Commons Chamber

Wednesday 14th January 2026

(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
None Portrait Q2. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support economic growth in Scotland. (907173)
-

Alan Gemmell.
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
Heidi Alexander Portrait Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP, The Secretary of State for Transport (Swindon South, Labour)
-
-
absolutely nothing. Parties, whether the Tories or Reform, who lack ambition and are either incapable or unwilling of doing the hard yards of delivery. This ends today, Mr. Speaker. It's been over a decade since the then conservative Chancellor pledged a transport system fit for a northern powerhouse. And what came of it? HS2 to Manchester and Leeds both promised both axed rail services that have let down commuters and a railway still reliant on diesel trains and two track Victorian infrastructure.

Levelling up the integrated Rail plan network north. Just empty slogans and even emptier pockets to pay for them. Mr. speaker, this gulf between rhetoric and reality has consequences. An unbalanced economy doesn't just affect growth. It strikes at the heart of the fairer country we want to be. Political choices over decades now mean a 40 mile commute into Manchester is a world away from a similar journey into London. Take Liverpool, which has only two fast trains an hour to Manchester.

We're a direct rail journey to Manchester Airport takes an hour and 25 minutes when it's only 28 miles away, or take Leeds, still the largest city in Western Europe without mass transit, with only a third of the population able to reach the city centre in 30 minutes. Mr. speaker, we are finally consigning this sorry political political legacy to the bonfire of history. No previous government has acted as swiftly and decisively to back northern leaders. We've made the largest ever investment into local transport.

We've given the go ahead to road and rail projects across the north, and we're allocating billions of pounds in pothole funding to local leaders across this Parliament. And today, Mr. Speaker, we're going further. After years of underinvestment in the North's rail network, I am proud to announce we will deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail. Yes, this is a generational commitment. Building on the ongoing TransPennine route upgrade. We will invest up to a further £45 billion to create a turn up and go railway along the northern growth corridor of Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield as well as York.

There will be regular services onward to Newcastle and Hull, and to Chester for connections to North Wales. Make no mistake, NPR will transform how people travel. Will end the hour long waits if you miss your train. Will attract more people to a railway that will be faster, more accessible and more frequent than ever before. For northerners who have long complained about being treated as second class citizens, my message is simple. Those days are over. Yeah. Mr. speaker, this is an ambitious long term programme, but it is not HS2 reheated.

I stood in this House last year and said we'd learnt the lessons of that infrastructure project, and I meant it. Unlike the previous government's Network North plan, which was announced without so much as a phone call to the mayors, we have been working directly with them on developing these proposals and I'm proud to announce that every single one of those mayors is backing the plan today. I'm clear that NPR will not be a central government vanity project. It will be rooted in northern communities, designed, developed and delivered from the bottom up.

We'll also take the time to get this right. That starts with agreeing mature, stable designs as well as consents, all before construction. Finally, unlike HS2, this isn't about the fastest line at any cost. Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the shoulders of this nation's rail network, improving services across the North and beyond. Let me now turn to delivery. Mr. speaker, we are making £1.1 billion available to deliver NPR over the next four years. This will proceed in three phases, sequenced so passengers experience a better railway as soon as possible.

The first phase will prioritise electrification and upgrades east of the Pennines for delivery in the 2030s. That covers the Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Leeds and Leeds York corridors, including the stations. Alongside NPR. We'll develop the business case for the Leamside line as part of our broader plans for the North, and I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South, who has been campaigning on this for over 20 years, Mr. Speaker. Phase one benefits will be clear. It means pressing forward with plans for a new station in Bradford, with funding secured to take it forward, subject to business case.

And it means working with local leaders on a redesigned York station master plan. Mr. speaker, I'd like to recognise the work carried out by Lord Blunkett in his Yorkshire plan for rail. It was his vision endorsed by the white Rose mayors, which informed our plans for phase one. And I'm proud that Lord Blunkett is backing our plans today. Work also starts now for the second phase west of the Pennines, with major construction planned for the 2030s. It includes a new route and predominantly new line between Liverpool and Manchester.

This will run via new stations, improving access to Manchester Airport from across the North and North Wales, and to Warrington Bank Quay, with plans to deliver thousands of new homes. I have today instructed my officials to immediately resume work on the adapted hybrid bill, so we can reach planning consent for the parts of the route in Manchester. These plans align with the prospectus of the Liverpool to Manchester Railway Board, and I'd like to thank all of them, including the chair of that board, the former rail Minister Huw Merriman, who is also backing our plans today.

Mr. Speaker. The third phase, which takes us to the 2040s, will improve connectivity across the Pennines. Over and above the TransPennine route upgrade currently underway and I see Bradford to Manchester, Leeds to Manchester and Sheffield to Manchester as key routes. We will upgrade. Mr. Speaker, if we are to secure Britain's long term growth. We must also recognise future capacity and connectivity is needed along other major routes, such as the West Coast Main Line, and ensure that this is reflected in our decision making now.

I can therefore confirm this government's long term aim to see a full new north south line from Birmingham to Manchester. That's one of the reasons why we have chosen the Liverpool to Manchester route, as put forward by local mayors, because it's the only route that properly preserves our ability to ultimately build a new line south to address longer term congestion and crowding challenges on the West Coast Main Line. Again, this won't be a revival of HS2, and no decisions have been taken on the specification or timetable.

In the meantime, we'll retain land. The government has already purchased between the West Midlands and Crewe. This will be an incremental programme of change and delivery will be taken forward after NPR has been built. Nevertheless, I believe laying out now our strategy is sensible, responsible and in the long term interests of the country. Mr. speaker, today we're announcing a second rail revolution in the very region that gave us the first. The North powered Britain's past. It can lead this country's future.

This plan is a down payment on the North's potential, part of a broader growth drive to lift the region's productivity, boost living standards and add tens of billions to the UK economy. At the heart of this lies connectivity, because only by strengthening the links between our northern cities, only by bringing the pools of talent there closer together can the region begin to rival the other major, major growth corridors in Europe. Mr. speaker, too many northerners still face the choice of either staying at home and putting aspiration on hold or moving away in search of a better future.

I say no more unfair choices, no more missed opportunities. Today we start delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail and I commend this statement to the House.
12:51
Jerome Mayhew Portrait Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)
-
-
May you, Shadow Minister. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Now, she started her statement by saying that people are sick to the back teeth of Westminster politicians, promising the earth and delivering absolutely nothing. And then she did exactly that, because on this side of the House, we know, Mr. Speaker, what the right hon. Lady's statement marks today. It's not a strategy for the North. It's not a genuine commitment to a £46 billion project costed back in 2019 at £46 billion as the current, as the current Prime Minister then promised.

Instead, it's a flagrant attempt to silence her party's restless northern mayors, whilst Labour Ministers who came to office with no plan to deliver on their promises, butcher the Budget. Let's get straight to the point here. She can bluster all she likes, but where Northern Powerhouse Rail is concerned today we have no construction start dates, no completion dates, no published or costed route map, no sequencing, no idea who will pay, nor by how much and no certainty at all.

Except it won't be what Labour promised ahead of the election, she says. Mr. speaker, this is a generational commitment. Well, at this rate, it's going to turn out to be a multi-generational commitment, because if the Prime Minister wanted to deliver what he actually promised in opposition, he knows he'd have another black hole of billions. Such is the uncertainty, the genuine uncertainty caused to the sector by this announcement. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment to fiddling with the paperwork without any secure investment for the actual project.

Yet the right hon. Lady expects this House to believe that this is some sort of investment in the North. She and her Ministers must be delighted that the mayor of Greater Manchester overplayed his hand at the Labour Party conference last year. So today he feels constrained to profess loyalty to the Prime Minister, perhaps wonderment at his generosity. That's in public. We all know what he's doing in private. Does the right hon. Lady take this House and her own backbenchers and the voting public for fools? Whether she does or not, the Prime Minister certainly does.

He wrote. He wrote in the Yorkshire Post, with some gall that this amendment, and I quote, is a serious plan backed by billions of pounds of investment. When we know from this statement that it is not. Can the right hon. Lady confirm how a £45 billion cap on a scheme that was costed way more expensive than that back in 2019, can possibly deliver projects which are already estimated to be so much more than that value? What guarantees exist that schemes will be completed in full, and when this House will be finally given the detail that it deserves? Because perhaps she ought to remind the Prime Minister what he told the Yorkshire Post back in 2019, promising to deliver Northern Powerhouse in full today's announcement.

Nothing offers nothing better than dither, delay and a further decade away from spades in the ground. How can she and the Prime Minister pretend that this is the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail, when it is anything but that? By her own admission, by their own admission, no Budget has been set out. The cap in funding gives no confidence that funding, which will have to be raised from the private sector or through local taxes, is in place. So can she tell the House which local taxes will have to rise and by how much to fill the gap created by her own £45 billion cap? I know she, like me, cares deeply about ensuring Parliament is told the whole truth, but perhaps on this occasion it is the Prime Minister himself who should be lauded today.

When he said time and again that the cuts and downgrades this government has foreshadowed today represent nothing more than, and I quote, a betrayal of the North. So I ask the Secretary of State, isn't it the case that this is a strategy from a desperate government to make a cut, appear in investment, and attempt to save face with the British public, to spend months and months hiding their mealy mouthed plans, only to reveal them with bluster and misplaced confidence, is a sad indictment of a sorry government to come to this House today without dates, budgets and a plan for how to raise shortfalls after the cap is frankly pitiful.

To spin this as a plan for the future is a disgrace, and one of which she should be ashamed. She cannot escape the facts that her party came to power with no plan on how to deliver on their promises and their complete ineptitude at managing the public finances, means they are now having to U-turn even on those promises. If the Metro mayors and backbenchers had any backbone, then, rather than jostling for position under the next Labour leader today, they'd be acknowledging the truth in what I've said and calling out this betrayal.
12:56
Heidi Alexander Portrait Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP, The Secretary of State for Transport (Swindon South, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. Mr. speaker, >> Secretary of State. Mr. speaker, I can't believe what I've heard, to be honest. I mean, I know he's standing in for the shadow standing in for the shadow Transport secretary today, but really, I hoped he would have done a little bit better than that. He talks about he talks about no Budget being set out. We have set out £1.1 billion to be spent over the next four years, far more than his government ever spent on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

In the 14 years they had an opportunity to make improvements to the rail network in the north of England. If that's the way they approach basic maths, when we're spending over £1 billion, I can see why the public booted them out of office at the last election. Mr. speaker, we are working in collaboration with local mayors and we have agreed with local mayors that where they see opportunity to boost economic growth beyond the core scope of the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals, we will work with them to agree local contributions.

So the full benefits of this investment can be realised. Mr. speaker, more generally, though, I think this was a classic case of the hon. Gentleman writing the questions without listening to the announcement. Yeah, we are delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. We have set out our plans in full, we are funding NPR in full and we will deliver it. He mentions the previous government and their aspirations. Let me remind the House of what that actually amounted to. The plan that got the location of Manchester wrong on a map.

