(3 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It is the intention to run each of the Backbench Business debates for just an hour and a half, given the time we are left with.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the horror of Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine; further recognises the necessity of a Ukrainian victory over Russia; agrees that the United Kingdom must do all it can to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression; acknowledges that there are approximately $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the G7 and EU; and calls on the Government to investigate ways that these frozen assets could be legally seized and used to fund the war effort in Ukraine, and to report back to the House with its findings.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, and colleagues from across the House for coming together to debate this important motion.
Sasha is 12 and from Mariupol. He was cooking outside with his mother, because their apartment had been bombed, when they were shelled. Some shrapnel went into Sasha’s eye, imperilling his eyesight. Luckily, they managed to get to a first aid station, where the shrapnel was removed and, thankfully, his eyesight was saved. Shortly after, they were captured by Russian forces and taken to a filtration camp, where they were separated—“You go over there, and you go over there”—and not even allowed to say goodbye to each other. We have echoes of that in our European history.
Sasha was taken to a further location in occupied Ukraine. He was told that his mother did not want him anymore, and that he would be sent to live with a good Russian family. Sasha is braver, cleverer and more tenacious than me, and he managed to get hold of a mobile phone. He rang his grandmother and told her where he was. Through an extraordinary series of events and organisations, his grandmother managed to get him out of that situation, and he now lives with her. Sasha does not know if his mum is dead or alive, and he is still looking for her.
Extraordinarily, Sasha is one of the lucky ones. He escaped his abduction, his Russification and indoctrination, and being severed forever from his birth family and placed—“adopted” is the term that is used—with a Russian family. We cannot say the same for at least 19,000 other Ukrainian children. The Ukrainian Government have verified and documented 19,000 cases of Ukrainian children being taken from Ukraine, placed with Russian families, and told to forget Ukraine and to love Russia. That is one of the smaller estimates. The United Nations thinks 120,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted and sent to Russia. I have experienced war, so I think I have a good handle on the full range of human behaviour, but extraordinarily, there are Russian officials who are boasting about the number of Ukrainian children they have abducted and placed with Russian families. Estimates range from 300,000 to 700,000.
Crimes like that do not go unnoticed. In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, who has possibly the most Orwellian job title—children’s rights commissioner for the President of the Russian Federation—for the war crime of unlawful abduction, deportation and transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia. Worse still, that crime amounts to genocide, because the abduction of children and their indoctrination into another culture is considered genocide. There are echoes here of Europe’s past. Never again, they said—never again.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing today’s important debate. It has been nearly three years since Putin tried to illegally invade the whole of Ukraine, leading to devastating loss of life, displacement and destruction. We must of course ensure that Ukraine has all the support it needs, but surely it should not just be my Slough constituents and UK taxpayers contributing. Given that Russia and Putin are no longer listening to the international community, and show no signs of stopping, is it not time for our Government to use frozen Russian assets to ensure that Putin pays directly for the damage that he is inflicting on the Ukrainian people?
Mike Martin
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, on which I have the honour of serving. He is of course right, and that is why we have come here today. As I make progress with my speech, I will set out some of the arguments.
“Never again” leaves us with a moral question: how do we answer the genocidal abduction of children on European soil? It also leaves us with a strategic question, to which I will now turn.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, and for the wonderful way that he has started his speech. It is important to recognise that the abduction of children from Ukraine—from Crimea and the Donbas—did not start in 2022; it started in 2014. It has been going on for 11 years. The figures that he gives are broadly correct, I think, from meetings that I have had with Crimea Platform and others in Ukraine, but the second world war, to which he alluded, lasted only six years. The camps existed for only three years, and we are 11 years into this child abduction. International humanitarian law effectively started with Nuremburg. Does he agree that we will need to take a much longer and deeper look at resetting international law, post the Ukraine war?
Mike Martin
I agree. This is a war crime of stupendous scale, breadth and width. There is a question of not only justice, but getting those children back to their families in Ukraine. That is part of the work that we all must do once the war is over, with Russia defeated and Ukraine victorious.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward; I was happy to be a signatory to the request for it to the Backbench Business Committee. Does he agree that the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine since the start of the war has escalated, with thousands injured and killed, millions fleeing for better lives elsewhere—some 300 such families are working and living in my constituency of Strangford—shortages of medical supplies, hospitals overwhelmed, and an energy and food crisis? The thrust of the debate is that freezing Russian assets does not work; they have to be seized.
Mike Martin
I quite agree. In Tunbridge Wells, I have been heartened by the number of families who have taken in Ukrainian refugees. We also have a Ukrainian school, to continue the important work of enshrining and protecting Ukrainian culture, because when people commit genocide, one of the things they do is destroy the culture of their enemy.
Moving on to the strategic questions, I cannot state plainly enough that Ukraine is fighting for us. Ukraine is fighting for the United Kingdom, and for the security of Europe. Putin will not stop if he succeeds in Ukraine. He seeks to recreate a Russian empire, or at least a sphere of influence, the territory of which is currently covered by countries that wish to remain free—countries, I hasten to add, that are our allies by treaty. I speak of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. It is important that we look to the future. In only two weeks, President-elect Trump will be inaugurated. We do not know how he will respond. We do not know what he will do. He may not know himself what he will do, but we know that he feels differently about Ukraine, about the security of Europe, and about Russia.
Why is that important? The United Kingdom should be proud of the leadership role that we have played over Ukraine—from the first next-generation light anti-tank weapons to the £3 billion and then some that we give every year. We have worked with allies throughout. In total, $380 billion of support—security, humanitarian and financial—has been given to Ukraine. Of that, $180 billion has come from the US, so we see immediately that the US, as so often in international affairs, is totally indispensable. The security of Europe rests upon American support. If that support is withdrawn, we have a problem.
