Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.