The plan that promised new tram lines that had already been built. The plan that diverted funding away from the north to fix potholes in the south. That plan was not worth the paper it was written on. And so we'll take no lessons on this from the party opposite. But if he won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to the people who run our great city regions in the North, the mayors of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and North Yorkshire said we welcome the government's once in a generation commitment to improving transport across the North.

The mayor of the Liverpool City Region said after more than a decade of dither, delay and broken promises, this is the start of a new era with a genuinely strategic approach and a government finally backing Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. The mayor of Greater Manchester said finally, we have a government with an ambitious vision for the North and a firm commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail. And let me quote one more person NPR is a project I've long championed, so it is excellent to see the government backing it in full.

Not the words of a Labour mayor, not the words of a Labour Minister, but the words of former conservative rail Minister Hugh Merriman. Mr. speaker, our plans are backed by the mayors, they're backed by business leaders, they're backed by their own former rail Minister. That tells you everything you need to know about who is delivering for the North and who never did.
13:00
13:01
13:02
Tim Farron Portrait Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Tim Farron Liberal Democrats. >> Tim Farron Liberal Democrats. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have read the statement. >> And indeed listened to her carefully, and I'm very grateful carefully, and I'm very grateful for early sight of it. We are massive supporters of Northern Powerhouse Rail on these benches, but we actually have all we have really concrete in this statement is just over £1 billion, so we can spend the next four years planning to maybe come up with another plan. So the failure of the previous conservative government to deliver infrastructure projects like this and HS2 was utterly depressing and embarrassing.

But I hope she will understand the scepticism of many of us in the North, not just on these benches, who fear this government is being worryingly pedestrian, too lacking in the determination to deliver vital projects like these high speed rail for the North delivered at snail's pace if we are lucky. So my questions are would I be right to surmise from her announcement that while we will see upgrades in the 2030s, which is a long time away, still we won't actually see trains running on the new track much before 2045.

What confidence can she give us that we won't see even more slippage in that timetable? What guarantees can she give us that we that we won't now see a repeat of the conservatives approach of stop, start, stop start, stop, start, cancel. And finally, of course. Could I remind the Minister that the North of England does not stop at the M62? And while we are proud of our cities of Leeds and Manchester and Liverpool, the biggest visited destination in the north of England is actually Cumbria.

Yet there is not a single mention of either Cumbria or Lancashire in this statement. Nothing. Nothing on the vital upgrades, nothing on the vital upgrades needed for the West Coast Main Line north of Warrington, especially in the light of the recent derailment at Shap. And there is, and we still continue to wait for the government to invest in the all important lakes line to Windermere, where a simple passing loop at Burnley side would double the line's capacity at a fraction of the cost of Northern Powerhouse Rail, directly connecting Manchester Airport to the heart of the English Lake District.

Might the Minister agree to meet with me to discuss these vital projects to help prove this government's concern for the North includes the actual North.
13:05
Heidi Alexander Portrait Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP, The Secretary of State for Transport (Swindon South, Labour)
-
-
Mr. speaker, I can assure the >> Mr. speaker, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are getting on with this and we will see these on with this and we will see these improvements delivered. I don't share his cynicism that we will spend the next four years simply coming up with a plan. The £1.1 billion that has been allocated is for land acquisitions. It's for early preparatory works on the Yorkshire schemes. We will see delivery in the 2030s and passengers seeing benefits as some of those schemes.

But what I won't do is make the same mistakes as the last government. When it came to HS2 who let contracts before the scope of schemes had been finalised. Essentially a free meal ticket for building contractors. We will take the time to do this properly. Spend taxpayer money wisely. Of course, I want to see the delivery of rail infrastructure speeded up, but I also want to make sure that every single penny of money that this government spends is well spent.

He asks about whether I can reassure him about the stop start nature of plans being drawn up and then delivered. We have taken our time to come up with a credible, sequenced, prioritised programme of improvements in stark contrast to the previous government, and I can assure him that this is a plan for the whole of the north of England. And I'd also gently remind him, when it comes to Cumbria and our government's commitment, over £13 million investment from the Department for Transport in Carlisle station, Cumberland, with an £18 million more to year bus funding deal.

Borders rail viability study £10 million. So he should remember that we are investing across the north of England in improving public transport for the travelling public.
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
Jo White Portrait Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
-
Chernihiv. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, as. This has just said, this is the evidence that we we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evidence that we we. Now have that cross-government working is in action. The Treasury, the Department of Transport and the Department of Transport and MCHLG setting the case, establishing confidence that the North is open for business, the North is open for business, the place to invest, to build and to live. We have a government that has the self-assurance to shift away the self-assurance to shift away from the well-trodden path where growth has traditionally centred on London and the South. The record is clear the Tories underinvested in the North.

Time and time again, and reform have already opposed everything that northern Northern Powerhouse Rail stands for, that their betrayal of the North must never be forgotten. That was so voluble. Please Jo White withdraw. Withdraw. I would I would welcome the member to withdraw that. Yeah, I withdraw that. I'm sorry, I apologise. No, I thank you. Oh, no, oh, no. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Their betrayal of the North must never be forgotten. Here, here to work.

However, we need our council leaders and mayors to play their part for constituencies like Bassetlaw, Bolsover, North East Derbyshire and Chesterfield. Our East Midlands mayor must be part of the dialogue and the investment strategy for transport, planning, connectivity. We all want to open our doors to businesses, businesses on the back of this. And will the Secretary of State ensure that our East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, has a place on the table? Is there?
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:55
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. This decision was taken by Birmingham City Council following the advice of the Safety Advisory Group, who acted on a recommendation by West Midlands Police. The House will be familiar with much of the detail in relation to this matter, not least as the Home Affairs Select Committee has applied itself to this with its customary forensic focus.

But it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On the 8th of October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands Police was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely. As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration. Policing decisions such as this are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk.

And so while my department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not, because I could not. While a range of options were still under consideration, all options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the Safety Advisory Group on the 16th of October. The decision to ban the travelling fans taken that day was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told they could not, because the games safety could not be guaranteed.

This came lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific anti-Semitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On October the 16th, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present. The government sought further information from West Midlands Police and offered the resources required to ensure the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the Safety Advisory Group was then arranged on the 24th of October.

At this moment, the chair requested, and I quote, a wholly fresh consideration of the issue, at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands Police hardened and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld. In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31st October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on the 27th of November, as the intelligence the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that question.

Today I have received Sir Andy's interim report, and a copy has been placed in the library of the house. Sir Andy's findings are damning. There is no other way to describe them. The force we now discover conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham before a decision was taken. As Sir Andy himself says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that there were high holy days during this time that prevented this engagement.

Most Concerningly Sir Andy describes an approach taken by West Midlands Police that he characterises as and I quote confirmation bias. This means that rather than follow the evidence, the force sought only the evidence to support their desired position to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands Police speak to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to other countries Greece, Ukraine and Denmark, where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently and more peacefully.

The West Midlands Police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy's report. The summary, provided as evidence to the Safety Advisory Group ahead of their crucial meeting on the 24th of October, was inaccurate claims, including the number of police officers deployed, links between fans and the Israeli Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, attacks on police officers and on taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue.

In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the validation of intelligence conducted by the force was a cause of significant concern that record keeping within the force was poor, and he was especially concerned about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands Police that we now know to have been misleading. He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk that was posed to the Israeli fans if they travelled to the area.

Misleading communications also extend to the words of the chief constable himself. At his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, when he claimed that AI tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports, a claim refuted by one of his own officers who blames incorrect evidence on and I quote, an AI hallucination. I know better than most that West Midlands Police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out. Sir Andy's report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but what is clear from this report is that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation and eroded public confidence in West Midlands Police and policing, more broadly faced by a game of such importance, the Chief Constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured more professional and thorough work was done.

As Sir Andy himself says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are, and I quote, symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including, at the most senior levels, the ultimate responsibility for the force's failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief Constable, and it is for that reason that I must declare today that the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police no longer has my confidence.

It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement. But on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the Chief Inspector of Policing, that is now the case. Until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, a power that was removed by the last conservative government. Today, it is only police and crime commissioners who hold this power, and so the chief constable's future rests with the local police and crime commissioner and not with me.

But I am sure that Simon Foster will now follow all due process as he considers that question for himself. I do, however, believe this illustrates that Home Secretaries should in future have this power restored to them. When a Chief Constable is responsible for a damaging failure of leadership, the public rightly expect the Home Secretary to act, and I intend to restore their ability to do so. I can announce today that this government will soon reintroduce the Home Secretary's power to dismiss chief constables in light of significant or persistent failings, and that this will be part of the government's upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow.

I do not expect this power to be used often, but I think it must be available at those rare moments when it is warranted. Madam Deputy Speaker, Sir Andy Cooke report is devastating. It catalogues failures that did not just affect the travelling fans. They let down our entire Jewish community in the West Midlands and across the country. I speak today not just as Home Secretary, but also as a member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency. In his report, Sir Andy says he believes the police acted in an attempt to avoid long term damage to local community relations.

If that is the case, what a grossly misguided effort it was. Peaceful, harmonious communities rely on a police service that, above all else, pursues the truth. In a world in which misinformation flows freely and dangerously. The police in this case added further misinformation into our public debate when they could and should have provided the truth that could have allayed fears in doing so. West Midlands Police did not support community relations. Instead, they inadvertently made things worse. This must serve as a lesson to police forces across the country, a reminder that they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, to police our streets without fear or favour, and that community, trust and cohesion depends upon them doing that above all else.

And with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
14:08
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Home Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A shameful episode. West Midlands Police had evidence that Islamist extremists based in Birmingham planned to attack Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let's call Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let's call that what it is. It is vicious anti-Semitism and we cannot allow violent Islamists to impose their will on our country. Yet that is exactly what West Midlands Police, exactly what West Midlands Police, through weakness and through fear, allowed to happen. They should instead have confronted the Islamist extremists. In fact, they should have investigated the extremists for inciting racial hatred.

As Jonathan Hall KC said only yesterday. But instead they capitulated to the Islamist mob by banning the Maccabi fans. But it gets worse. The West Midlands Police then tried to hide what they had done. They fabricated a claim that it was the Maccabi fans who were the dangerous ones. They claimed a previous game in Amsterdam had led to violence by the Maccabi fans. This claim was a pack of lies from start to finish. The mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch police have now confirmed the West Midlands Police simply made the whole thing up.

The chief constable must be fired. The Home Secretary claimed a moment ago that she now has no powers to dismiss the chief constable, but she failed to mention to the House section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which remains in force today. Under that she is Home Secretary, has the power to direct the police and Crime Commissioner to do things, including dismissing the Chief Constable. Where and I quote from section 60, subsection one, any part of the force is failing to act in an effective manner.

That test is quite clearly met. Part of the force, the Chief Constable, is indeed failing to act in an effective manner by the Home Secretary's own analysis. If she is unfamiliar with this piece of legislation, I've got a copy of it here. The Home Secretary must today use her section 40 powers to go through the process to direct the Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Foster, to dismiss Craig Guildford. She must stop pretending to have no power and actually act. And now we come to the role of the Home Secretary herself in this scandal.