Luckily for us, we have options. When the renewed invasion in February 2022 was inflicted upon Ukraine, we moved swiftly with allies to freeze Russian assets. There are some $300 billion of Russian state assets in G7 countries. Some $200 billion of those assets are in Euroclear in Belgium, and there are probably more than £20 billion-worth of assets in the United Kingdom. The Minister will have a better idea than me. Perhaps he can undertake to update the House on the exact scale of Russian assets currently held in UK institutions. In June last year, the G7 agreed that we would use the interest from those assets to support Ukraine, and this House passed the enabling legislation, cross-party, just before Christmas. It amounts to about £50 billion with which we will support Ukraine—a very welcome first step.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK, working shoulder to shoulder with our European allies, must lead the way in confiscating and repurposing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine? By ensuring that Ukraine has every financial and military resource that it needs, we can not only help the Ukrainians to reclaim their country but send a powerful message that Britain stands unwavering in the defence of freedom and democracy against Russian aggression.
Mike Martin
My hon. Friend is right: it is about not just actions that lead to practical outcomes but the signals that we send to our geopolitical opponents.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I agree with much of it, including that Russia must pay for what it has done, in terms of supporting Ukraine in its war and the reconstruction to come, whatever that looks like. However, does he share my concern that were we to act unilaterally, or indeed with others, we may encourage the attractiveness of other reserve currencies and systems, in particular China’s, and that capital among the $12 trillion or so globally invested may find its way to Beijing rather than currently safer destinations in the western world?
Mike Martin
I can answer the right hon. Gentleman directly. I am not advocating that we move unilaterally. I do not think that would be a good idea. If one country were to move, that allows capital flight to other G7 countries. The problem with the Chinese currency is that it is not fully convertible. It is not an international currency in which people like to keep lots of their reserves. That is why I am advocating for the G7 as a whole to move. Look at the currencies of the G7: the dollar, sterling, the euro—$200 billion of these assets are denominated in euros—and the yen. These are the major reserve currencies of the world. If the G7 countries move together, I think we will be safe. The right hon. Gentleman’s broader point is about the financial stability of international markets. That is an important point, but any potential small amount of financial instability created by the G7 countries moving together would be minuscule compared with the financial instability of Ukraine losing the war.
If we want to shift the dial on Ukraine, especially in the face of a potential drawdown in US support, we need to go further and faster and seize the $300 billion of frozen assets and send them to Ukraine. There is a clear legal pathway for doing so. The international law doctrine of state countermeasures says that states can take countermeasures against other states if there have been grievous violations of international law, such as the genocidal abduction of children.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I heard the question from the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on co-ordinated action. While no G7 nation has yet moved fully to seize Russian state assets, Canada and the US have enacted legislation to permit them to do so. Does the hon. Member agree that legislation is an important step forward and that the threat of immediately seizing $300 billion of immobilised assets is a tool that would add pressure on Russia’s already waning economy?
Mike Martin
It is as if I gave the hon. Member a copy of my speech, because I will come to that in my next paragraph.
In April 2024, the US passed the REPO Act, which enables the US to seize frozen Russian assets and give them to Ukraine for her and, indeed, our defence. What is more, it became clear over the past month that the US has been quietly pushing its G7 allies—including us, one assumes—to take the step to investigate how to seize those assets and send them to Ukraine. Perhaps the Minister could feed back to the House what conversations have been had with the US State Department, what it has asked us to do and how we have responded.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
As my hon. Friend asks the Minister a question, let me highlight something. I hope this Government will have a better record on seizing assets than the previous one. The former Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab suggested that Sutton Place in my Woking constituency should be sold to benefit Ukraine or to house Ukrainian refugees; it is sitting idle despite the fact that it has been sanctioned as it is owned by Usmanov. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new Government need to do much better and sell assets like Sutton Place to benefit Ukraine?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions have been far too long. I pointed out at the beginning that only 90 minutes will be allowed for the debate. Perhaps the Member in charge will consider concluding his remarks shortly.
Mike Martin
I am coming to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What we ask for in the motion is simple. It is not to seize the assets, although we think the time for that has come, and it is not to act unilaterally, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about. We ask the Government to investigate with allies how we can go about seizing the assets legally and then to report back to the House on those findings. If the Government agree and will do that, perhaps the Minister could let us know the timelines.
This is an issue of unity. We—this House and this country—have been united in our support for Ukraine and in our opposition to Russia’s aggression. In the spirit of the unity that we have shown on Ukraine and Russia, we humbly beseech the Government to investigate with allies how they can go about seizing the assets legally. We have remained united on Ukraine throughout, and we have shown exceptional leadership. Now is the time to show that leadership again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There will be an immediate five-minute time limit.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. There is a bit of a disease in British politics of reaching back to the second world war to make a point, but when we walk into this Chamber, we walk through an archway of bomb damage, and when we hear the echoes of history, we should listen to them—the hon. Member made that point eloquently.
In a sense, it is frustrating that we are even debating whether to do what is in the motion, but it is good that we are having the debate because the fact that we care about the rule of law and the international order is what separates us from Putin and his allies. We have to prove to Putin and his allies that our belief in those things is not a weakness, and we have to prove that we have the determination to defend our values.
In this year, which marks the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascist aggression in Europe, we have to constantly remember that the freedoms we enjoy were won through strength and sacrifice, and that freedom comes at a cost. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells listed the enormous price that Ukraine is paying in lost citizens, lost children and lost infrastructure for defending that freedom. The world has said clearly that Putin has to pay the price for that. The UN General Assembly has said that Russia must make
“reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts”.
This is a debate about balance sheets and bank accounts, but putting a monetary value on the cost of this war is, at best, partial accounting.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Vladimir Putin’s allies saw Britain as a soft touch and a good place to put their money and investment, whether ill-gotten gains or legal? Is it not now time under a new Government for us to show that this has changed? This Government will take it seriously and will take a more rigorous approach than the previous Government.
Blair McDougall
Absolutely. As well as listening to the echoes of deeper history, we have to learn lessons from our more recent failures.
