MPs push for Russian asset seizures as Government targets tech and diamond trade
Several MPs have suggested the Government should move beyond sanctions and seize Russian assets, as they approved new measures targeting the tech and diamond trades.
Introducing the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which MPs later agreed, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty described sanctions as 'a powerful tool in our armoury'.
He told the Commons: 'We're working at pace with international partners to look at all lawful means to ensure that Russia pays for the horrific damage and destruction that it has done in Ukraine.'
But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokeswoman Lisa Smart suggested the Government 'should consider moving on a unilateral basis' if ministers fail to strike an agreement with their counterparts overseas.
The approved regulations introduce targeted software sanctions so individuals and companies must not transfer computer programmes to people in Russia.
The restrictions apply to business and industrial design software, and oil and gas-related programmes and technology.
They also ban UK importers from bringing in synthetic diamonds manufactured in Russia then altered or processed in a 'third country' – outside Russia, the UK and the Isle of Man.
Mr Doughty said the Government was 'leading the way in targeting Russia's revenues, bearing down on its military-industrial complex and deterring and disrupting Iran's support to Russia'.
He added: 'This instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia's revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin from building its military and industrial capabilities, and it introduces a package of over 150 new trade sanctions.
'This includes new innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia's defence and energy sectors.'
Intervening, DUP MP for Strangford Jim Shannon asked whether the Government could pursue frozen Russian assets with 'a vengeance' and 'a zest – an evangelical zest'.
He added: 'If we squeeze them on the frozen Russian assets, then we can use that for the benefit of Ukraine and indeed strengthen everyone on the side who supports Ukraine.'
Liberal Democrat Europe spokesman James MacCleary later said the UK 'should begin the seizure, not just the freezing, of Russian state assets'.
He replied 'absolutely' after Ms Smart asked him whether he agreed that if multilateral agreement 'can't be found, we should consider moving on a unilateral basis in a leadership role for the United Kingdom'.
At the despatch box, Conservative shadow Foreign Office minister Wendy Morton told MPs: 'On these benches, we support the draft order and all measures that bear down on (Vladimir) Putin's regime and undermine his ability to prosecute the barbaric, illegal invasion of Ukraine.
'We support the further measures on technology transfers and software, on diamonds and chemicals, and the other measures to tighten both the import and export regime, and of course all of these are built on the critical mass of sanctions introduced by the Conservative government.'
Referring to £2.5 billion generated from the sale of Chelsea FC in 2022, which was frozen as a result of sanctions on its former owner Roman Abramovich, Ms Morton asked the minister: 'When is his internal deadline for getting the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club out the door, and how exactly does he envisage the money being spent?'
Mr Doughty said in his response: 'We are determined to see the proceeds reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we're doing everything we can to bring that about quickly.'
He described a 'complex legal issue' but added the Government was 'exploring all options to ensure the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Musk feud presents 'unprecedented' dynamic compared to past Trump disputes: expert
The ongoing feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, his one-time "special government employee," has brought an "unprecedented" dynamic compared to other famous disputes, long-time Democratic political strategist and Fox News contributor Jacques DeGraff said. After somewhat muted rumblings from Musk about why he opposed a Trump-endorsed Republican spending package, the DOGE leader launched complaints after Trump began firing back this week, including threats aimed at Musk's business revenue. "It's unprecedented, but the reality is that what makes it a singular moment in history is that no single figure has ever been able to say, 'I made a president and then (fell) out with that individual," DeGraff told Fox News Digital Friday. "There have been groups, there have been individuals who wanted to pretend that they did, but the record is clear. And, I mean, this man (Elon) brought his son into the Oval Office. He wore a hat and didn't wear a suit to the Oval Office. He clearly had carte blanche. … The president, in effect, did a Tesla ad in the Rose Garden … and now they've fallen out in life." DeGraffe, who has been a political advocate and strategist for years, quipped that, ordinarily, "we would have to go to family court," adding "what's the court here?" Trump is no stranger to quarrels with his staff. During his first term, his relationship soured with his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and his press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci, after they diverged on different issues and publicly criticized Trump. But, for DeGraffe at least, this quarrel has "distinguished itself from anything in the past." One major difference he pointed to is the implications for both parties in this spat. "Tesla stock has dropped $150 billion, Trump stock has dropped but it also occurs at the same time as this legislation and so that is going to have – no matter how it turns out – it's going to have massive political and public policy implications for the country," DeGraffe said. "So this is no small dispute." DeGraffe also contended that this is "the first time" there has been a major deviation from Trump "from the MAGA side of the aisle." He suggested the split could be bad news for Trump and