In a briefing to the BBC on the 17th of October, a source close to the Home Secretary, which we all know means her special adviser acting with her authority, said the Home Secretary first knew about the possibility of a ban the previous evening, the 16th of October. We now know that is untrue. From evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee last week and by the Home Secretary's own admission just now. We now know Chief Constable Guildford personally briefed the Home Secretary on the 8th of October that it was likely a way fans would be banned, and that was the police's recommendation.

So will the Home Secretary now apologise for allowing her adviser to give the BBC untrue information on the 17th of October? And the Home Secretary herself must now answer this. She knew on October the 8th that it was likely away fans would be banned. Over a week before the final decision was taken on October the 16th. Yet it appears in those critical eight days she did nothing to investigate further or to try and stop it from happening. The Chief Constable, in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week, said that when he briefed the Home Secretary on October the 8th about the likelihood of the ban, she merely noted that was his word.

She merely noted what he had said, not asking further questions or showing curiosity in what she was being told. She did not convene personally any meetings attended by her in the following eight days, or take any personal steps to clarify the situation. She expressed concerns and took action only after the decision became public on October the 16th. By when it was too late, she was asleep at the wheel at the critical time, given the disgraceful events that followed.

Does the Home Secretary now accept that she was wrong to personally ask no questions? Officials may have asked questions, but she didn't personally ask any. Between October the 8th and October the 16th, does she accept it was wrong to stand by and do nothing during those critical eight days? And by the time she did take action after the 16th, it was too late. And by standing by during those critical eight days, she allowed the band to happen and let the Islamists win.

Will the Home Secretary apologise to the House for that inexcusable inaction during those critical days? And will she also commit to exercising her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime Commissioner to dismiss the chief Constable?
14:13
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Secretary? Thank you. just first say to the Shadow Home Secretary, I have a long and very personal experience of standing up to extremists in Birmingham, not least in the last general election campaign. I think my track record speaks for itself, and I am a woman who knows of what she speaks, unlike clearly him. Madam Deputy Speaker, the shadow Home Secretary appears to be unfamiliar with the law or indeed Sir Andy's findings in his report. So let me remind him of a few things.

Firstly, it was the conservative government that removed the Home Secretary's direct power to remove a chief constable. It used to be a power contained within section 42 of the Police Act, 1996. That was repealed by the conservatives in their 2011 Police and Social Responsibility Act, which explicitly removed the power, and I will quote from the explanatory notes of that act. And I do believe that the hon. Member for West Suffolk is very aware of what is in these explanatory notes, as I suspect he drafted them and approved them when he advised the former Home Secretary, Baroness May.

Those explanatory notes say the Secretary of State does not have power to direct a police and Crime Commissioner to suspend or remove a chief constable. That is, that is the law passed by the previous conservative government themselves. And as he should well know, if he made himself familiar with how the law is to be interpreted and to be implemented, he would know that section 40 of the Police Act, which remains in force in the 2011 act, cannot be read in isolation when when these matters would be litigated before a court, a court would be very aware of the direct powers removed by the repeal of section 42.

You cannot read the two things in isolation, and if you paid any attention to the detail, he would know that, and he would know that the Home Secretary does not have the power he claims that I do. Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that he and other hon. Members, for their own interest, do actually pay attention to what Andy has written in his report of today at page 11, he deals with what the Chief Constable has suggested was the reading of the meeting that took place on the 8th of October.

Let me just give a bit of context to the House. That is a meeting of police chiefs that I called myself following the attack in Manchester on the 2nd of October. I had already announced that I was going to look at police protest powers, and I had asked the most senior chief constables in the land, the National Police Chiefs Council, the the College of Policing and indeed Sir Andy Cooke himself to attend a meeting with me. Towards the end of that meeting, we did some horizon scanning of other difficult decisions that were coming up that might have public order consequences, and this was one such matter.

It was mentioned briefly by the Chief Constable, and his recollection of that is absolutely untrue. He did not say to me, or indeed anybody else in that room, that West Midlands Police had already made the decision to reduce the allocation of tickets to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to zero, but that it was ultimately a decision for the SAG when it next met. That is absolutely, categorically, categorically untrue. And I would say, given the seniority of everybody who was in the room that heard what was in fact said, if this was the case, it would have elicited a reaction not just from me and my officials, but from many of the other senior policing officials who were present in that room.

What was made clear to me is that the ban was a possibility, but it was one of a number of options that were being considered. And as late as the 15th of October, the Football Policing Unit made clear to Home Office officials and the Policing Minister that all options were still on the table, and the next thing we or anybody else knew about it was when the decision was taken itself on the 16th of October. And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is important that all members stick to the facts in this matter.

As Sir Andy has made clear in his factual findings, in his report, there will be those who wish to play politics with this matter. But I'm afraid that does not meet the test of evidence as set out in the report. And I would recommend to the shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Home Secretary actually pay some matter. Valerie Vaz Madam Deputy Speaker.
14:18
14:18
14:18
Will Forster Portrait Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Spokesperson Will Forster. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the recommendation by West Midlands Police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans Police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake that has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke damning report. The way they made the decision, not just the decision, the fact that they covered up their misleading statements, it is absolutely damning. These latest examples, after multiple denials that artificial intelligence was not used into coming to their decision, beggars belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police force, not only in West Midlands but in the whole country.

The Chief Constable of West Midlands does not have the Home Secretary's confidence. He does not have mine and I assume he doesn't have most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I'm pleased the Home Secretary did go quite unprecedented levels to say he should go, and I'm pleased that she's spoken to the House first. Will she later today be meeting with the chief, the the police and crime commissioner to call for the chief constable to go? Madam Deputy Speaker, we need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands Police.

Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including delays just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that this incident shows the need for Hillsborough law to come under the statute book as soon as possible? And finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree with that? And what plans has she got to ensure guidance is given to police forces?
14:20
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his remarks. Let me just say at the outset, I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the police and Crime Commissioner in advance of making the statement that I will be saying I do not have confidence in the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police. But I have also reiterated and made very clear that the process, any statutory process and any decision as to whether the statutory process for further action against the Chief Constable is a matter for the Police and Crime Commissioner himself.

He must consider that on his own terms, and I'm sure he will be making his own statement once he's had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy's report. And given that there could be a statutory process, I will not be commenting on what may or may not be happening going forward. In order to respect the independence and integrity of any future decisions, if they are in fact made on the iOPC. Let me just say to him, I do expect that the police and Crime Commissioner will consider his position on this matter and approach the iOPC if he deems it necessary, but that is a judgement for him.

I also expect the iOPC to consider whether these findings mean that they should use their own power of initiative to conduct an investigation. He will know that there are, of course, independent, and it would be improper for me to seek to direct them in any way. But they do have those powers. I believe they've already indicated they will consider the position again, once they've had a chance to absorb the findings of Andy's report. I agree with him. This case proves why we need a duty of candour on all public officials, and I look forward to the Hillsborough Law becoming an Act of Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

And just to say, on the use of artificial intelligence by police forces, I will return to these matters when I publish and come to the House to make a statement on the policing reform White Paper. I think it's important because AI is an incredibly powerful tool which can and should be used by our police forces, but regulating it to make sure it's always accurate is something that is of legitimate concern to us all. And I'll be saying more about that in due course.
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:26
14:26
14:27
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:33
14:33
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Secretary. for his question. Look, anti-Semitism is a terrible stain upon our country, and it's incumbent on all of us to work together to stamp it out wherever together to stamp it out wherever it occurs. Sir Andy's findings, of course, do not suggest that anybody at the police force level acted because they were motivated by anti-Semitism or with malign intent. But it is undoubtedly the case that some individuals who are making representations to the police may well have been motivated by anti-Semitism.

I also know others made good faith representations, or wanted to make good faith representations to the police just about the fear of public disorder on the night. But some of those individuals will have been motivated by anti-Semitism. And that's why it's so important that when the police are carrying out their duties, they follow the facts, and that when they make their risk assessments, they do so on the basis of facts and their professional judgement as to whether something can go safely ahead or not.

And we all need to be able to trust the police when they assert what their risk assessment has told them. That has not happened here. Sir Andy will come back with further findings about the functioning of safety advisory groups, and I'm very happy to discuss those with him and others in this House, as well as wider policy measures that I believe we will need to take as a government and as a country to stamp out anti-Semitism once and for all.
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Secretary. >> Secretary. >> I thank the hon. Gentleman. He's right on community relations. Let me just reflect that. I think there me just reflect that. I think there are many people acting in bad faith and with malign intent across our country who want to set Britain's Muslims against Britain's Jews. And I think that it's incumbent on all of us to make sure that we don't allow those efforts to succeed. And in relation to the police and the approach to community relations, it's why I'm so clear that we must all of us, whoever we are and wherever in the country we are, we must be able to rely on the police when they tell us they've come to a risk assessment and that the, the, the foundation of their risk assessment is robust and secure.

We can't trust the police on that. Then I think we've lost much more than just good and effective policing. And he is right on that. And let me say to him on the the position of the police and crime commissioner, he will no, I will not want to comment from this Dispatch Box on what the police and Crime Commissioner might wish to do. That is a matter entirely for him. He will make that choice independently. I'm sure he will have to ask questions on that.

There is no conflict of interest. Let me assure him of that as well, simply because I have set out a view. Having commissioned a report from the independent inspector, I think it's important I come to the House and set out my view. But the police and crime commissioner is unfettered in terms of how he now approaches things, and that is a matter for him. And I made that clear to him, as I'm sure all of his own legal advice will say so as well.
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)
-
-
Sir Alec Shelbrooke. >> Thank. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm building on the comments from my right hon. Friend Hertsmere. My right hon. Friend Hertsmere. My Jewish community have felt under siege for a decade now, and one thing that is worth paying tribute to is that the previous Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, drove out of their party, the people who had given anti-Semitism a safe space. But let's not be under any illusion. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many people who feel they still have that safe space for anti-Semitism and whether it be in our universities, where huge numbers of students believe that they can, without impunity, hassle Jewish students, whether it be in hostels as outlined in the Lord Mayor and Dame Penny Mordaunt report, which I know the Secretary of State is trying to address, that anti-Semitism is blatant and allowed to get away with, but we must call it at all levels.

And I will call out right now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the deputy leader of the Green Party, who I am ashamed to say is a Leeds city councillor, drove out into hiding. The Jewish priest of the University of Leeds, and he is still in hiding and they must be called out. So may I ask the Home Secretary that she uses every effort of her office across government to make sure that we're anti-Semitism is still given a safe space where it is still not being addressed, that they call out the leaders of those institutions and look at what action may be taken.

This is another watershed moment, as odd as that sounds. But this time something really has to be done.
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
Bob Blackman. >> Bob Blackman. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome both the tone and content of the Home Secretary statement of the Home Secretary statement today. She'll be well aware that when the draw was made, that meant that Maccabi were going to be visiting Villa Park. There were attempts by extremist elements in the community to prevent the fixture taking place at all. When that failed, they moved on then to try and get fans banned because the club comes from Israel and the fans are Jewish.