I met a soldier called Dimitri in a ward for wounded soldiers in Kyiv. He was strengthening his stumps for the day when he could have prosthetics fitted to both his now-missing legs. I asked what his hope for the future was, thinking he would say a holiday, getting a job or spending time with his family. He said that it was living life without shame. Listening to him, I felt ashamed because, as proud as we all are of the support we have given Ukraine, it has not been enough.
We know one thing in this debate: the money that Putin owes is many times greater than the money that has been seized. The legal objection to transferring the funds in whole to Ukraine seems to be that under the principles of the use of countermeasures by states the measures must, first, induce a change in policy from the target and, secondly, be reversible. On the first, seizing the assets does not just induce the change in policy; it delivers the change in policy. It pays the reparations in part. On it being reversible, we can give the Kremlin a credit note for the money paid and say it has been taken off the total.
With the time I have left to speak, I want to ask the Minister two direct questions, but these are really questions for all Western nations that hold Russian state assets but are hesitant about sending them in full to Ukraine. First, is there any conceivable situation in which we and our international partners would unfreeze the assets we hold and return them to Russia if Putin has not delivered the reparations he is bound to pay? Secondly, is there any conceivable situation in which Putin would voluntarily give up those reparations? If we are honest, the answer to both those questions has to be no.
Rather than making policy on an imaginary future that will not come and holding the funds in perpetuity, we should use them now in full—in whole—when Ukraine needs them most. If we are hung up on the legal arguments, as I say, we should call in a loan and give the Kremlin a credit note. The irony of the debate is that we are at risk of our commitment to the international order preventing us from enforcing it. The irony is that Putin, having stepped outside that international order, is demanding its protection. We need to listen to the echoes of history as we enter this Chamber and ensure that Ukraine has everything it needs to fight and win this war.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I am sad that it has been reduced from three hours to an hour and a half, because it is an important debate, and I hope that the Minister has time to answer some of the questions.
In reality, we are in a peculiar position—I do not blame this Government, because the previous Government were in the same position—whereby we are, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) just said, trapping ourselves in the same arguments that are meant to release us to get after those who have done egregious harm to others through an illegal invasion of another territory. That is clear, and it is why we should be permitted at this stage, where necessary, to seize those frozen assets—it is very simple. There is not time to go through all the legal arguments, but there are good reasons why we would be able to act in that way, and I would be happy to write to the Minister about them.
First, instead of claiming that international law prohibits us from doing those things, it is important to remember that the basis of international law is pretty fluid, because it is hugely influenced by the politics of the day—otherwise, we would still be trapped in what happened in 1950, even though things have moved on. That is another point: the British Government should not use those arguments against action; they should lead on making the necessary changes where possible.
My main point is that when it comes to freezing and sequestering assets, there is a good point at the end of it all. Hopefully, we will soon face an end to this war and the brutality, executions, murder and ghastly damage that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine. Ultimately there must be reparations by the country that invaded Ukraine, which is Russia. The trouble is we know very well that if we impose those reparations, Russia will never pay any of them, so the only hope we have is to seize state and oligarch assets and to say that they can be held in payment of the necessary reparations, and will be released as reparations are paid in accordance with what the UN says at the end of the war. That is one way of using frozen assets: seizing them and saying, “You will get these back, but only when you have stood up and done what you’ve been told to do after this aggressive war.”
If Members look carefully, they will see that we are already considering taking the money earned from assets in banks. That set of assets and their income cannot be separated. At the moment, we are talking of separating the income from the assets, as if there is some fundamental difference between who owns what. While the state has an asset banked, it also owns the money earned from it. We cannot just say that we might do one but not the other. If we seize what is earned, we should recognise that that allows us also to seize the asset that is earning that money in the bank. There is no reason why we should not pursue that, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that point in due course.
I do not believe that there is in international law any obligation or block on doing any of this. These arguments are being had at the moment in various court cases. By the way, we are not talking about the UK unilaterally seizing assets. Canada, which has already been mentioned, and the US have already passed legislation to give them permission to seize those assets—the Anglosphere is beginning to come together on this one. There is foot-dragging in Germany and France, and very much in Belgium. We know why: Belgium has a huge number of Russian assets and seems to be somewhat troubled by the idea of taking them over.
I say this in cross-party spirit. Surely now is the chance for the United Kingdom Government—my Government, because they were elected—to take the lead in arguing now for us to use these assets against future reparations and mend what has gone on so appallingly in Ukraine. I urge the Government to step up, take that lead and give the rest of the developed world the chance to get that money into the places where it can do the most good.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Across the House, we agree that we must show Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. If we do not, a great power war more terrible that we can imagine will come. A century ago, politicians on these Benches failed, and what followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind. Stopping that horror being repeated depends on us winning at war economics, as the motion rightly identifies.
War economics is simple: whichever side can command greater resources and convert them into fighting forces will win. Winning a single battle means nothing if the other side can keep throwing in resources to win the next one. Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Winning at war economics means doing three things. First, we must limit Russia’s earnings and output; secondly, we must limit Russia’s ability to convert its earnings into fighting forces; and thirdly, we must gain and convert our own resources into fighting forces. Seizing the $300 billion will help with the third point only if we convert those resources into fighting forces.
First, on limiting Russia’s output and earnings, Russia’s earnings from oil are still far too high: $150 billion a year. Urals oil is trading at $67 above the price cap. Russia is circumventing that by padding out costs for its shadow fleet in attestation documents. Maximilian Hess, the esteemed foreign policy expert, has shown that we can strengthen our price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of costs in attestation documents. I am pleased that the Office of Financial Sanctions agreed to look into that when it gave evidence to the Treasury Committee.
Secondly, we must stop Russia converting its output into munitions and materials. Too many of our western components are finding their way to Russian frontlines.
Thirdly, we must do more to convert the resources that we need into fighting forces. That is where our industrial defence strategy comes in. Seizing the $300 billion can help with that. As an economist, I should make clear to the House that seizing those assets would not damage our economy or reduce financial stability. However, we must be clear on the how and the why.