others who hope to see the GOP's budget package pass the finish line in its current form. "This major split will allow other players to take positions other than the party line, and it gives them room and comfort and cover in order to do so," DeGraffe suggested. "Will senators who follow Musk, or, better yet, disagree with Musk, face intensely funded primaries? "That's a consideration that everyone involved will have to take. … As a lifelong Democrat, I'm sitting with my bowl of popcorn saying, 'Go at it.' Because anything that slows this horrific legislation has got to be good news to the rest of the country." However, while DeGraffe sees the Trump-Musk feud as having wide-ranging and lasting implications, GOP political strategist Dallas Woodhouse says he thinks the feud is unimportant to most Republicans. "I am currently at the North Carolina State GOP convention, and this is not a topic of concern among activists," Woodhouse said. "No doubt it makes for funny and entertaining X posts, but the GOP faithful are laser-focused on growing the new diverse GOP/Trump winning coalition."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Mercedes CEO Has a Trump Tariff Deal That Could Reshape US-EU Auto Trade
Hours before an event in Michigan on April 29, President Trump signed two executive orders aimed at reducing the impact of trade tariffs on the automotive industry. One order prevents automakers, who face 25% tariffs on auto imports, from being subject to additional levies on materials. The other order allows automakers to apply for tariff relief, which will reduce a portion of the costs associated with their imported components. However, these benefits will be gradually phased out over the next two years. During a rally that night in Michigan, Trump described this move as providing "a little flexibility" to the automotive industry, hoping to persuade automakers to produce their cars and components in the United States. He said, "We gave them a little time before we slaughter them if they don't do this. They're going to make so much money. They're going to have so many jobs." Despite the developments, German luxury car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz withdrew its earnings guidance for 2025 during the announcement of its Q1 results. This decision was driven by uncertainty regarding the potential impact of President Trump's tariffs on imported vehicles. The company also stated that if auto tariffs remained at their current levels, it would decrease profit margins by 300 basis points on cars and 100 basis points on vans. In a new interview with German business publication Der Spiegel, Mercedes-Benz CEO Ola Källenius said that while he is looking at different scenarios, the kind of investments he has to make are ones that could last for decades, rather than ones made "in response to a volatile situation" such as the current US-EU tariff situation that is currently unfolding. Recognizing that the current administration has the impression "that we in Europe are closed to certain issues and only demand openness where we have strengths," the CEO proposed a deal meant to balance its imports and exports. In his proposal, Källenius would allow duty-free imports of U.S.-built cars into Europe in exchange for tariff waivers on an equal number of vehicles exported by EU automakers to the U.S., adding that it would alleviate and fulfill its desire to reindustrialize and become an attractive destination for companies to set up factories for exported goods. "For every car that leaves the USA or Europe, a car from the other side comes in duty-free," Källenius told Spiegel. "We have put this idea to both sides, and it is a possible component of the negotiations between the USA and the EU." Such a solution would work for a company like Mercedes-Benz. In the same interview, Källenius noted that Mercedes "is a major producer" of cars in the United States, adding that the company builds and sells around 350,000 vehicles in the country, which could count for consideration in trade talks. "But the models we build and sell [in the U.S.] are not the same," Källenius told Spiegel. "Two-thirds of the vehicles from our plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, are exported to 150 countries worldwide. We therefore contribute to a more balanced trade balance for the USA. We believe this should be taken into account in the negotiations." Källenius's idea of rewarding U.S. exports is roughly on the same wavelength as similar ideas proposed by other automotive CEOs. Previously, Ford CEO Jim Farley raised the idea that automakers like Ford should get credit for building cars in the United States that are shipped overseas for international consumption, noting that it is "essential" that the federal government come up with policies that encourage manufacturers to build cars for export, adding that it exports nearly as many vehicles as its brings in. "So many of the vehicles we build here are exported around the globe," Farley said. "Shouldn't we get credit for that?" Around the same time Farley made those comments, the export of some high-ticket models to China, including the F-150 Raptor, Mustang, Bronco, and Lincoln Navigator, was halted due to retaliatory tariffs as high as 150% on imported vehicles. For what it's worth, German automakers like Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz have a lot of leverage for a potential U.S. tariff deal, especially if they propose that German automakers receive credits based on the number of vehicles they produce in the United States. These aren't small potatoes, either. BMW alone manufactures some of its highest-volume models, such as the BMW X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, and XM, at its Spartanburg, South Carolina, plant, which serves both U.S. and international markets. According to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, BMW is the largest automotive exporter by value in the U.S., shipping "more than $10 billion" of cars in 2024. American hands assemble these cars, no matter the badge or its supposed country of origin. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
