The UK continues strongly to support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in the face of continued Russian aggression, including appalling strikes against civilians this weekend. Last week, the Prime Minister convened the leaders of the coalition of the willing, who welcomed US efforts to seek a just and lasting peace. Tomorrow, I will join other NATO Foreign Ministers and reaffirm UK support for a strong and sovereign Ukraine.
Since 2022, 1,600 Ukrainians have sought refuge in Somerset away from Putin’s war machine, many making Glastonbury and Somerton their home. The US-led peace negotiations, dictated by Russia, risk excluding US security guarantees, leaving many Ukrainians in fear of returning to Ukraine. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues on implementing a pathway to settled status, so that Ukrainians may have a permanent future in the UK?
As the hon. Lady will know, I and many other people have been involved in welcoming people as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. We continue to do so and to support the role that they play in our country, and that will continue. She refers to security guarantees, and I can tell her that the Ministry of Defence is involved in direct discussions on the detail of how security guarantees would need to work. That is essential as part of a just and lasting peace.
Point 24 of Russia’s peace plan proposes to establish a humanitarian committee to resolve outstanding issues, such as prisoner exchanges on an “all for all” basis and the return of civilian detainees and hostages, including children. That approach conflates prisoners of war with stolen children, who are afforded special protected status under the fourth Geneva convention. What guarantees can the Secretary of State provide that the UK will ensure that all Geneva convention signatories uphold their obligations in line with international law and the return of the stolen children?
Children kidnapped and stolen from Ukraine need to be returned to their families and to their country—that is essential. It must happen, and it is unconditional on anything else. The UK is continuing to support Ukraine and other countries in the work of tracing and identifying where children are, which includes direct work that has helped to identify the locations of 600 stolen children.
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer and, in particular, the UK Government’s continued excellent work to marshal the coalition of the willing in support of Ukraine. Does she agree that in any future peace agreement key Ukrainian red lines need to be defended: the preservation of Ukraine; that key parts of the Donbas are not under Russian control; that there are no Russian-imposed limits on Ukrainian armed forces; and freedom of Ukraine to join NATO?
We have been clear throughout that, first and foremost, the future of Ukraine is for Ukrainians to decide. That means, as the Prime Minister said last week, that borders should not be changed by force. There must also be a sustainable peace, and not just an opportunity for Putin to pause and then come again. That would be a threat not just to the security of Ukraine, but to the security of Europe.
A lasting peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if we remove the incentives for war. However, President Trump’s initial peace plan—badly translated as it was from the Russian—included such measures as a dramatic cut in Ukrainian army manpower, the surrender of key fortress positions, a pledge never to join NATO, and an open door to Russian propaganda across the whole of Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that peace on such terms would only encourage Putin to resume war in a few years’ time, on much stronger terms than today?
The Prime Minister addressed some of those points last week. Initial proposals were published; as he said, some of those proposals were clearly unacceptable, and there have been considerable discussions since then, including in Geneva and in the US between the US and Ukraine. Those discussions have been important, and we continue to support Ukraine. The important thing about a lasting peace is that it cannot simply be an opportunity for Putin to continue his aggression after a pause, which is why security guarantees and lasting peace arrangements are so crucial. Everyone wants to see peace, but it has to be lasting.
President Putin has proposed that Russia assume sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as part of any so-called final peace settlement with Ukraine, which would carry profound consequences for the 1.6 million children who are currently living under Russian occupation in those regions. The evidence is clear that Russia has pursued a sustained, systematic policy of indoctrination, militarisation and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that accepting that proposal would risk permanently stripping those children of their legal protections and erasing their Ukrainian identity, in direct violation of the fourth Geneva convention and the most basic principles of international humanitarian law?
My hon. Friend is right to champion Ukrainian children, and I commend the work she has continually done to be a voice for those children. She is right to highlight Russia’s horrendous and repeated breaches of the principles underpinning the UN charter, throughout this conflict and before it, and to recognise that Russia has continually been the aggressor in this war. While everyone else has been pursuing peace, all that Putin has done is escalate war. We all want to see an end to the war, but we have to keep the maximum pressure on Russia to get a lasting peace.
As we await the outcome of negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, which must be rooted in the voices and needs of the Ukrainian people, access to healthcare is essential to rebuilding the nation. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure UK-backed reconstruction strengthens rehabilitation and healthcare infrastructure, and will she meet me to support my efforts to link allied health professionals in Ukraine?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. We are continuing to give Ukraine the support that it needs on military grounds to defend itself, but we are also supporting the Ukrainian people. We are being guided by the priorities that the Ukrainian Government have set out in relation to the aid funding that we provide, which includes supporting Ukraine’s public services and also, crucially, its energy infrastructure, which will be vital this winter.
I call the shadow Minister.
We all want to see Ukraine, a country that has made huge sacrifices to defend its freedom, secure a peace on its own terms, but to put pressure on Putin and weaken his ability to wage war, we must go harder after the money that is fuelling his war machine. We have seen reports that Lakshmi Mittal’s company has been buying oil from Russia. When were the Government first made aware of that, and does the Foreign Secretary believe that there may be grounds for sanctions?
The right hon. Lady will know that the UK has led the processes relating to sanctions against Russian oil and gas in particular, and has also led the way in encouraging other countries around the world to withdraw from purchasing that oil and gas. She will also know that sanctions enforcement is addressed on a case-by-case basis, but we continue to take both the sanctions and the need for their enforcement immensely seriously.
I am sorry, but it is simply not good enough for the Foreign Secretary to dismiss questions by saying that sanctions are not discussed on the Floor of the House. This is a man who has profited, and a business that has profited, by buying Russian oil, thus fuelling Putin’s illegal war—a war that has caused death and destruction in Ukraine. He may have reportedly fled Britain, but will the Foreign Secretary ensure that all his business interests are thoroughly investigated, and that wider investigations are carried out to determine whether this practice is more widespread?
Again, the right hon. Lady, as a former Minister, will know how seriously we have taken this case, how far this Government have led the way on sanctions, and how we ensure that processes involving sanctions enforcement, including that relating to Russian oil and gas, are taken extremely seriously and are implemented appropriately as well. Let me also say that the pressure from the United States on Lukoil and Rosneft has been critical. As a result of the pressure that we have exerted, Lukoil has now been forced to seek to sell its foreign assets. No country has led the way more than the UK in putting economic pressure on Russia.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ukraine needs the support of its allies to counter Russia’s threat, but Belgium and the European Central Bank are holding out against the European Union’s using frozen Russian assets to give it the funds that it needs. The Wall Street Journal has reported that while discussing the original 28-point plan, Kirill Dmitriev pitched to Steve Witkoff the idea that US firms could be the first to receive payments from those assets for lucrative contracts in Russia and Ukraine. It is time for the UK to show international leadership, even as Belgium, the ECB and the US vacillate, so will the Foreign Secretary support my Bill that would allow the UK to seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets held in this country and put them at Kyiv’s disposal for its defence?
We have been clear about the importance of mobilising the Russian sovereign assets in order to invest in and support Ukraine. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the proposal put forward by the EU, which we support, is for reparation loans based on those sovereign assets that would allow us to maintain the appropriate stability and approach to the financial markets, and also to mobilise those assets to support Ukraine. The purpose is to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done, as it should, and we will continue to press for those Russian sovereign assets to be mobilised for Ukraine.