On the how, we cannot seize those assets unilaterally. We hold only about 10% of them here, while around two thirds are held in Europe. We must convince our European allies to do as the Canadians and Americans have done in seizing those assets. On the why, seized assets are useful only if we convert them into defence production. The bit-by-bit approach that has characterised support to Ukraine must end; a large and sustained increase is needed.
Putin wants to rebuild a greater Russia and to swallow his neighbours whole. He will attempt to take more of Europe. Defeating him means defeating our own complacency. The history of nations is a history of war. That history changed only when the calculation of peace changed—through military strength, through sacrosanct borders and through democracy. If we do not show that we have the resolve and resources to defeat Putin, we will make the same mistake that Members made from these Benches almost a century ago. One of our nation’s greatest Prime Ministers stands outside this Chamber, his hands atop his hips. He warned Members in this Chamber and lamented the time wasted without preparing. He spoke of the
“years which the locust hath eaten”—[Official Report, 12 November 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1101.]
but he was ignored. Members on these Benches were too complacent; let us not be complacent. Members on these Benches failed; let us not fail. Members on these Benches saw oceans of blood spilled by the youth of this nation; let us not be the generation that sees oceans of blood wash over this continent once more. Let us be the generation that keeps the peace by showing Putin we have the resolve and resources to defeat him.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this vital debate. There are many veterans in this Chamber; one in nine Liberal Democrat MPs has served in the armed forces. We know the price of freedom—many of us have seen it written on the grave of a friend. There are tens of thousands of Ukrainians paying that bitter price right now, which will all be in vain if we falter in our support. With the looming Trump Administration, that risk is real. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) has said, if Ukraine fails, the consequences for our security would be catastrophic. In the same way that our failure to show resolve on Syria perhaps encouraged Putin to attack Crimea, our failure to show resolve on Ukraine might encourage him to attack the Baltic states, test NATO’s article 5, and shatter the peace in Europe.
That does not need to be our future. If the G7 seizes the $300 billion in Russian assets, we have the opportunity not only to keep Ukraine in the fight, but to win. Many are worried that seizing that $300 billion could undermine the global financial system; I am here to argue that that is not the case. As Lawrence Summers—the former US Treasury Secretary—and many others have pointed out, those fears are overblown, because when those assets were frozen in the first place, there were no observed consequences in financial markets. It has been made clear to financial markets that the assets of a sovereign aggressor are at risk when they are on deposit in a G7 country, as they should be. The risk that those assets will be seized should already have been substantially priced in, reducing the possibility of capital flight from a negative surprise.
In any case, where would that capital fly to if the G7 countries act together? The pound, dollar, euro and yen amount to almost 90% of the world’s reserve currencies. China is not an option because of capital controls, so there are no other viable reserve currencies for countries to deposit their reserves in. As a former hedge fund manager, I spent years investing professionally in financial markets, and I can assure the House that investors will not be discouraged from investing in safe and attractive G7 currencies for two simple reasons: fear and greed.
Today, the west spends $105 billion annually on Ukraine’s defence, including $45 billion from the US. The $300 billion in Russian assets could fund the lot for three years, or the US portion for six years if Trump withdraws his support. Many think that Russia’s resources are inexhaustible, yet according to the Royal United Services Institute, Russia is going to run out of artillery ammunition and armoured vehicles next year. It has already suffered 700,000 casualties, so Russia’s capacity to wage war will fall dramatically in one year’s time, but only if we can keep Ukraine in the fight.
If Ukraine can end this war on terms that demonstrate that it is victorious, the consequences for our security will be profound. The threat from Russia will be greatly diminished, China will think twice about challenging a liberal world order, and the narrative of the decline of the free world and the rise of dictatorships will be decisively set back. Imagine what the free world could then achieve in the 21st century. As such, I urge the Government to seize that $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to keep Ukraine in the fight, and I salute the Ukrainian soldiers who are laying down their lives, not only for their country’s freedom but for our freedom too.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. I speak today as the constituency Member of Parliament for many of the assets we are discussing. It is easy to throw around the many billions of Russian-owned wealth across the country; for that reason, when referencing the luxurious wealth of Putin’s cronies, all of my calculations today are going to be in the unit of Storm Shadow missiles, each of which costs £800,000. These are the weapons of war that we talk about when we discuss funding the conflict in Ukraine.
In total, 28,375 Storm Shadows’ worth of Russian wealth is sanctioned, with profits from that wealth used to repay the extraordinary revenue acceleration funding the UK’s support of Ukraine. To put that in perspective, the UK’s total stock of Storm Shadows was estimated in 2023 to sit between 700 and 1,000. In Westminster alone, according to research by Transparency International, 537 Storm Shadows’ worth of property is owned by Russians accused of corruption or with links to the Kremlin, property that stretches from Belgravia to St James’s and St John’s Wood. Indeed, the most valuable home in the UK, Hanover Lodge, was sold last year for 141 Storm Shadows by Andrey Goncharenko, a former Gazprom executive with ties to the Kremlin. A great deal of that property is owned by or connected to sanctioned individuals, including former Deputy Prime Ministers Igor Shuvalov and Vladimir Potanin.
The existence of this property is not just an economic issue; its impact also reaches into the very hearts of our communities. Our buildings and neighbourhoods are weakened when they are used for profit rather than purpose. A strong community is one in which neighbours can be the ones who look after your kids when you have a job interview. It is those communities that are undermined when we let towers of vacant investment properties propagate and turn a blind eye to foreign wealth emptying out British homes. Most recently, these communities have opened their arms to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing from Putin’s illegal invasion. I am the constituency Member for a number of those refugees, and it is thinking of them that gives the overwhelming majority of us in this House the resolve to use every tool at our disposal.
