Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.