This is the story of how an obscure company based in an office block on a quiet street in Glasgow became an accessory in Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. It is the story of how Europe and Russia remain locked in a tense relationship of economic dependence, even as they supposedly cut their ties. It is the story of the uncomfortable truth behind why the cost of living crisis came to an end.
But before all of that, it is the story of a ship – a very unusual ship indeed.
If you ever spot the Yakov Gakkel as it sails through the English Channel or the Irish Sea (I first set eyes on it in the Channel but at the time of writing it was sailing northwards, about 20 miles off the coast of Anglesey) you might not find it all that remarkable.
At first glance it looks like many of the other large, nondescript tankers and cargo vessels passing these shores. Its profile is dominated by an enormous blue prow which reaches high out of the water and ends, 50 metres further back, at its unexpectedly angular stern.
Yet the ship’s slightly odd shape – all hull and barely any deck – is the first clue about what makes the Yakov Gakkel so special. Because this is one of the world’s most advanced liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers, with an unusual trick up its sleeve.
Image: The Yakov Gakkel tanker
LNG tankers are extraordinary ships, with insides so cleverly engineered they are capable of holding vast amounts of natural gas at temperatures of approximately −163C.
For all that the world is embracing renewable energy, natural gas remains one of the most important energy sources, essential for much of Europe’s heating and power, not to mention its industries. For the time being, there is no cheap way of making many industrial products, from glass and paper to critical chemicals and fertilisers, without gas.
Once upon a time, moving natural gas from one part of the world to another necessitated sending it down long, expensive, vulnerable pipelines, meaning only countries with a physical connection to gas producers could receive this vital fuel. But LNG tankers like the Yakov Gakkel are part of the answer to this problem, since they allow gas producers to send it by sea to anywhere with a terminal capable of turning their supercooled methane back into the gas we use to heat our homes and power our grids.
Image: Politicians in Europe promised to end the continent’s reliance on Russian gas
But the Yakov Gakkel can also do something most other LNG tankers cannot, for that enormous blue double hull allows it to carve through ice, enabling it to travel up into the Arctic Circle and back even in the depths of winter.
Advertisement
And that is precisely what this ship does, more or less constantly: travelling back and forth between Siberia and Europe, through winter and summer, bringing copious volumes of gas from Russia to Europe. It is part of the explanation for how Europe never ran out of gas, even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This is not, it’s worth saying, the conventional wisdom. Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, European policymakers declared they planned to eliminate the continent’s reliance on Russian gas – which accounted for roughly a third of their supplies before 2022.
And many assumed that had already happened – especially after the Nord Stream pipeline, the single biggest source of European gas imports, was sabotaged in late 2022. But while volumes of Russian pipeline gas into Europe have dropped dramatically, the amount of Russian LNG coming into Europe has risen to record levels.
Image: LNG tankers sail between Siberia and various ports in Europe, including Zeebrugge
Russia helps Europe replenish gas stores
Today, Europe still depends on Russia for around 15% of its gas, an ever-growing proportion of which now comes in via the sealanes, on tankers like the Yakov Gakkel. And while the US has stepped in to make up some of the volumes lost when those pipelines stopped, only last month Russia overtook the US to become the second biggest provider of gas to the continent. It’s further evidence that those LNG volumes carried on ships through the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the English Channel, are increasing, rather than falling.
This Russian gas has helped Europe replenish its gas stores, it has helped keep the continent’s heavy industry going throughout the Ukraine war. And this dependence has not come cheap: the total amount Europe has paid Russia for LNG since 2022 comes to around €10bn.
The continued presence of Russian gas running through European grids is at least part of the explanation for why European energy prices have fallen so sharply since those post-invasion highs. Back then, many in the market were pricing in a complete end of Russian gas supply to Europe – something that would have had disastrous consequences. But it never actually happened.
Perhaps this explains why the continent’s politicians have, so far, stopped short of banning imports of Russian gas: they are aware that their economy would struggle to withstand another sharp spike in inflation – which would almost certainly eventuate if it stopped taking Russian gas altogether.
Image: Russian gas has helped keep Europe’s heavy industry going throughout the Ukraine war
This week, European leaders agreed to stop allowing Russia to use its ports to “trans-ship” its LNG – essentially acting as a stop-off point towards other destinations. However, those transshipments account for only a fraction – at most a quarter – of the Russian gas coming in on tankers to Europe. The vast majority ends up in Belgium, France and Spain, heating European homes, fuelling power stations and powering machinery in factories.