That brings us to today’s topic: the seizure of sanctioned assets. As we heard earlier, the significance of this step and the precedent it would set should not escape us as legislators. The first ever permanent seizure of frozen assets occurred only last year, when the National Crime Agency confiscated the assets of Petr Aven for suspected evasion of sanctions. To set out an intentional policy of seizing those assets would be a bold step, and one that would doubtless lead to legal challenge. However, it must be worth us considering every option available for sanctioned assets, particularly when there is a clear argument that it would be justified to use them in supporting the Ukrainian people.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in complete contravention of international law and violates the sovereignty and self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Furthermore, as has been confirmed by the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine, it has enabled a string of other war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks, violations of personal integrity, including executions, torture and ill treatment, and sexual and gender-based violence. As was made clear during the application of the original sanctions, the sanctioned individuals are playing a direct part in this war. They range from propagandists spreading disinformation about the conflict to garner public support, domestically and across the globe, to industrialists manufacturing the chemicals used in Russian weapons, and military and security personnel directly contributing to the invasion.
When the war in Ukraine is over, questions will remain about what we do with the 28,000 Storm Shadows of sanctioned wealth belonging to those who funded, championed, and even fought in Putin’s illegal invasion. We must take this opportunity to consider what sort of country we want to be when it comes to that dirty money, and to ensure that we do not let our economy be complicit in the forces that fund evil across the world.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Debates such as this, about the horrors now happening in Ukraine, are always very important and very difficult to speak in. I very much appreciated listening to some of the harrowing stories, to remind myself just what the Ukrainians are experiencing, but also why all of us must push back Putin’s war machine.
I am most proud of the leadership that our country has shown over the past few years in the international response to support the Ukrainians to stand up against Putin. A key part of that was bringing together the international community to multilaterally, not unilaterally, support the Ukrainians in their plight. Early in this conflict we saw the weaponisation of oil and gas prices. We saw, and continue to see, hybrid warfare, which has been going on for some time. I very much supported, at every stage, the full-fat embargo of Russian oil and gas. Indeed, this House strongly supported the sanctions, which have been an important part of our support for the Ukrainians.
As tempting as this motion is—and it is very tempting when we read it—I must say that, like Members on both sides of the House, I am cautious and have some concerns and reservations about it. It is important to consider the impact on the international financial order and the rule of law. What differentiates us from Putin and the Russian state is that we do consider and debate this—we have this place where we can consider the rules-based order. Putin thinks that makes us weak, but he is wrong; it makes us strong, and it is what we stand for and what we believe in.
If we are to look at seizing assets, there are two important considerations. First, this focuses on state assets, as opposed to those of individuals and companies, as there is currently no judicial process for individuals and companies who have had their assets frozen, and to go ahead with seizing those assets is a much bigger step. Members have mentioned individuals and companies as well as the state, but the focus has to be specifically on Russian state assets, for which the legal framework is stronger.
Secondly, as with how we led from the beginning of the conflict, there has to be a multilateral approach. This has to be linked through the G7 and our partners in Europe. It has to be done together in unison, and we have a history of doing that. I say to the Minister that I am very proud of how we have done that. If we are to do this, we must do it multilaterally.
We also need to look at these assets being used for military use, as opposed to just general economic support. My understanding is that the interest money that has now been freed up has been restricted from use for military interventions, and this also needs to be considered as part of the process.
Finally, we also need to ensure that our current sanctions are effective. Just before Christmas I mentioned my concerns about the oil and gas embargo, particularly the idea that crude oil derivatives could be finding their way into the UK economy despite the embargo. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to some of my specific questions on that, but I hope he will look carefully at the effectiveness of the proofs of origin under the rules of origin, particularly when it comes to petrochemical derivatives such as plastics and other products that can be manufactured through the use of Russian oil and gas. We must ensure that, in our economy, our oil and gas embargo of Russia is as effective as possible before we even start looking at the next measures to take.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this important debate.
This issue matters deeply to my constituents. Kensington and Bayswater is home to a thriving Ukrainian community and is a hub for Ukrainian institutions, from the embassy and the consulate to the social club and the school. But in Kensington, regrettably, we are also at the epicentre of Britain’s historical addiction to corrupt, kleptocrat wealth—we are in close competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) in that regard. In the wake of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, I co-founded the Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign, alongside local community campaigners, to expose the vast sums of illicit capital hidden in luxury property in our community. As has been said, that dirty money undermines democracy both at home and abroad, and for too long kleptocrats have been able to sidestep the rules and hoard illicit wealth through opaque corporate structures.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) so much for securing this debate. Does the hon. Member agree that if the west fails to act decisively in seizing Russian assets, that simply signals to authoritarian regimes worldwide that aggression and the violation of international law come with little consequence, which will destabilise the global order and increase the likelihood of future conflicts?
Joe Powell
The hon. Member is absolutely right. There are things the UK can do to be the trailblazer and there are things we need to do in partnership with our international partners, and shortly I will move on to how I think we can do more on the assets specifically.
I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the personal and relentless campaign by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister in relation to sanctions, including the recent action on the shadow fleet. However, in order for those measures to be fully effective, we must ensure that sanctions cannot be evaded, and there are still loopholes that need to be closed. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have been following closely the progress of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies in finally following the will of Parliament by establishing public registers of company ownership, allowing us to follow the money and detect where sanctions evasion may be taking place, for example in places such as the British Virgin Islands. It also means that we need to consider incorporating trust-owned property into our registers of overseas entities, ensuring that trusts cannot be used to conceal property that could be subject to sanctions.
As we have said, our residents deserve better than living in these communities hollowed out by wealth and built on corruption, where my constituents are suffering at the sharp end of London’s housing crisis. In the next-door constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) there is the case of Chelsea football club. Over two years ago, Roman Abramovich was forced to sell the club, with approximately £2.5 billion pledged to humanitarian programmes for victims of the war, yet not a single penny of that money has been spent. Those Chelsea funds amount to five times the UK’s total humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since 2022, and they remain stuck in an escrow account. That is a travesty, given that releasing those funds would not cost the British taxpayer a penny. It would save countless lives, at a time when 15 million people require urgent assistance in eastern Ukraine alone and humanitarian agencies face a shortfall of £1.3 billion.