I've been to Villa Park on multiple occasions. It's perfectly possible for those fans to have been escorted by coach from the airport, right outside the ground, and for them to be escorted away from the ground immediately afterwards. It was very clear that Aston Villa fans were not going to attack the fans of Maccabi, but extremist elements within the community were going to. It is clear then, that the police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concocted evidence to support that case. And the reality is, Whilst I completely agree with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whilst I completely agree with her about the Chief Constable, the senior leadership of West Midlands Police also have questions to answer about who fabricated that evidence. Was it done under orders?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And if the Chief Constable should go, surely they should go as well. Yes. Yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes, Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Let me tell him I
14:58
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
know Villa Park very well, because until the last general election the club fell within my constituency club fell within my constituency boundary. And that is why, after the decision was made, the government, myself, through my government, myself, through my officials, did seek to ask West Midlands Police whether there were other ways in which the match could other ways in which the match could be policed so as to enable it to go ahead, because we were very clear that, you know, banning of fans is that, you know, banning of fans is a very extreme act to take.

And in the general run of things, we should want cultural events in our country to take place. So I do recognise the picture that he paints. The findings are damning as as I know, many hon. Members here have remarked already. Just let me say to him on the wider issue of other officers, I think in the end, the reason I've made the remarks I have about the Chief Constable today is he he is the individual who leads the force. It's happened on his watch.

It's for him to have set the proper culture where all of these risk assessments were done properly, and where confirmation bias could not have taken hold. And is the chief constable who, of course, made assertions and gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the way that he did? It's now for him to reflect on that. He may have things to say himself in the coming days, and it's for the police and crime Commissioner, I think now to consider what further actions he might wish to take, including his broader responsibilities, to make sure that the force is functioning as it should.

Speaker.
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Home Secretary well, let me say >> Home Secretary well, let me say to the hon. Gentleman he's presenting a particular picture of presenting a particular picture of operational independence, which he knows is a difficult line to tread for all Home secretaries and something that is guarded very closely by police. But it would have been wholly inappropriate for me to try and carry out either my own risk assessment and if I was, as I was subsequently able to do once the decision was made, challenging West Midlands Police on the basis on which those decisions, I was dependent on what they would have been telling, I would have been dependent on what they would have been telling me in the first place.

I was not told that they would seek a ban on visiting fans. I was told that it was that all options were on the table, so it was one of the things that was being considered. But I was not told that it was going to be done. So I would refer him to Sir Andy's letter and the final page in the first paragraph of that letter, which sets out what actually happened. And I absolutely refute any suggestion that I was told definitively on the 8th of October in the way that the Chief Constable has suggested happened.

That did not happen. Let me say to him, on contact between the Home Office and number ten, that would have happened in the usual way. But the first any of us were aware of the decision being brought forward, being made earlier than anticipated, and that a ban was going to be pursued was on the 16th of October. Sorry. And I was. Intelligence about any armed or planned armed attacks by local people. That was never put to me.
15:07
15:07
15:08
Iqbal Mohamed Portrait Iqbal Mohamed MP (Dewsbury and Batley, Independent)
-
-
Iqbal Mohamed. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and any procedural failings by our police force or any failings by our police force or any public authorities must be investigated and corrected and prevented. The report or the letter by Sir Andy Cooke does mention that certain risks were overstated and understated and that should be balanced. But the statements in this House that incidents in Amsterdam were completely fabricated are also statements that are fabricated.

He does acknowledge there's evidence that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans targeted Muslims and Palestinians in Amsterdam. A report by Kick It Out Israel identified 118 incidents of racist chanting by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans during 2024 and 2025, the highest for any club in the Israeli Premier League. UEFA fined Maccabi Tel Aviv 20,000 and imposed a suspended away away ban fan for their match against.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This question. Sit down please. When I'm stood up, this question needs to be a question to the Home

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs to be a question to the Home Mohamed. My apologies, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's open season on Islamophobia in this room, and I am I'm I am completely against any I'm I am completely against any kind of racism and anti-Semitism must be quashed. But so should Islamophobia. Will the the Home Secretary confirm that there is no reference to anti-Semitic decision making by the police in Sir Andy Cooke report, and there's no mention of any Islamist influence, because I have the report in front of me. In his report.
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
the government set out on our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, a mission rooted in a simple argument that if we in a simple argument that if we want to take back control of our energy from the petrostates and dictators, if we want to bring down dictators, if we want to bring down bills for good, and we want to create a new generation of secure, well-paid jobs, then the right well-paid jobs, then the right choice is to get off the roller coaster of international fossil fuel markets, which caused the worst cost of living crisis in worst cost of living crisis in memory.

Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, for a year and a half, this mission has faced determined opposition from a well-funded band of doomsters and defeatists. Today, we publish the results of our latest offshore wind auction, and with it we prove those doubters and naysayers wrong. Let me let me set out the results to the House. On coming to office, we inherited the fiasco of the fifth of the fifth allocation round, a failure of their making that trashed the crown jewels of our energy system with not a single offshore wind project secured.

That is their legacy. Indeed, that is her legacy. Our last auction, R6 got the industry on its feet again. Today it rolls back stronger than ever. We've secured 8.4GW of offshore wind, enough to power the equivalent of a 12 million homes in this country, with winning fixed offshore wind projects in every part of Great Britain, Dogger Bank South off the coast of Yorkshire, and Vanguard off the coast of East Anglia, two of the largest offshore wind farms in the world. Berwick Bank in the North Sea, the first new Scottish project since 2022, and Awel y Mor, the first Welsh project to win a contract in more than a decade.

And on floating wind, the emerging technology of the future. Successful projects in Wales and Scotland, the Erebus project in the south in the Celtic Sea and Pentland and Pentland in Scotland are backed by pioneering investment from Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. Taken together. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a record breaking amount of offshore wind capacity procured in a single auction, the most successful offshore wind auction in British history and the most successful ever to be carried out anywhere in Europe.

That is what it means to deliver on the promise we made to the British people. Against the backdrop of global headwinds facing the industry. This is a huge vote of confidence in Britain's drive for energy sovereignty and abundance. And let me explain to the House why these results are so important for the country. First, they are a major step forward for our clean energy mission. As I've said, alongside our work driving ahead on onshore wind, solar batteries and nuclear, this puts us firmly on track to take back control of our energy and deliver clean power.

By 2030. We only have to look at events around the world, madam Deputy Speaker, to see that we live in increasingly unstable and uncertain times. Fossil fuel shocks have caused half of the UK's recessions since 1970. Last year, wholesale gas prices spiked by 15% in a single week after global instability in the Middle East. And we must never forget the impact of Russia invading Ukraine. Ukraine, which through family finances, business finances and the public finances wrecked as a result of them leaving us exposed to fossil fuels.

This exposure leaves us incredibly vulnerable as a country, and we haven't got a moment to waste in ending it. That is why our mission is so important, and these record breaking results show our approach to building things again in this country is working. We are more secure today in our energy system than we were yesterday thanks to these results, and we look forward to building on this momentum as we look ahead to R8, which are on track to open later this year.

Second on costs. These results show offshore wind is cheaper to build and operate than new gas. Today we publish our updated estimates of the Levelized cost of electricity, the standard industry metric, which includes the cost of building and operating new gas fired power stations. The same metric that was published under the last Energy Secretary. These estimates show that the cost of building and operating a new gas fired power station is £147 per megawatt hour. By contrast, I can inform the House that the average price for fixed offshore wind in today's auction was £90.91 per megawatt hour.

In other words, 40% cheaper than the cost of building and operating new gas. And don't take my word for it and don't take my word for it. This is what the head of this is, what the head of energy UK, which represents gas, nuclear and renewables, said of renewables this morning and I quote, we need to invest in new power generation and this is the cheapest form. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know, I know, some people want to pull the wool over our eyes on this, but they can only do so by comparing the cost of building and operating new renewables with the cost of operating, but not building new gas.

And here is the reality. Faced with years of underinvestment in our energy system under the previous government and power, demand is set to increase by at least 50% by 2035 and more than double by 2050. There is no alternative to building new energy infrastructure in this country. Now we can choose to stop building renewables and just build new gas plants as they want to do. But it is clear that offshore wind remains significantly cheaper to build and operate. And and credible independent research confirms that the renewables we have are we've already built are bearing down on wholesale electricity costs, having reduced wholesale prices by a quarter in 2024.

Our mission is right. Clean power is the route to bringing down energy bills for good. Third, today's auction cements the offshore wind industry's position as a jobs and growth engine for Britain at the heart of our industrial strategy. These projects will unlock £22 billion in private investment and support at least 7000 good jobs across the country, from the Scottish Highlands to the Suffolk coast. Now, members across this House know that so many people in our country ask the question of where the good jobs of the future are going to come from for themselves and their children.

Clean energy is central to that answer. The previous government failed to act to ensure offshore wind generated jobs and supply chains in this country. By contrast, we will use every tool at our disposal to ensure turbines, foundations and cables are made and built in Britain, creating good, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions. That is why this auction for the first time included a clean industry bonus to reward investment in ports and factories in the areas that need it most. I can inform the house in this auction.

The industry has responded with ambition. The clean industry bonus will crowd in billions of pounds of private investment and support thousands of jobs in supply chains across the country, and we look forward to setting out the full results in due course as we drive forward on the 100,000 offshore wind jobs, our mission will help support by 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me close by saying that Britain faces a choice. Over the coming years, we can seize the opportunities of clean, home grown energy to cut bills and create jobs, or we can double down on our exposure to fossil fuels in calling for us to cancel this auction.

Our opponents made their choice, setting their face against cheaper, cleaner home grown power, against 7000 jobs supported today and thousands more to come against taking back control of our energy sovereignty and against action on the climate crisis to protect our children and grandchildren. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has made our choice for energy security, lower bills, good jobs and climate. And I commend this statement to the House.
15:20
Claire Coutinho Portrait Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP (East Surrey, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State. >> Shadow Secretary of State. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. for advance sight of his statement. What the Secretary of State has done today is given a massive boost to the profits of multi-million pound energy companies, but it will be paid for consumers through their bills. So what do the prices show us? First, wind power is not getting cheaper. As promised, these are the highest prices that we've seen in a decade.

Today's strike prices in a like for like comparison are much higher than last year. If we use the Secretary of State's own figures on the worth of the contract extension that he put forward to 20 years, they are 24% more expensive than last year. That's an enormous increase year on year, 24% more expensive, much higher than inflation. So can he explain why building a wind farm has suddenly got so much more expensive? Well, I can. It's because the Secretary of State, by setting himself completely unrealistic targets.

He advertised to multi-million pound wind developers that he would be buying whatever they were selling, no matter the cost. He flexed all the rules. He extended their contract. In fact, he gave the wind developers everything they wanted. And this is how they repaid him. The most expensive prices for wind power that we've seen in a decade. And he wants us to celebrate the fact that he bought a bumper round, the biggest in history, in his own words. Now let's take his key argument on Levelized cost of electricity.