While European leaders have imposed wide-ranging sanctions and price caps on shipments of oil, no such controls exist for liquefied natural gas. So the Yakov Gakkel and a fleet of LNG tankers carry on sailing between Siberia and various ports in Europe – Zeebrugge, Dunkirk, Montoir and Bilbao – keeping the continent supplied with the Russian hydrocarbons it still cannot live without.
British firm’s role in lucrative trade
But there is another reason why this ship is particularly unique, for the Yakov Gakkel – this critical cog in the financial machine that helps finance the Russian regime – is actually part-owned and operated by a British company.
That brings us back to a street overlooking the Clyde in Glasgow, where, in a glass-fronted office block, you will find the operational headquarters of a company called Seapeak. The chances are you haven’t heard of Seapeak before, but this business owns and operates a fleet of LNG tankers all across the world.
That fleet includes the Yakov Gakkel and four other LNG icebreakers that ply this Siberian trade. That a British company might be facilitating this lucrative trade for Russia might come as a surprise, but there is nothing illegal about this: the sanctions regime on Russia just turns out to be significantly more porous than you might have thought.
We tried repeatedly to speak to Seapeak – to ask them about the Yakov Gakkel and whether they felt it was appropriate – given the UK has forsworn LNG imports – that a British company and British workers are helping administer this Russian trade. We sent emails with questions. However, they did not respond to our calls or our emails.
When, after weeks of efforts to get a response, I visited their offices in Glasgow, I was met by a security guard who told me Seapeak would not see me without an appointment (which they were refusing to give me). Eventually I was told that if I would not leave they would call the police.
Image: A security guard at Seapeak’s offices in Glasgow said no one was available to speak to Sky News
Seapeak is not the only British company helping keep Russian gas flowing. While British insurers are banned from protecting oil tankers carrying Russian crude, there’s no equivalent sanction on Russian LNG ships, with the upshot that many of these tankers are insured by British companies operating out of the Square Mile.
We spent some time tracking another icebreaking tanker, the Vladimir Rusanov, as it approached Zeebrugge. It is insured by the UK P&I Club, which also insures a number of other LNG carriers.
In a statement, it said: “The UK Club takes great care to observe all applicable sanctions regulations in relation to Russian energy cargoes, but the direct carriage of LNG from Yamal to Zeebrugge, and provision of insurance services for such carriage, is not presently sanctioned. If the EU and G7 nations were to change their policy… the Club would of course comply by adjusting or withdrawing its services, as necessary.”
Image: The Vladimir Rusanov off the coast of Zeebrugge
The transport of Russian gas into Europe – its dependence on British operators and insurers – is only one small example of the loopholes and omissions in the UK sanctions regime. But while government ministers have expressed concern about the effectiveness of the broader sanctions regime, there is still scant evidence they intend to tighten up this corner of it.
Before the election was called the Treasury Select Committee was in the middle of collecting evidence for its own inquiry into the regime, which was expected to focus on insurers of vessels taking Russian goods. However, the inquiry was wound up prematurely when the election was called in May.
In the meantime, ships like the Yakov Gakkel carry on taking billions of cubic metres of gas from the gas fields of Yamal in Siberia down to Europe, in exchange for billions of euros. And those and other hydrocarbon revenues are one of the main explanations for how Russia is able to produce more missiles and weapons than the Ukrainians.
So Europe carries on fuelling its industry and its power and heating grids with molecules of gas coming from Siberian gasfields, while assuring itself it’s doing everything it can to fight Vladimir Putin.
It is, in short, a discomforting situation. But given the alternative is to induce another cost of living crisis, there is little appetite in Europe to change things.
The owners of Visma, one of Europe’s biggest software companies, are close to hiring bankers for a £16bn flotation that would rank among the London market’s biggest for years.
Sky News understands that Visma’s board and shareholders have convened a beauty parade of investment banks in the last fortnight ahead of an initial public offering (IPO) likely to take place in 2026.
Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley are understood to be among those in contention for the top roles on the deal, City insiders said on Friday.
Several banks are expected to be appointed as global coordinators on the IPO as soon as this month.
Visma is a Norwegian company which supplies accounting, payroll, HR and other business software to well over one million small business customers.
It has grown at a rapid rate in recent years, both organically and through scores of acquisitions, and has seen its profitability and valuation rise substantially during that period.