I welcome the UK’s leadership in the G7 on securing the additional $50 billion of support to Ukraine using the profits from the holdings of immobilised Russian sovereign assets, with over £2 billion coming from the UK’s share. We have led on sanctions, we have led on freezing assets and we have led on mobilising the interest on assets, and now I believe it is time for the UK to lead a coalition of willing nations to take decisive action to seize those sovereign assets in full.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I invite the hon. Member to recognise that there is an international precedent for the seizure of Russian assets. Back in 1990, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US, the UK and France transferred Iraqi assets to Kuwait to directly correspond with reparations to Kuwait. Does he agree that should be the case with Russian assets?
Joe Powell
I agree. The moral and legal rationale for seizing these assets is clear. The total cost of Russia’s destruction of Ukraine has already far exceeded the total frozen state assets. It is inconceivable that Russia will ever pay for the irreparable harm it has caused Ukraine. Seizing these assets would not only increase Ukraine’s capacity to resist further destruction but help its leaders rebuild the country. It would be a downpayment on the reparations Russia will almost certainly be legally liable for, and will make it face the full consequences of its actions now.
Britain’s leadership on Ukraine—from military support to Homes for Ukraine to sanctions—has been exemplary and cross-party, but there is always more to do, so I ask the Minister to address my points about making our sanctions more effective by tackling evasion, closing the loopholes in our property register, releasing the Chelsea funds, and mobilising the international coalition to seize Russian state assets, so that we can support our friends on the frontline in Ukraine right now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributors, starting with James MacCleary.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this valuable and important debate.
Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine is not just an assault on one nation. It is a direct challenge to the values that unite Europe: democracy, sovereignty, and the rule of law. Europe must respond with strength and unity, and the UK has a unique role to play in leading the charge. Russia’s malign influence extends far beyond Ukraine. From interference in democratic elections across Europe to spreading disinformation, the Kremlin has shown its commitment to undermining the democratic values that bind our continent. This is not just Ukraine’s fight; it is a fight for the integrity of all our democracies.
Our defence sector is among the largest in Europe, and our international influence remains significant. When I meet European colleagues, one message is clear: they want the UK to lead. This is a moment for the UK to step up and demonstrate the leadership that has long defined our place in Europe—even though we are, for now, outside the European Union.
Seizing frozen Russian assets and repurposing them is one of the most effective ways to support Ukraine. These funds are not just financial resources; they are symbols of aggression that must become instruments of justice. Putin’s grasp on power depends on corruption and control; by seizing and repurposing these assets, we can weaken his grip. Our allies have shown the way. Canada amended its Special Economic Measures Act to allow the seizure of Russian assets for grave breaches of international peace, and the United States passed the REPO—Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians—Act to transfer Russian sovereign assets directly to Ukraine. These steps provide clear and workable models for the UK and Europe to adopt.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I agree on the legal precedent, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that. We have heard about the Iraq precedent; the legal precedent is there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, crucially, Russia has stepped outside the international norm, and that to protect the international rules-based system, we must show that there are consequences? It is imperative that we take action to show that matters.
James MacCleary
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is as if I had given him a copy of my speech; I was about to come on to that. Stopping the Russian assault on Ukraine is part of a wider struggle for the future of democracy and liberty, in Europe and around the world. Russian ruler Vladimir Putin has made this war an existential one, staking the future of his regime on it. We must be in no doubt that current and wannabe dictators are watching closely to see how European powers respond to Russia’s challenge. Any wavering in our support for Ukraine could easily be interpreted as a green light to others to launch grabs for coveted territory. In short, the basis of the liberal world order is at stake, and Britain has a duty to protect that order, which we did so much to create.
With the looming return of Donald Trump to the White House, the stakes for Europe could not be higher. The future of US support for Ukraine is uncertain, and Europe must be prepared to step up. This is a wake-up call for the UK; we must lead within Europe and ensure that brave Ukrainians receive the robust support that they need from us.
Beyond repurposing Russian assets, we must also address the systemic failures that have allowed dirty money to flood into our economy. The UK has long been a destination of choice for Russian wealth, much of it funnelled through loopholes in economic crime legislation. It is time to properly resource the National Crime Agency, close these loopholes, and make it clear that kleptocrats are no longer welcome here.
Members who, like me, are students of Russian and east European history will be familiar with the word Holodomor. There have been lots of references to history and the lessons that we should take from it. For those who are not familiar with the word, we would simply call it the Ukrainian famine. In 1932 and 1933, uncounted millions of Ukrainians starved to death as a direct result of policies prosecuted by another dictator in the Kremlin, Joseph Stalin. I genuinely hope that those in this Chamber in the future will not look back on us and say that we could have done more to stop another great crime against the Ukrainian people.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that this is about more than military aid; it is about holding Russia accountable and strengthening Ukraine’s defences. Ukraine’s fight is our fight; by taking action now, the UK can reaffirm that aggression will never be rewarded, that Europe will always stand firm in defence of freedom, and that Britain remains at the heart of the continent’s security and values.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call shadow Minister Gareth Davies.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate and giving an incredibly moving speech, in which he told the story of Sasha—and, of course, 19,000 other children. What is happening in Ukraine is absolutely heartbreaking, and he is right to raise those concerns in the House today.
Last week, many people started 2025, just as we start every new year, with hope, optimism and determination that this year will be better than the last. It is therefore right that our first debate this year is about our united resolve to ensure that Ukraine can continue to oppose Russian aggression, and about ways that we in this country can continue to support our friend and ally in this task. We have heard a number of excellent speeches from across the House, which have been both informed and incredibly moving.
For 1,047 days now, Ukrainian men, women and children have been suffering the consequences of the most recent stage of a war that they did not ask for and did not start, and that continues to claim the lives of so many of their friends, family and fellow countrymen. We Conservative Members are proud of our record of support for the people of Ukraine. In government, we provided over £12 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support. Because of this, the United Kingdom has rightly taken its place as a global leader in defending Ukraine. The UK was a first mover in providing vital aid, from helmets and body armour to, yes, Storm Shadow missiles and Challenger 2 battle tanks. We created safer routes for those fleeing the conflict, through the Ukrainian family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, in which many Members participated. We established Operation Interflex, which has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion in 2022, and we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions Russia has ever seen, with 2,000 individuals, countries and groups sanctioned. This ensures that we are targeting not just the sectors of strategic significance to the Russian Government, and that those in and around the Kremlin are left with nowhere to hide, no matter where they are based.
