Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

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

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise to offer unambiguous support for this Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for his characteristically clear introduction to this debate. I, like others, am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and to commend him for the same reasons my noble friend the Minister did: his consistency and his contribution in this area, with particular reference to the issue that informs his regret amendment—which I regret I cannot support. I will come back to that in a few minutes.

This is a short Bill, but one freighted with enormous consequences, as we have heard from the contributions thus far, which were characteristically cogent for your Lordships’ House. It gives effect to our commitment to devote £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme, the ERA. This is separate from the £3 billion of military aid that we will also provide this year. I applaud Ministers for their decision to hypothecate these funds and to ensure that they are directed squarely to military procurement.

It is worth being clear-sighted about the purpose of this disbursement. It is to enable Ukraine to stand against unprovoked aggression and to ensure that the new era of great-power competition that is already upon us does not see the normalisation of such aggressive expansionism—a course taken by powers who see their own strength as justification enough for such actions. It is clear that the incoming US Administration cannot necessarily be relied upon either to shoulder its share of the burden in the provision of military support for Ukraine, or indeed to enforce international norms around the appropriate behaviour of great powers or aspirants to that status.

Last week, the President-elect offered a justification for his threat to annex Greenland either by force or via economic pressure. In a somewhat circular piece of logic, he asserted that such a course of action is justified by the fact that the US “needs” Greenland for its economic security. Although Putin’s speech that launched the invasion of Ukraine was more rococo in style, the central message was remarkably similar: that Russia had the moral right to invade to protect its own security interests. In making this comparison, I emphatically do not suggest a scintilla of moral equivalence between the two men or the countries they represent. But taken together, the US, Russia and China will help shape the new norms of this era of great-power competition. As we debate this Bill, we have to ask ourselves what lessons President Xi, for instance, will draw from recent history as he contemplates what he considers to be the daily annoyance of a free and independent Taiwan.

Being mindful of these precedents is one of two reasons why I believe this Bill and our wider aid for Ukraine is important. The other is the state of public opinion in western Europe. In democratic politics, public opinion today is in general a pretty accurate guide to the attitude of leaders tomorrow. That being the case, polling conducted by YouGov in December makes sobering reading. It reveals that in seven key European countries, including our own, support for continuing assistance for Ukraine has fallen markedly. Equally, support for ceasing support and reconciling ourselves to a compelled peace, even on terms markedly unfavourable to Ukraine, has increased.

To some extent, this is a consequence of the more ambivalent US attitude Europeans expect from the new Administration when they take office. The figures are striking, none the less. In Germany, Spain, France and Italy, support for continuing assistance to Ukraine is now lower than for concluding a peace favourable to Russia. Even in Britain, there is only 4% between the two options.

Concerning though these figures are, the purpose of government is not to act as a weathervane reflecting public opinion but to lead it. I applaud the efforts of Ministers in the previous Administration—not least the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who I regret is not in his place to hear this—in the support they afforded Ukraine. I also have complete confidence in the Ministers on our Front Bench and in the other place; I am sure they will prove equally adamantine in their resolve.

What Ukraine needs is constancy, and the mechanism to which this Bill gives effect provides that. An ebbing of our support and that of our allies would lead to a collapse of the rules-based international order, a spiralling refugee crisis and the subjugation of a free and sovereign people. It would be not only morally wrong but run counter to our own interests and those of any country which values stability and collective security.

In 1941, President Roosevelt gave one of his celebrated fireside chats in which he described the US as an “arsenal of democracy”. It contained some words which apply to our situation, as they did to his:

“We have furnished … great material support and we will furnish far more in the future. There will be no ‘bottlenecks’ in our determination … No dictator … will weaken that determination by threats of how they will construe that determination”.


It is in that spirit that I offer this Bill my unambiguous support.

There is more to do in exploring the use of frozen Russian assets, but that lies outside the scope of this legislation. I am sure that those who support that ambition and who are yet to speak, or who will speak on other occasions, are aware that there was a Back-Bench debate on this issue in the other place, led by the Liberal Democrat Mike Martin, on 6 January. I draw noble Lords’ attention—I am not stepping in for the Minister; he is perfectly capable of doing this himself— to column 671 of that debate. Stephen Doughty, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, responded to the debate. I will read the following passage in full to your Lordships:

“The fundamental questions about what more we can do to use Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine were at the heart of the debate. The Government and our G7 partners have repeatedly affirmed our position. Russia’s obligations under international law are clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The ERA loan and our contribution will ensure that Ukraine can receive the financial support that it needs now—it was right to focus on getting that out the door, because we urgently need to support Ukraine now—with the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets providing that. I reassure colleagues throughout the House who have rightly asked a lot of searching and challenging questions that we are committed to considering all possible lawful avenues by which Russia can be made to meet its obligation to pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine. We continue to work with allies to that end”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/25; col. 671.]


Thereafter, the contributions, few that they were in that debate, were supportive of that position, as I am.

It is in the spirit of President Roosevelt that I offer the Bill my unambiguous support. I am proud that we have devoted to Ukraine more assistance than any other single country save the US and Germany, and trust that we will continue our support, conscious that Ukraine is not defending merely itself but the UK and all its European allies and friends.