More from Money
The business is now valued at about €19bn (£16.4bn) and is partly owned by a number of sovereign wealth funds and other private equity firms.
The majority of the company is owned by Hg, the London-based private equity firm which has backed a string of spectacularly successful companies in the software industry.
Visma’s owners’ decision to pick the UK ahead of competition from Amsterdam represents a welcome boost to the City amid ongoing questions about the attractiveness of the London stock market to international companies.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, used last month’s speech at Mansion House to launch a taskforce aimed at generating additional IPO activity in the UK.
Spokespeople claiming to represent Visma at Kekst, a communications firm, did not respond to a series of enquiries about the IPO appointments.
Hg also failed to respond to a request for comment.
The American investment giant Carlyle is preparing to take control of Very Group, one of Britain’s biggest online retailers, in a deal that will end the Barclay family’s long tenure at another major UK company.
Sky News has learnt that Carlyle, which is the biggest lender to Very Group’s immediate parent company, could assume ownership of the retailer as soon as October under the terms of its financing arrangements.
On Friday, sources said that Carlyle was expected to hold further talks in the coming weeks with fellow creditors including IMI, the Abu Dhabi-based vehicle which assumed part of Very Group’s debts in a complex deal related to ownership of the Telegraph newspaper titles.
Carlyle will probably end up holding a majority stake in Very Group, which has about 4.5 million customers, once it exercises a ‘step-in right’ which effectively converts its debt into equity ownership, the sources said.
Very Group – which is chaired by the former Conservative chancellor Nadhim Zahawi – borrowed a further £600m from Arini, a Mayfair-based fund, earlier this year as it sought to stave off a cash crunch and buy itself breathing space.
Precise details of the company’s capital and ownership structure will be thrashed out before the change of control rights are triggered at the beginning of October.
The Barclay family drew up plans to hire bankers to run an auction of Very Group earlier this year, but a process was never formally launched.
More from Money
Carlyle, which declined to comment, may hold onto the business for a further period before looking to offload it.
IMI is also likely to end up with an equity stake or a preferred position in the recapitalised company’s debt structure, sources added.
Prospective bidders for Very Group were expected to be courted on the basis of its technology-driven financial services arm as well as the core retail offering which sells everything from electrical goods to fashion.
Retail industry insiders have long speculated that the business was likely to be valued in the region of £2.5bn – below the valuation which the Barclay family was holding out for in an auction which took place several years ago.
Very Group – previously known as Shop Direct – is one of the UK’s biggest online shopping businesses, owning the Very and Littlewoods brands and employing 3,700 people.
It boasts well over £2bn in annual sales, with about one-fifth of that generated by its Very Finance consumer lending arm.
Mr Zahawi was appointed as the company’s chairman last year, days after he announced that he was standing down as the MP for Stratford-on-Avon at July’s general election.
He replaced Aidan Barclay, a senior member of the family which has owned the business for decades.
In the 39 weeks to 29 March, Very Group reported a 3.8% fall in revenue to £1.67bn, which it said included “a decrease in Littlewoods revenue of 15.1%, reflecting the ongoing managed decline of this business”.
Nevertheless, it said sales in its home and sports categories were performing strongly.
IMI’s position is expected to be pivotal to the talks about the future of the business, given Abu Dhabi’s status as an important global backer of buyout, credit and infrastructure funds such as those raised and managed by Carlyle.
The UAE vehicle is expected to emerge from the protracted saga over the Telegraph’s ownership with a 15% stake in the newspapers.
Under the original deal struck in 2023, RedBird and IMI paid a total of £1.2bn to refinance the Barclay family’s debts to Lloyds Banking Group, with half tied to the media assets and the other half – solely funded by IMI – secured against other family assets including part of Very Group’s debt pile.
The Barclays, who used to own London’s Ritz hotel, have already lost control of other corporate assets including the Yodel parcel delivery service.
A spokesman for Very Group declined to comment, while IMI also declined to comment.
It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.
Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.
Then that all changed.
Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”
The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.
If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.
Image: Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters
With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.
So, how worried should she be?
The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.
However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.
While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.
Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.
Property sales
Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.
Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.
This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.
Image: Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT
“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.
“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.
“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”
Lack of options for non-doms
But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.
This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.
In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.
In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Are taxes going to rise?
The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.
Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.
So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.
Have Labour crossed a red line?
Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.
The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:57
‘Rachel Reeves would hate what you just said’
Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.
“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”
With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.