If he had looked at or replied to any of the letters I had sent him, he would know that I did not agree with using an AE to compare wind power and gas power. He will know I started. He might want to listen to this because he might learn something. He will know I started a full systems cost which he cancelled even though I urged him to continue it. That's because the full cost of these contracts to the consumer are £95 in today's money, plus inflation, plus the extra costs that come with wind turning them off when it's too windy, having a backup gas plant when it's not windy enough, and connecting them to the grid.

So he's underplayed the true cost of wind on people's bills. And by the way, that's not just me saying how we should look at it. This is what wind developers themselves say that they should look at it. It's how Dieter Helm and senior economists say we should look at it. We should look at the full systems costs. Now, let me turn to gas when he talks about the comparison with the new gas power plant, he is wilfully ignoring the fact that he needs to build new gas plants anyway.

What does the Secretary of State think will power the country on wintry days, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? Even his own plans acknowledge it's gas power. In his plans, he will build the same amount of gas plants anyway. He'll just run them 4% of the time. Would anyone here buy a house? They use 4% of the time? Well, I guess out of all of us, Secretary of State probably would. But here's the problem. He's having to build more and more capacity, lots of which will sit idle most of the time.

That means higher costs for a less productive energy system. These are all costs the Secretary of State is choosing to ignore. But even if we use the figures he's quoting today, which underplay the cost of wind, even in his own figures, the truth is here if you take out the carbon tax that he's choosing to impose, the cost of a gas power plant running fully is much cheaper, roughly a third cheaper than offshore wind. It's here in black and white. Page 33 if members would like to check.

He's hoping that members on the benches opposite won't read what he's published today, but I hope they do, because it should be facts, not ideology, that drives the decisions we make for our energy system. People out there are at breaking point. They get up every day, they go to work and everything, everything they earn is being eaten up by Labour's taxes and their bills. He tried to tell me last time we were at this Dispatch Box that people's energy bills are going down, not up.

Nobody out there believes him. Energy bills have gone up five times under him because of his policies, and now he is celebrating this botched wind auction, which has seen him sign up to the highest prices of wind power for a decade. Prices, which are close to 20% higher than the cost of electricity. The question is how on earth can he bring bills down from here with these higher prices? That is what people were promised. This will be the PFI of the energy system long after he's gone from this place.

And I warned him. I warned the Secretary of State that by setting himself completely unrealistic targets, the wind developers would have him over a barrel. And that is what has happened here. He talks about fossil fuel spikes, but he doesn't talk about the ongoing de-industrialisation of this country because of uncompetitive electricity prices, prices, which he is locking us into for two decades. So I have three simple questions for him. Will he finally publish a full systems cost of clean power 2030? Will he confirm that he will still need to build gas power plants for dispatchable power? Or if that's not his policy, what is going to keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? And does he have a forecast for the constraint payments? How much he will expect to pay those wind developers to turn off when it is too windy?
15:26
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
Yeah yeah yeah. >> Yeah yeah yeah. >> Secretary of State. >> That was a lot. Let let as they say. Look, look, first of all, let say. Look, look, first of all, let me deal with her what she said point by point. First of all, we're going to take no lectures from her on energy bills. She presided over the worst cost of living crisis in history. And and not once, madam Deputy Speaker, have we heard a word of apology. And I'll tell her and I'll tell her.

It's this government that is taking £150 of costs off bills. And how are we doing it? Because we're raising taxes on the wealthy. And she opposes every one of the measures that we are taking. Second. Second, I have to say I have to say to her, I know it's painful for her, but I'm using the same metric that she endorsed in November 2023. She was there as the energy secretary. She published she published the document and on and on that and on that metric and on that metric, she knows the truth that it says, which is that the renewables, the offshore renewables today are 40% cheaper to build and operate the new gas.

And however much she tries to struggle or flail around, that is the fact that they are the facts, I'm afraid. And she asks about carbon pricing, by the way. Very interesting. There's even when you take off carbon pricing, gas is still more expensive on the figures. On the figures we published today has sums simply don't add up now. Now then she asks. Then she asks, then she asks. And this is really this is really rich. She asks about constraint payments. Well, I've got to say, why do we have constraint payments? I am answering the question, why have we got constraint payments? Because they failed to build the grid when she was the Secretary of State.

And get this and get this, Madam Deputy Speaker, now she comes along, complains about constraint payments, and opposes every piece of energy infrastructure that we try and build to actually bring down the constraint famous. I mean, it is extraordinary. But here's her big problem, Madam Deputy Speaker. Here's her big problem is that she is making a massive gamble. And it's a gamble on fossil fuels, a gamble on fossil fuels. Exactly what they did when they were in office. And we know where that led the worst cost of living crisis in memory, leaving us at the mercy of petrostates and dictators and leaving the British people to pay the price.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll end by saying this. We were elected with a historic mandate to end their record of failure. And that's what we're doing. We're ending the sell-out of our energy security. We're cutting bills. We're creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs. We're protecting future generations. Let me sum it up. She failed. We're delivering.
15:28
15:29
15:30
Edward Morello Portrait Edward Morello MP (West Dorset, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Edward Morello. I would like to start by welcoming the results of the R-7 allocation. This is about protecting working This is about protecting working families from volatile fossil fuel prices set by foreign powers, who have repeatedly used oil and gas as a geopolitical weapon, and relying on Trump's America or Putin's Russia to keep the lights on puts us all at risk. Renewable energy is also the cheapest form of energy, and it is the only. It is only through renewable energy that we can deliver permanently low and secure energy prices and help with the cost of living crisis, not just today, but for the long term.

While procuring 8.4GW of offshore wind puts the country on track for the government's Clean Power Target, 2023 2030 target research from Renewable Energy UK does show that this is the minimum needed, leaving very little room for delays.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which independent sources. They are a source nonetheless,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are a source nonetheless, but it does place even greater importance on AR8, so I'm hoping the government will commit to its timetable to open R eight by the summer and to announce the results summer and to announce the results by the end of the year. Meanwhile, there is still work to be done to bring down bills for working families and businesses, which is families and businesses, which is why I urge the Secretary of State to look at Liberal Democrat proposals to phase out the outdated renewable energy certificate scheme and replace it fully with a contract for difference scheme.

We all must also be honest about the impact of Brexit on energy bills. Well, we can't get through it without mentioning it. So will the government. Will the government commit to accelerating negotiations to re-engage with the EU's internal energy market to ensure access to cheap electricity when we need a guarantee, energy source and export market for when we overproduce? And despite the noise from my science denying fossil fuel lobbyists on the right and the Putin apologists behind us, this this is a good for Great Britain.

This is the right decision for consumers and it promises a better and cleaner future.
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:58
Alicia Kearns Portrait Points of Order Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)
-
-
Well. than we hoped. So well done to Kearns. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a point of order, I attempted today to submit a question, a written question to Cog regarding written question to Cog regarding the unredacted plans for the proposed new Chinese Communist Party embassy in London. The table office, however, told me that they refused to table it on the grounds that the government has efficiently, effectively issued a block, refusing to answer any questions related to the proposal in any way. Now this, of course, follows yesterday the urgent question where the government refused to put up a Home Office Minister despite the question being about national security.

So please, may I seek your advice? How is the government able to block making answers to any questions on a matter of such national importance? And how do we get the answers we deserve if we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot in the chamber or now in written questions. Here. I thank the hon. Member for raising her point of order. raising her point of order. Responses to questions are, of course, a matter for the government rather than the chair. But Erskine rather than the chair. But Erskine May, paragraph 22.19 states that questions were written. Answers are not in order which renew or repeat in substance, questions already in substance, questions already answered, or to which an answer has been refused in that session of Parliament.

If the government has refused to answer questions on a specific matter, further questions would therefore not be in order. However, there may not be the case in this incident. I would suggest you seek further advice from the table office on what other routes are open to her to pursue her concerns, and the government whips are acknowledging that this is something, no doubt that they will continue in their conversations as well.
15:59
Kieran Mullan Portrait Points of Order Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Speaker thank you. I wish to >> Speaker thank you. I wish to raise a point of order in relation to the Public Office Accountability Bill. The House will be aware that we've already seen the chaotic last we've already seen the chaotic last minute pulling of that bill we were due to consider today. Move to next week. The House will also know the week. The House will also know the convention is that the government lays its own amendments ahead of opposition amendments to give us time to consider them.

The government pledged to make us aware of the amendments today before the House rises, so we would have at least an hour, perhaps, to consider what we might put. And we are still still no further ahead with seeing what the government wishes to amend. On top of that, we were offered a privy. We were offered a Privy Council, a briefing on Privy Council terms that myself and a colleague attended, which was cancelled at the last minute. The handling of this bill, which is related to matters of national security, is chaotic.

How can we ensure the House is in a position to lay amendments that respond to the government's own amendments?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, which the frontbench will no doubt will have heard. The amendments will be available for members in the usual way after the deadline for tabling has passed. I think he accepts that has passed. I think he accepts that that tabling hasn't yet passed, and no doubt he's got his points on the record, and discussions between the frontbenchers is not a matter for As As of As of January.

As of January.
16:01
None Portrait Presentation of Bills
-

We now come to the ten minute rule motion banks, financial exclusion and access to finance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Thomas Deputy speaker, I beg to move. Banks financial exclusion and access to Finance exclusion and access to Finance Bill a bill to require banks to measure and disclose their performance in reducing financial exclusion, including exclusion from exclusion, including exclusion from affordable credit and in improving access to finance for small and medium sized businesses. To medium sized businesses. To establish a system for rating banks according to their performance. To require banks to cooperate with credit unions and community development finance institutions to address financial exclusion and improve access to finance for small and medium sized businesses and for connected purposes.

At the outset, I should declare that I'm a member of the Money Credit Union. Madam Deputy Speaker Dal Dhillon is a great Coventry entrepreneur. He runs Dylan's Brewery, the Spire Bar and the Sky Blue Tavern, which together are helping to fire up Frank Lampard's growing army of Coventry fans as they push for the holy grail of Premier League promotion. Like many growing businesses, when they start, when they wanted to expand, they hit a stumbling block. Accessing affordable finance. Their application was rejected by a mainstream bank, so Coventry and Warwickshire Reinvestment Trust, a community development finance institution, Cdfi or community Bank, stepped in.

Their not for profit, they're accredited by the Financial Conduct Authority. They're community focussed and they take the time to understand the entrepreneur, their business and their ambitions. In essence, they are a proper community bank. Since 2010 has loaned over £37 million, helping SMEs overlooked by traditional lenders in their communities to start up, to grow and to thrive. Thousands of small and medium sized businesses, sadly, are locked out of access to affordable credit at the moment. In short, they can't get fair banking.

This holds back too many people in too many communities, from turning strong ideas for new inventions or new services into more jobs. New high street ventures, or just great commercial opportunities for the entrepreneur who doesn't have a track record or assets. Access to business, finance and to financial advice is a huge challenge. Indeed, the cost of business finance in the UK is higher than in other comparable countries. In government, senior figures in one bank told me that the typical business client who received personal sit down financial advice had a trading income of £10 million or more, according to the Federation of Small Business.

