole-life order is a commitment that the offender will never be released from prison again. The Opposition believe that, for this crime, a whole-life order is the only appropriate sentence. Amendment 50 would mean that anyone found guilty of the murder, abduction and sexual assault of another person—crimes that are so reprehensible—would spend the rest of their lives in prison. I do not feel that that is a difficult point and I hope the Secretary of State will agree.

The Victims’ Commissioner and Domestic Abuse Commissioner have called out the culture of misogyny throughout the criminal justice system that is clearly demonstrated in the response to domestic homicides. A quick scan through recent data powerfully illustrates that point: according to a report by the Femicide Census, 62% of women killed by men were killed by a current or former partner, and 70% of all murders of a woman by a man took place either in a shared home or in the victim’s home.

Yet we know that there is a serious anomaly in the sentencing of homicide cases that results in murderers who kill in the home being treated far more leniently than those who kill outside the home. As Carol Gould put it so poignantly,

“Why should a life taken in the home by someone you know be valued less than a life taken by a stranger in the streets?”

It is clear to the Opposition that it should not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 86, which would require the Lord Chancellor to commission an independent review into that aspect of sentencing. In this country, a woman is killed by a man on average every three days. From 2017 to 2019, there were 357 domestic homicides. The perpetrators of those despicable crimes cannot expect to benefit from this sentencing anomaly any longer.

As the law currently stands, complainants of serious sexual offences are granted lifelong anonymity. Although in some cases, identifying a complainant could result in an offender being prosecuted for contempt of court, they will, more often than not, receive only a fine. During questions on this last month, I raised the case of Phillip Leece to show just how devastating revealing the identity of the complainant can be. For naming and humiliating his victim online, he received a pathetic fine of only £120. At the time, the Lord Chancellor seemed to agree with me that the law in this area must be strengthened. New clause 87 would do just that by giving judges the power to sentence offenders for up to two years. In Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government took that point seriously, but went on to vote against the Opposition’s new clause. The Government accept that work has to be done in this area, so let us see tonight what the action is.

May I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for raising the important issue of the use of sexual history in rape trials? The Opposition wholeheartedly agree that no victim of a sexual offence should have to feel victimised twice by experiencing a hugely traumatic experience in the courtroom. The last thing we want is for an alleged victim of rape to face the ordeal of their sexual history being discussed in court unless the strictest of criteria are met. If section 41 is not being used as intended, it is only right that it is reviewed and, if necessary, strengthened. That is the purpose of new clause 88, which would compel the Government to seek the advice of the Law Commission as to whether section 41 is fit for purpose. Yet again, this is too important an issue to be kicked into the long grass, and I would appreciate assurances that any review will be completed before a victims Bill comes before the House.

Amendment 124 would ensure that any expansion in the use of audio and video links in courts will not undermine access to justice or the efficiency of our justice system. As the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, the move towards jury members being able to sit remotely is a seismic shift that could have profound consequences. It is concerning therefore that the Government seem content to introduce clause 168 without any evidence base or consultation. In Committee, the Opposition tabled several amendments that would provide safeguards to clause 168, but the Government rejected them on the basis that they were unnecessary. The hypothetical benefits of remote juries are limited, but it is crucial that those limited benefits are not introduced at the expense of access to justice and the right to a fair trial. Amendment 124 would ensure that the expansion of audio and video links is not implemented until an independent review has been undertaken.

Pets are a much loved and integral part of all families, and certainly of our family—I am thinking of my dog, Silver, as I say that. They bring us support, comfort and happiness, and I am smiling already thinking of my beautiful dog at home. During the pandemic, the number of dog thefts has skyrocketed, and we are now at a point where at least five dogs are stolen in England every day. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 98. Pet owners up and down the country would be horrified to learn that while the law of theft caters for certain offences—for example, the theft of a bicycle, of scrap metal and of wild mushrooms—that is not the case for the theft of pets, and this must change.

I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has tabled new clause 16, which is in effect a carbon copy of the new clause that we tabled in Committee. I am pleased to have the support of a Spurs supporter and a long-standing Member of the House, but I think we could do better. Since Committee, concerns have been raised about the two-year maximum tariff and we have listened to those concerns. As the Lord Chancellor will know, many of these thefts are being conducted not by petty criminals but by highly organised criminal gangs working across borders, and we are concerned that a two-year maximum penalty would not act as a sufficient deterrent to those people, so we have raised it to four years in our new clause 48. I hope that the Lord Chancellor can hear that the official Opposition are attempting to be reasonable, and that he will support some of the new clauses that we have put forward tonight.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), particularly as he referred to my new clauses—although not all of them, it has to be said. He referred to one of them, but there are two more. The new clauses are very clear, and I shall speak to them this evening. New clause 14 would require the cash sale of pets to be banned so that the only way for people to do those sales would be by cheque or bank transfer. That would mean that pet sellers could be tracked and the owners identified. This has become too easy a business.

New clause 15 would make it compulsory for pets that have to be microchipped to be scanned as well by vets, to check that the microchip number is registered on an approved database and that it confirms the correct registered keeper. New clause 16 would make the offence of pet theft a specific category of crime, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham said, carrying a much more significant set of fines and even incarceration.