Just as President Putin has so far sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen on the altar of his personal imperial ambitions, he seems determined to destroy the future prosperity of the Russian people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, Putin must be made to pay for his actions, and a number of other Members also made that clear.
Ukraine must continue to be supported in its fight against Putin’s war machine, so we welcome the fact that this Government are continuing much of the vital work that we started to strengthen the Ukrainian response. However, British support for Ukraine is underpinned by our willingness, and that of our NATO allies, to also invest in our own defence. That is why I hope that the Government will keep to their pre-election pledge of increasing defence spending in this country to 2.5% of GDP.
As I have said before, I am pleased that there is such clear consensus on support for Ukraine in this House. On military support, humanitarian aid and indeed sanctions, where the Government take responsible and sensible further steps, the official Opposition will of course support them. The last Conservative Government were one of the most vocal proponents of repurposing frozen Russian assets, and we drove our G7 and European allies to coalesce around the most ambitious solution.
The announcement by the Treasury on 22 October that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme represents progress on that journey, and we very much welcome that, but we should never stop looking for innovative ways to legally mobilise frozen sovereign assets. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what further steps the Government are exploring. Given that the House is debating frozen Russian assets, it would be helpful for it to be provided with the most up-to-date information. First, can the Minister update the House on the total value today of Russian assets frozen by the G7 and of the total assets frozen by UK jurisdictions? Secondly, can he give some indication of the allocation of frozen assets by type? There has been some discussion of that today, but it would be helpful if the Government gave that breakdown to colleagues.
Today’s debate is focused on the seizure of frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine. The Minister will be well aware—this has been discussed at length today—of the various legal considerations, internationally and domestically, relating to seizure. Given recent comments by the EU’s chief diplomat, I look forward to the Minister clarifying exactly what the Government’s position is. Will he update the House on the Government’s latest discussions—many have called for this today—with our G7 partners and other allies on seizure?
We should never allow ourselves to forget what this debate is ultimately all about. Many of us are returning to this place after a restful and perhaps indulgent Christmas break, but I remind the House that the people of Ukraine faced a very different Christmas. Nothing illustrates that better than the fact that on Christmas day, as Ukrainians gathered together at St Michael’s cathedral in Kyiv, praying for peace and victory in 2025, their prayers were cruelly interrupted by the piercing sound of air raid sirens. Be in no doubt that the fight continues, not just for those on the frontline, but for all those who want their country to be free again.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I can hear that the shadow Minister is coming to a conclusion. He is a former investment banker, so I am curious to know His Majesty’s Opposition’s position on the seizure of frozen Russian assets.
Gareth Davies
I welcome the intervention. Our position in government and in opposition has been that we should do whatever it takes to hold Russia to account and to ensure that Russia pays, and we support Ukraine. I have set out a number of ways, financial and other, in which we did that in government. Whether in government or in opposition, we clearly have concerns about legal obstacles, which may or may not exist, and it is right that we debate that today, as well as the impact on markets, sentiment and investor confidence. The issue is not as simple as some perhaps suggest. There are a number of factors, but we should leave the option open and continue to explore all options when it comes to supporting Ukraine, and holding Russia to account and ensuring that it pays.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The key point is the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about the distinction between private assets—even such tainted ones as are held by oligarchs—and state assets. The mover of this motion, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), will correct me if I am wrong, but the $300 billion-worth of assets referred to in the motion are state assets. In a publication by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in May last year, no fewer than 11 professors and other legal experts were unanimous in saying that when it comes to state assets, there is no legal obstacle for seizure by a third-party state, such as ourselves.
Gareth Davies
I welcome the intervention by my right hon. Friend, who is extremely diligent in his assessment of such matters. I will allow the Minister, who is actually in the Government, to provide their legal assessment of what may or may not be possible. I have set out our concerns, which we are happy to continue to debate and discuss, as I have said, but it is right that throughout the House we continue in our support for Ukraine. It is right that we continue to discuss all the ways we can support the Ukrainians. If there is a way, we should look at it.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and other colleagues across the House for tabling this important debate. He made a powerful speech, starting out with the horrific story of Sasha. It made me think not only of similar stories I have heard directly, but of the work done in communities throughout the UK in maintaining Ukrainian culture and heritage—the very culture, heritage and language that Putin is trying to erase from the lives of those children. I visited the centre in my constituency in Cardiff just a few weeks before Christmas.
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and their challenge. They have made some important points and they can be assured that I have listened to them all carefully. It is important to emphasise that we have again seen absolute unity in this House in our desire to support Ukraine in its fight and that Russia must pay. Those are the two key messages coming out of the debate for me.
As all of us in the Chamber know well, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack against a sovereign democratic state. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the Christmas day attacks reinforced the shocking and barbaric nature of what Russia is doing. The UK and our international partners stand united. We cannot let aggressors like Putin succeed.
I will attempt to respond to many of the points that have been made, which have all been important, but I will start by underlining the magnitude of the UK’s response to Putin’s invasion. We have sanctioned more than 2,100 individuals and entities. We have frozen more than £22 billion-worth of private assets under the Russia sanctions regime. The shadow Minister asked for some allocation by type, and I will certainly try to write to him with further detail on that.
Alongside G7 partners, we have immobilised Russian state assets in our jurisdiction, too. We have led international shipping sanctions that have disrupted the Russian shadow fleet, leaving oil tankers idling across the globe unable to continue their trade. We have ramped up action since July to include a further 89 tankers, barring them from our ports and denying them access to maritime services. We have also sanctioned nine vessels involved in the shipping of liquefied natural gas from Russia, which has contributed to Russia’s largest producer suspending production.