Small businesses who are concerned about access to the funding their members need and who are supportive of this bill. Nearly half of small businesses recently rated the overall availability and affordability of new credit for small businesses as poor. At the same time, millions of people in the UK don't have access to affordable credit when they need it most, either. Over 20 million adults are now classified as financially underserved, a 50% rise since 2016. 1 in 3 adults face barriers to mainstream credit, often leaving them without safe or affordable options.

12.5 million people have no savings to fall back on in a crisis, and almost 2 million have turned to illegal lenders in the last 12 months alone. As the team at the excellent London Mutual Credit Union pointed out to me when I visited last week, to not have fair access to affordable credit can mean having to use payday loans, forcing those who can least afford it to put up with higher charges and interest rates paying a poverty premium. It means it's harder to save.

It's more costly to buy key things like a fridge or to repair a broken boiler. In short, it's harder to pay for life's unexpected costs. The financially underserved don't live far away. They're in all our communities. They're among our families. They're our friends, and they're certainly our neighbours. I welcome the work, my honourable and right hon. Friends on the frontbench have put in in establishing again a financial inclusion strategy. This bill seeks to build on that good work.

We need to go further and faster. If the loan sharks are to feel their opportunities are shrinking. If we're to see credit unions doubling in size and community banks unlocking more of the business ambition in our country, especially in the most economically deprived areas, a fair banking act would require the Financial Conduct Authority to analyse the performance of mainstream banks according to their size, on providing equitable access to both credit for individuals and to SMEs. It would create a published rating system that showed which banks were doing well, and which lesser banks could improve their ratings by expanding their own provision of affordable lending to underserved communities and businesses, and also by creating partnerships with community banks.

Cdfis. I am not interested in bashing Britain's banks. They are critical to our economic future, huge sources of wealth and jobs for British people and all our communities. But I do think they could do more. There are fair banking requirements in other countries, most notably in the US, where most British banks already operate very comfortably with them. There are, of course, differences between the financial services environment in the US and here in the UK. A UK Fair Banking Act would need to focus here on small business lending and an individual's ability to access affordable credit, and less so on mortgage lending.

A key issue in the US, American fair banking requirements mean British banks invest in left behind communities in the US, investing in and working happily with community banks or cdfis. Indeed, British banks are amongst the largest investors in US cdfis. They don't lose money and there is often joint lending by cdfis and banks, and they celebrate in the reports they have to publish, for example, their work with women entrepreneurs and with black and ethnic minority businesses. So the question for those British banks is why they won't back such requirements here, why they won't do more with community banks and credit unions in the UK.

To be fair, there is some investment in cdfis from Lloyds and JP Morgan. But it's striking how many other banks invest in cdfis in the US, but don't invest similarly here because of the US requirements, British banks are already used to working with the disclosure requirements I envisage in this bill. The majority of the data needed for disclosure requirements under this bill will already be collected by the FCA through, for example, their consumer credit product sales data. So this is not overregulation.

Conservative estimates with a small C following detailed research for the Fair Banking campaign, suggest that the requirements in this bill could result, for example, in an increase in the level of annual lending just by cdfis and credit unions here, from an estimated £250 million per year, up to £3.3 billion a year, transforming the prospects for thousands of entrepreneurs and financially underserved people in all our communities. There have been some suggestions that the measures in my bill might overlap with existing laws and regulations, including the recent consumer duty.

Unfortunately, the consumer duty only applies to people who are customers, so people who apply to banks and are turned down are excluded from this. There are two no mechanisms or metrics currently in place or being proposed on measuring banks performance, on expanding access to affordable credit as a whole. Specifically, there is no current framework for benchmarking banks actions on providing affordable credit or on working with credit unions and cdfis, and there is currently no mandate for banks to expand access to affordable credit, and no incentive for them either to work with credit unions and cdfis to do so.

What the widespread exclusion from credit demonstrates is a major market failure, that current measures aren't working, that voluntary measures aren't enough. The measures in my bill would end that failure. Talent. Entrepreneurial talent in particular exists everywhere in the UK. We need to give that talent the chance to flourish, and more affordable sources of credit are key, and no one in crisis should be forced into punishing levels of debt, or worse, because the mainstream banking sector has locked them out.

I am grateful for the support of the Federation of Small Businesses, Small Business Britain, Richard Marshall of Pall Mall Barbers, the Building Societies Association, Abcul, the Co-op Party, responsible finance and the excellent team of finance. Innovation lab A fair banking act is a common sense, proportionate measure which could have transformative benefits for businesses and communities across the UK, and I commend this bill to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House. The question is of the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many people say, I Connor Rand no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the bill? Dame Meg Hillier Sarah Champion. Liam Byrne Sarah Owen. David Liam Byrne Sarah Owen. David Burton-Sampson. Lloyd Hatton Bill Esterson. Mr. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Nick Smith Anneliese Dodds John McDonnell and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gareth Thomas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nicely done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nicely done. Banks, financial exclusion and access to Finance Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access to Finance Bill. Second Reading what day? 2720. 7th of February, 27th of February. We now come to the. If the Ministers wish to swap over very quickly. We now come to the general debate on Ukraine. I call the Minister to move the motion. Minister Stephen Doughty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move the
16:11
None Portrait General debate: Ukraine
-

motion in our name. Next month marks four years since Russia launched its illegal and barbarous launched its illegal and barbarous full scale invasion of Ukraine. But Ukraine has stood strong and we have stood alongside them and will have stood alongside them and will continue to do so. And I am particularly proud that this week also marks one year on from our also marks one year on from our agreement of a crucial 100 year partnership with Ukraine that I know enjoys wide support across the House, and that we will be celebrating and taking further forward this week.

But this is four years, Madam Deputy Speaker, in which the Ukrainian people have stood firm, bravely resisting this assault on their sovereign territory. Four years of enduring, relentless drone and missile strikes that have killed civilians and have torn through homes, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. And like many members across this house, I have been in Kyiv while those attacks have been underway. I've seen the devastation, the damage caused. I've seen the implications for the civilians, the ordinary people of Ukraine who are facing this.

I've been in the bunkers where children have to take their lessons because of the attacks. And I've heard the harrowing stories of those who've been abducted and taken by barbarous and illegal Russian action. And just last week, Russia launched 252 drones and 36 missiles at targets across Ukraine, yet another attack that killed and injured dozens of civilians and left millions without power or heating. As temperatures plunge to -20 degrees. The attack also included an intermediate range ballistic missile that struck critical infrastructure near the Polish border and Russia's use for the second time of a hypersonic irbm in Ukraine, this time close to NATO territory, is a reckless and dangerous escalation.

Moscow claims it was responding to an alleged Ukrainian attack on one of Putin's residences, an absolutely baseless allegation and yet another example of Russia using disinformation to justify its actions and disinformation is an issue which I was discussing just last week in the Foreign Affairs Committee with members, and an issue which I know many of us take deeply seriously across this House. And I would, as an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, note the absence yet again of one party in this House.

Again, I think we all know that because I think there is a very strong cross-party consensus on this. But there's one party that's missing, and of course, that's a party that has willingly repeated Russian narratives on NATO and on Ukraine, and indeed, whose former leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to share their narratives. And they might like this to go away. Madam Deputy Speaker, but it's not just their words. Their absence speaks volumes, too. And I therefore, and I genuinely do commend the opposition and indeed the other parties that are present here today, because I think all of us in this House and I've had many conversations with the members here on many occasions, have stood resolutely whichever side of the House we've been on with Ukraine since the start of this conflict.

And that very much, I think, represents where the British people are and where British people stand in relation to this illegal and barbarous aggression in our continent. We know too, from our own history what that can mean, and we will continue to stand. And I'm proud of the constituency in my own constituency, and indeed in all of our constituencies who continue to support Ukrainians here in the UK and continue to stand with Ukraine in their fight against Russia. And of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, Russia's barbaric actions come against the backdrop of US led peace negotiations.

Time and again, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace. And just last week, President Zelensky came together with world leaders and the United States in Paris to discuss next steps. And we welcome the significant progress that has been made and the work of President Trump and many others in taking that forward. And alongside France, the UK has led the coalition of the willing, carrying out detailed military planning on the security guarantees which are needed to ensure against future Russian aggression in the event of a peace settlement.

And in Paris, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined President Macron and President Zelensky to sign a declaration of intent, and that declaration confirms that in the event of a peace deal, the UK and France would deploy forces to Ukraine. It paves the way for a legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing its skies and its seas and regenerating its armed forces for the future. And as my hon.

Friend the Prime Minister has said, if British troops were to deploy under this agreement, the matter would come before this House for a debate and a vote. And the Paris Declaration agreed with us and coalition partners, sets out the security guarantees to be activated security guarantees to be activated once a ceasefire takes effect. You can see I'm happy to give. can see I'm happy to give.
16:16
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Way, giving away. And I've previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control, whilst the western part of unoccupied Ukraine were left as a military vacuum, would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of World War two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east, is not still in being as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump.

Has the Minister a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship and aggression by Iran, and yet has such a strangely different view when it comes, when it applies to the same two features of Russian behaviour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Speaker, I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, I would gently disagree with his suggestion. gently disagree with his suggestion. I think President Trump's leadership, and indeed the very important discussions that took place in Paris with the United place in Paris with the United States and indeed other coalition partners, sets out very clearly how security guarantees would be activated. And there have been very activated. And there have been very important steps taken. And, of course, more broadly, I am proud that we continue to stand with the United States in NATO.

Our United States in NATO. Our commitment to article five, our commitment to defending the security of the alliance is absolutely crucial to our security, and indeed all of us in the Alliance. We, of course, support all the progress towards a just and lasting peace. But it is crucial. Madam Deputy Speaker, that we keep Ukraine in the fight. We all know that its armed forces are fighting heroically and with great determination. And indeed I, like many of you, will have met those who have served on the front lines in Ukraine and the extraordinary bravery and fortitude that they show.

But of course, we must recognise they are under immense pressure and therefore we need to get them the support that they need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to defend themselves and, of course, ensure they have support into the future. I'll happily give way. Thank you. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank. The Minister for giving way. Today the NATO Parliamentary Assembly have been given an open Assembly have been given an open letter from the chairman of the Ukrainian parliament, who's been Ukrainian parliament, who's been here? Russian Stafford Franchuk, who I've met a few times. He's urging for immediate delivery of urging for immediate delivery of air defence and air to air missiles. They are in desperate need of it. He's asked all NATO members to speed this delivery up as fast as possible.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable and gallant gentleman for his comments on this gentleman for his comments on this and for sharing what the speaker of the Rada has said. I have to met with him in the past, and he's a remarkable individual, as indeed remarkable individual, as indeed all of those Ukrainian MPs who we've all met who stood to defend their parliament at the most difficult times. Back at the time difficult times. Back at the time of the original invasion.

But he raises important points. These are all matters which Secretary of State for defence and my colleague to my left and others are looking at. We are looking very much at all of the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. And indeed, that is why we have led the 50 nation Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside Germany. And we secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year. And why we're also going further, we've developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone project octopus, to be mass produced in the UK, and we're also developing a new long range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine's firepower and defend against Putin's war machine.

And also why we continue to lead not only in supporting Ukraine ourselves, but also in galvanising other partners to maintain that support. I was meeting with my good colleague from from Portugal this morning discussing the contribution Portugal has made. And indeed many countries, large and small across Europe have stepped up. And I think it's important to acknowledge Madam Deputy Speaker, that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025 compared with the year before, and indeed in December. As colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a 90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine's needs and we, of course, are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a world Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.

But of course, it's not just the support that we need to provide Ukraine militarily now and into the future so that they can defend against and deter against future threats in the event of a settlement. But we must also ratchet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war and engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. This government, I am proud to say, has sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK's Russia sanctions regime, including Russia's largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers.

And last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanction vessel Bella one in the North Atlantic as it's made its way to Russia. And we are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. These include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers by choking off Russia's oil revenues and squeezing its war economy.

We are showing Putin he cannot outlast us. Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence for their impact. Russia's oil export revenues are at a four year low, and we are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which I know a number of members have rightly called for over the past months. And as a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia's economy is now in its worst position since the full scale invasion began, and we are also taking crucial steps to stop the third country circumvention of sanctions, and whether that is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, whether it's components and others on critical lists that they might be using in drones, whether it's in those energy revenues that they're generating, we will not cease to we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes.

And I'm proud to work closely with colleagues across government on this in different departments, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. It is having a tangible impact, and it is as crucial as the direct support that we provide. I'll happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him that the foreign exchange earnings of the foreign exchange earnings of the Russian economy have have been very badly damaged by the sanctions, very badly damaged by the sanctions, but we also are now coming to the conclusion, are we not, that it is legal for Western powers to intervene on the flag, the fake flag fleet, the shadow fleet, as we flag fleet, the shadow fleet, as we saw last week? What plans have the government got and of our allies to make the whole business of exporting Russian oil gas far more risky than it already is by a large scale interception of the shadow fleet?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he will note, I chose my words carefully about future actions. I'm obviously not going to go into specifics, but let me just go into specifics, but let me just say this. We know what Putin is doing. We know where he's taking things and we know what is things and we know what is happening, and we won't hesitate to act lawfully where we can to choke off those revenues that are going off those revenues that are going through to fuel that war against Ukraine.

And let's remember, that's exactly what it is doing. So let exactly what it is doing. So let that be a warning, because we will not hesitate to use the powers that we have, of course, lawfully,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wherever we can. I'll happily give way. Again. I do thank for the second intervention. I was recently on a trip to South Korea, cross-party with NATO in December, where we with NATO in December, where we heard across government they have changed their position on Russia changed their position on Russia and they are now looking to open plants in Russia. And they spouted the NATO line, the the Russian the NATO line, the the Russian lines against NATO. I have fed this into government, but we have recently signed a huge trade deal with South Korea.

Is this a concern within government of people we're trading with are now shifting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position of on Russia Minister. Well, look, we continue to work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, look, we continue to work with all partners around the world and engage with them and make sure that the reality of any, any loopholes, any, any routes that could be supporting that war, of course I would, you know, note, as we all know, that, of course, DPRK troops were brought in by Russia to fight. And of course, we continue fight. And of course, we continue to work with all partners to identify ways. And of course, often there are entities and individuals operating within countries, and we try and bring those to the attention of the authorities in, in partners and friends to take action.

But if necessary, we won't hesitate to sanction and take actions where appropriate. I would turn, Madam Deputy Speaker, also to, crucially, the issue of accountability, because we are working closely with Ukraine and its allies to hold Russia accountable for its heinous crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding member and chair of the Conference of Participants of the Register of Damage, which allows Ukrainians to record losses, injury or damage caused by the war. And in December, I was proud to visit The Hague to sign the convention on behalf of the UK to establish an International Claims Commission, which will assess claims under the Register of Damage to determine future compensation.

We are also supporting the office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and indeed the International Criminal Court, to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully and fairly investigated by independent and robust legal mechanisms. Of course, we also know, and I mentioned this Madam Deputy Speaker, that tens of thousands of boys and girls have been snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia. We are clear this is a campaign to erase a nation's future. We cannot allow that to happen.

So we are backing efforts, crucial efforts to bring those children home, to identify them and to work with other partners in that regard. And we've committed more than 2.8 million to help trace and return them and welcome all the colleagues have been doing on this issue to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raise that awareness globally. I'm happy to give way. OK. Thank you. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Last year, I moved my constituency office into a building constituency office into a building called Bosnia House. Bosnia House was a former police station taken was a former police station taken over by anaesthetic and his organisation, who's the CEO for the organisation, who's the CEO for the Bosnia UK network? They support all communities, including Ukrainian, Syrians and Bosnians. My appeal is that we've got such a facilities that are operating not only my constituency, but across the country, and more support and help needs to be provided, so we make sure that the Ukrainians that come to settle into this country are fully supported and help, because not only are they given the help and support to integrate with the how they can achieve a better life in this country, but also integrate with the other communities that also exist.

So any support and help that can be done in terms of sanctions and the money that can be drawn upon, that would be most gratefully if there can be specifically targeted to these individuals, organisations so they can help the organisations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my friend for making that point. And he's right to point to the contribution of so many different organisations across many different organisations across the country that have reached out to support Ukrainian communities. I've certainly seen that in Cardiff directly, some fantastic groups directly, some fantastic groups who've done so, and I know that's reflected indeed in his constituency too. And I think constituency too. And I think actually there is a strong heritage in this country of organisations and individuals who previously themselves fled conflict, working themselves fled conflict, working to support others who've who've done the same.

And I've seen that repeatedly through many, many different groups. So I pay tribute to all of them, and indeed I pay tribute to all of the people up and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down Britain who brought in Ukrainians to their homes and have supported efforts in many other ways. I'll happily give way. Thank the Minister for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Minister for. Giving way. Whilst we're on the subject of Russian war crimes, we obviously know that James Scott Reece Anderson was one of the only Britons to have been captured by the Russians. He was tried, and I know that the Foreign Office know that the Foreign Office believes that was on false charges. He was charged with being part of a terrorist group and illegally entering Russia, was sentenced to entering Russia, was sentenced to his first five years in a Russian prison and then will be transferred to a Russian penal colony, rather than being treated under the Geneva

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Convention. I wonder if the Minister could give an update on what progress has been made in securing his release. Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister? Well, I can assure him, as he's aware, we are well aware of the number of cases. Of course, Russia has obligations under the Geneva Conventions. We expect those to be upheld. We regularly raise these cases at appropriate levels. I'm happy to talk to him separately happy to talk to him separately about the specific case that he mentions, but he can be assured that I'm well aware of it, as I am that I'm well aware of it, as I am of a number of other cases.

But we're very clear that international law must be upheld. And these are the basic principles of of treatment of prisoners of war, of that situation involving children, which I think actually also gets to the heart of just just the, the nature of of what the Russian regime has been doing and the steps at which they're willing to go to. So we urge the upholding of, of those commitments that that we're all signed up to of basic decency and treatment of individuals. We, of course, are also standing with Ukrainian people on the ground in their hour of need.

We've provided more than 577 million in humanitarian support for vulnerable citizens since the invasion began, including those forced to flee their homes, and this year we will spend up to 100 million on this support, including helping families through this harsh winter. And we've upped our support when it comes to energy, and particularly in response to the the attacks that we're seeing regularly, a lot of the work we're doing is helping mitigate. But of course, the scale of those attacks on energy infrastructure are severe and they're having a daily impact, as you can see from the media reporting and of course, from what we know from the ground, we have no firmer friend for Ukraine than the UK.

And indeed, our commitment runs deep. And I mentioned the crucial 100 year partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelenskyy in Kyiv. And that's an agreement that has enhanced cooperation across defence and security, science, trade and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

culture. And I'll happily give way. Can I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the Minister for his update and in particular for the the in-depth overview that he's giving us this afternoon. Further giving us this afternoon. Further to the point from my hon. Friend from Birmingham, I would appreciate an update on the work that he's doing to support families in this country. Could I commend the work of the Ukrainian Community Centre of the Ukrainian Community Centre in reading to him, where there is a Ukrainian language library, it's one of a very few in the south of England.

We have visitors coming from West London and Oxford to use it. It's very important for families to be able to maintain their native language, and for children to retain their culture at this very difficult time. And I wonder if he wanted to say a few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words about the importance of that form of domestic support. hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and indeed a important point, and indeed a similar initiative in my own constituency I've seen of Ukrainian language library, and I think it is absolutely crucial that that absolutely crucial that that support is given not only because it's the right thing to do for those young people and enables them those young people and enables them to retain that connection with their their culture, their heritage, their language, but also because, again, it stands in stark contrast again, it stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Putin to wipe out that language, that culture, that history, that heritage that he's showing not only by the abduction of children, by these continued attacks.

And I think one of my, you know, most moving moments for me on one of my visits to Kyiv was being in a bunker under one of the schools and just seeing, you know, the remarkable fortitude and resilience of young people and their teachers in the face of, of, of that attempt of Russia not only to physically destroy their their lives, but also to attempt to psychologically destroy their lives, but they stand firm and resilient, just as other Ukrainians do. And I think that should be a lesson to all of us.

And of course, that's why under the 100 year partnership, we also have, as well as joint development of drone and defence technology and looking at trading links and digital connection and other matters. We also have important school twinning programmes and all of those things collectively, I think, will deliver long term economic growth and security for both the UK and Ukraine and strengthen ties between our nations. So let me finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know there are many contributions that members want to make by saying this.

The UK support for Ukraine is ironclad. Their security is our security. We fully support us led efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. We have also said repeatedly only the Ukrainian people can decide their future. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must never be changed by force, and any deal must guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and security into the future and indeed Europe's, and indeed the United Kingdom, security into the future. And in the meantime, we will not hesitate to keep supporting Ukraine, ensure it has the military equipment to defend itself, sustain that economic pressure on Putin to cut off the revenues, funding that barbaric war and to ensure accountability for the appalling scenes of destruction and devastation that we have seen, whether those are on children, whether those are on infrastructure, whether those are against the the whole nation of Ukraine itself.

Slava Ukraini.
16:33
Andrew Rosindell Portrait Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> The question is that this House has considered the situation in Ukraine. I called the shadow Minister Andrew Rosindell. >> Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are at a crucial juncture in We are at a crucial juncture in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. It has been nearly four years since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, a period of time nearly that of the duration of the First World War. With many of those same horrors that our soldiers witnessed in those days trench warfare, a war of attrition being witnessed today by a generation of young Ukrainians and Russians who are being decimated in their hundreds of thousands.

We have also tragically, tragically seen the horrific mass deportation of 20,000 Ukrainian children. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is nothing short of a war crime. Make no mistake on the line is sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The freedom and democracy enjoyed by its people and also the entire security architecture of the West is at stake. The threat is especially acute in the eastern flank for countries like Moldova and in the Black Sea, but this reaches far beyond the region.