All that is alongside measures targeting firms supplying Russia’s military industrial complex, including Chinese companies sending components for drones. We have sanctioned cyber-criminals and mercenaries seeking to destabilise African countries, not to mention Russian troops for the appalling use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. These carefully constructed and wide-ranging packages are having a significant impact on Putin’s ability to finance his war, eroding Russian oil revenues and supporting Ukraine on the battlefield.
There was a lot of talk about war economics from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), but the fact is that Russia is paying many times more for components that are often of poorer quality and in much lower quantities than it needs. By disrupting the Russian oil industry, we are putting further pressure on the Kremlin. It has all contributed to a Russian economy that is in trouble, with inflation at close to 10%, interest rates at 21% and the rouble in decline. Putin has told his population not to panic, but disagreements between officials and industrialists are increasingly vocal, and that should serve as a reminder not only to Putin but to the wider world that there is a high price to pay for assaulting the democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of another nation.
Many questions have rightly been asked about enforcement. Since coming into office I have been clear, as has the Foreign Secretary, that we must have the necessary powers and tools to implement and enforce our sanctions regimes effectively. Strengthening the system is a top priority for this Government and, with the support of ministerial colleagues, I have launched a cross-Government review to examine how we can make it easier for businesses to comply with sanctions, but also bring the full force of the law to bear on those who do not. We are working across Government Departments on that.
We have introduced new powers for the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and for the Department for Transport. In September last year, the Financial Conduct Authority fined Starling bank almost £29 million in relation to its financial sanctions controls and screening. Last month, the National Crime Agency disrupted multibillion-dollar Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs, ransomware and espionage, resulting in 84 arrests. It also seized more than £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency.
The Foreign Secretary, who was rightly referenced in the debate, has launched an important campaign on tackling illicit finance and kleptocracy, including by dealing with those who enable them. We have made it clear that we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to clamp down on those who seek to evade our sanctions.
We want to ensure that Ukraine emerges from the war with a modernised and inclusive economy that is resilient to Russian threats. That is as important as providing it with the crucial military support that it needs. We will therefore continue to work across a range of donor platforms to leverage private investments such as those at the Ukraine recovery conference with the work of UK Export Finance and British International Investment.
We have committed £12.8 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. As was rightly referenced, we have often been the first mover when it has come to vital lethal assistance, whether in respect of Storm Shadow missiles, Challenger 2 tanks or, of course, the NLAWs at the start of the war. We have also recommitted to £3 billion a year for as long as it takes and signed a long-term bilateral security co-operation agreement—we were the first of 25 countries to do so.
As was rightly referenced, the Chancellor has further announced that we will provide £2.26 billion of additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. I thank hon. Members across the House for ensuring the speedy passage of the legislation, which passed its Third Reading unanimously, to put that in place. Crucially, those funds will be repaid not by Ukraine but by the extraordinary profits made on sanctioned Russian state assets held in the European Union.
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.
I confirm that I spoke to Foreign Ministers from across Europe on that and other crucial aspects of our support for Ukraine just before the House rose in December. We will continue to update Parliament on the progress of that work. However, I hope hon. Members will understand that it would not be appropriate to provide a running commentary on discussions, as allies have committed to keeping those private, including in respect of the specific sums of Russian sovereign assets that are currently frozen.
Sir Julian Lewis
I absolutely accept what the Minister says. Does he appreciate that with the possibility of President Trump withdrawing some, if not all, American aid to Ukraine, the substitution of a substantial volume of financial support will become essential? That is one reason behind our concern about the assets possibly being seized.
Stephen Doughty
We are all concerned to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and as quickly as possible. It is wrong to speculate on what the future Administration might choose to do. Let us remember that the package came through from the United States with strong bipartisan support, and much of the support to Ukraine even before the 2022 invasion came from the first Trump Administration. Let us be clear that there is support there and that there is unity across the Atlantic on support for Ukraine.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
President Trump has already said that he will continue with the payments and support. May I ask a simple question? We know from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill that recently passed through the House that using the profits of assets will help to bring up to $50 billion of support to Ukraine. A previous legal commitment has been broken, which could not have been done before without prior legislation; assets have never been separated from profits. The Minister does not have to answer the question now, but will he go back to the Foreign Office with a reminder that the assets are now left available for seizure?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and hope that he will write me the letter that he promised in the debate. I will read it with great interest. He is extremely well informed on these matters and he knows that I have taken a keen interest in them over some time. As I said, we will consider all lawful measures that we can possibly take to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs. I will listen closely to his advice and, indeed, that of many others. He would not expect me to comment on any legal advice or technical advice under consideration.
I am conscious of the time and the need to move to the next debate, but I genuinely want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members. Hugely important points were made. It is clear that there is unity in the House that we all want to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and to get that there as quickly as possible. I am convinced that we are doing everything we can on both sides of the equation—choking off Russia’s ability to fund its war machine on the war economics side, which was mentioned, as well as getting Ukraine the support that it needs. We will continue to do that.
Our support is ironclad, and we have made that clear to President Zelensky. I was with Foreign Minister Sybiha a number of times before Christmas, and he is absolutely clear that the UK’s support is critical and that it must continue. We are glad to give him confirmation of our resolute support.
Mike Martin
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of my overrunning speech earlier, I will not take up the full two minutes allocated to me, so I can give you back some time in a congested parliamentary timetable.
I will focus on two things. One is unity. We have demonstrated that unity tonight throughout the House. This is not about party politics: this is about the moral and strategic interests of our country and our allies. The other point is about leadership. We have led throughout on this conflict, and this will be the next stage of that leadership.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the horror of Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine; further recognises the necessity of a Ukrainian victory over Russia; agrees that the United Kingdom must do all it can to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression; acknowledges that there are approximately $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the G7 and EU; and calls on the Government to investigate ways that these frozen assets could be legally seized and used to fund the war effort in Ukraine, and to report back to the House with its findings.