It is, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the security of all of us. European countries are already having to protect their borders from malign Russian activity. We have had to do so for years and will continue to do so. But 2025, I felt, looked like a real turning point. Just look at what has been happening in Poland, whether that's Russian drones, incursions or railway sabotage. Romania and Estonia have both had their airspace outrageously violated by Russia, and the Royal Navy has had to be activated to intercept Russian ships, including Yantar.

And we all know the real purpose of that ship. Russia is already waging a sophisticated hybrid and subconventional campaign against us. The reality is that we must be prepared for sustained tension with Russia for many years to come. But the outcome of the war in Ukraine is central to whether that threat is checked or emboldened, and this extends beyond that of just Russia. The fact that Putin is now reliant on North Korean personnel and ammunition should shame him, but it should also warn us the war has become a testing ground for an authoritarian axis that will not stop at Ukraine if if it is allowed to succeed.

And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, all of us want to see this war end. It is unjust, unprovoked and entirely of Putin's making. It is therefore of no surprise that Putin appears completely insincere about wanting to reach a genuine ceasefire. We understand that initiatives to end this war, led by the United States of America, are progressing, at least at least on the Ukrainian side, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister in the wind up his latest assessment of those talks and their direction of travel.

It is also important to recognise where responsibility lies. Time and again, Ukraine has shown a willingness to engage in discussions aimed at ending the conflict. Russia, by contrast, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness and sincerity. If ceasefire proposals are rejected or negotiations undermined, the obstacle to peace lies not in Kyiv, nor among Ukraine's friend. But Madam Deputy Speaker firmly in Moscow. One principle must remain non-negotiable that the Ukrainian people must be sovereign in their own land.

They have paid in blood to defend themselves and their homeland, and decisions about their future, their borders and their security. Arrangements must be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone. No peace imposed from outside will endure, and no settlement that ignores the will of the Ukrainian people can be sustainable. And we have, as we have done throughout history, Britain must continue to show international leadership in defending that principle. And so I would welcome an update from the Minister on what the UK is doing diplomatically.

To that end, what is crucial is that we achieve a just and lasting peace. Putin cannot emerge strengthened from a potential settlement. We cannot give in to him because the lesson of the last 20 years is that he always comes back for more, with a persistent desire to exert control over neighbouring states and to challenge the post Cold War settlement in Europe. And it is clear that he has in the KGB playbook outright now, with the statecraft he is using, Putin has not abandoned his territorial ambitions.

He wants to subjugate Ukraine lock, stock and barrel. And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, a lasting peace is not about conceding to aggression. Territorial concessions would mean rewarding Putin's barbaric attacks on the Ukrainian people. Britain must lead the way again on sanctions and keep tightening the screws on Putin's war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and the EU should step up and ban Russian oil and gas sooner than it currently plans to do in 2027.

So can the Minister confirm whether he has been pressing his EU counterparts in the European Union and European capitals to do exactly that? The Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constrain Russia's energy revenues and stop Putin getting his hands on military equipment. The issue with Russian oil persists. Countries are allowing the purchase and whitewashing of Russian oil on their watch. We know the businesses, refineries and individuals who are profiting from Russian energy exports. So does the government plan to take further action against those enablers on sovereign Russian assets? It is clear we need to go a lot further.

We welcome the 2.26 billion loan made by the UK to Ukraine off the back of the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets. But the government cannot view this as the end of the road. Instead, Ministers need to be working around the clock, including with the City of London and our allies, to find innovative and workable legal solutions that allow us to go even further and drive other G7 and European states to do the same. So what is the current status of talks with the EU, the United States and the G7 partners, and specifically, what recent discussions has the Minister had with his Belgian counterpart? What is the UK doing to help move things along? And does the Minister agree that when those sanctioned assets are mobilised, they should not be just for the reconstruction of Ukraine, but also to support the Ukrainian people as fast as possible? And so, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all the talk of negotiations, we must not lose sight of the fact that we and our allies combined GDP are colossally outweighs Russia's and that we need to be leveraging this in every right way.

We need to ramp up our defence industrial base now for the long term, because we know that Russia, sustaining its war economy will come at an enormous price to them whilst it is already reeling from sanctions, with interest rates at high levels not seen in decades, and with welfare payments payments having to be slashed in Russia last week we learned that the government's vision for British troops on the ground in Ukraine should should happen. If a peace agreement is agreed.

So this deployment of British troops is, I believe, one of the most serious decisions a government and a parliament could ever take. So there are a number of vital details that I believe we need to understand about what exactly the government plans are for any future deployment. These include the rules of engagement, troop numbers, how rotations could work, the composition of the force, whether any British soldiers will be actively involved in policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone, and what air and naval assets would be provided as part of any multinational force for Ukraine.

The British people will expect answers to these vital questions before we consider sending our boys out to a conflict zone, potentially risking the lives of courageous British servicemen and women. The government must also confirm the contributions of other countries and the nature of any security guarantees. Guarantees, particularly with regard to the United States and indeed Germany. We also need Ministers to confirm whether soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European Convention on Human Rights during any employment deployment.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could clarify which government Budget such operation will be funded from. And does he agree that this underscores the imperative of spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? Her Majesty's Opposition have called for this, and I hope the government will do the same. Kicking the can into the next decade with no roadmap is simply not going to cut it in the world we currently live in. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must do everything in our power to deter another invasion of this kind to any other country.

And in principle, Britain must be involved in any and every effort to provide deterrence against such aggression in the future. But two things are also critical in the immediate term. First, that Ukraine continues to receive the military aid it needs to fight back against Russia's increasingly savage war, and that Putins ability to wage this war is further undermined, for example, through biting new sanctions. Second, that any initiatives to secure an end to the conflict deliver peace on the terms of the Ukrainian people and with the involvement of Ukraine, we cannot allow Putin to be strengthened and so can the Minister.

Also provide an update on how the UK is ensuring Ukraine is able to meet the increasingly savage tactics being used by Russia. And so, to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the early days of the war, the previous conservative government played a pivotal role in coming to the aid of Ukrainian people, just as Margaret Thatcher stood up to the threat of Soviet domination in Eastern Europe and fought for their freedom and their democracy, ultimately leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the break up of the Soviet Union.

My party led at the outset of this invasion and continues to stand with the Ukrainian people as usual. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was British leadership that set the direction of travel for many European countries. It was the British people who provided approximately £12 billion in overall support, including military and humanitarian aid. And with our allies. It was Britain that imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen to cripple Putins war machine.

It was indeed Britain that hosted the Ukraine Recovery Conference in 2023, raising billions for Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction. And it was Britain that established Operation Interflex, which has now trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion of 2022, when freedom is threatened, Britain stands resolute. Today we feel as passionately as we did four years ago about defending and restoring the freedom that the Ukrainian people earned back in 1991.

Long has Britain stood for the cause of freedom, and long may that continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dame Emily Thornberry, thank you. Very much. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much. Yes. I am, I've been complaining at home recently because the heating broke down and I just felt as it wasn't being taken seriously by the wasn't being taken seriously by the other half, and it was like it was minus one. I was really cold and I had been moaning about it for a had been moaning about it for a week, and then it was pointed out
16:49
Emily Thornberry Portrait Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)
-
-
to me the obvious, which is right now in Ukraine, in Kyiv it's -12. It feels like -16, and overnight it will be. In fact, it'll be -17. And what I've now done on my phone to stop myself moaning is I have London's temperature, but I also have Kiev's. I just keep remembering that actually in Kyiv there are ordinary men and women who are having to battle against the cold, and their infrastructure is being deliberately attacked by Putin in order to try to undermine their morale.

What happened on Monday night? On Monday night, there were 293 drones and 18 missiles in a bombardment. Air defences shot down 240 and seven missiles, but there was damage to critical infrastructure. Civilian infrastructure in Kyiv, across Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv and Donetsk. There are several hundred thousand households without any power now without any heating. There are tower blocks, 500 high rise tower blocks where they're really cold. They have acute shortages of electricity and they're doing it on purpose.

The Russians are doing it on purpose. And this is not proper warfare. You are not. I mean, you just feel this is such a basic thing. You are not supposed to target civilians when you are at war. It is against the law. When you are at war, you are at war. Go for the combatants. Don't go for the children. Don't go for the nursery schools. Don't go for the housing estates. Don't bomb blocks of flats. This is not right. It is not.

It is not proper. It is illegal. It is immoral. It is wrong. The effects on the people, though, is. And of course, they're exhausted. They're about to hit the fourth year of being at war with Russia. But what is so amazing and what has absolutely hit me in the heart when I've talked to Ukrainians is the strength, the focus, the fortitude, the bravery of these people, how they are absolutely determined to keep their country Ukrainian, and they are not going to allow the Russians to win, no matter how hard it is, no matter how cold it is, no matter how many people are lost, they are going to continue to fight and they stand resolute.

And we stand with Ukraine, we stand with Ukraine, we stand with these brave people. We have had in the Foreign Affairs Committee the honour of not only visiting Ukraine, but also of having a number of meetings with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee, and they varied over the years. And, and the most recent one only, only the chair we could, we only chair was the only person we could see the other people. I mean, I sort of joked about it to start with.

I was going, oh, they ought to turn the lights on. Oh, what an idiot. They don't have any lights. They don't have any lights, they don't have any power. What they were doing was they were talking to us from their cars because they could put the heating on the car, and then they could put on a light in their car and they could talk to us that way. And that was how we had a meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee. But they showed up and they told us and they told us what they had to say.

We stand with Ukraine, this bravery, this bravery, and there are many things that we can do. So I'm really encouraged to hear that we are we are really bolstering the work that we that we need to do when it comes to the shadow fleet. I mean, if anybody doesn't understand these shadow fleet is this they are a they are a fleet of ageing ships of obscure ownership who are uninsured and often environmentally unsound, and they are being used to transport sanctioned Russian oil products in order to be able to get around the the the oil price cap.

And I mean, I hope that what we will find is that we are able to find legal grounds for deploying military assets against the shadow fleets under the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act, and we will be able to look at we will be able to do insurance, spot tax, the spot checks on false flag ships, false flag ships are ships, some of which have been expelled by the countries that they use to wave a flag and claim they come from that country.

Some of these countries don't even have a shipping register, and yet they still claim that they are. They belong to those. But if they're not insured, we can really take action. And I'm glad to hear that we are going to step that up. That sort of sanction busting has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

got to stop. On that point. Will the. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on the topic of the Shadow Fleet just earlier of the Shadow Fleet just earlier today, two shadow tankers from the fleet were scheduled to be going fleet were scheduled to be going through the channel, and the shadow fleet exists solely to keep money flowing to the Kremlin. Threatening, flowing to the Kremlin. Threatening, threatening, also maritime safety and environmental security. So does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there are also other aspects that are relevant to this debate that UK government should be mindful of as we continue to pursue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the shadow fleet that allows Putin to wage his unwarranted, unlawful invasion of Ukraine. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I agree completely, and I think that I think we need to be as creative as we possibly can when as creative as we possibly can when it comes to this. And I think there is always more that we can do. And, and the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee and many of the talented members on it are always here to to give as many suggestions as the government many suggestions as the government wishes to hear.

But one of the things that does worry me when it comes to sanctions, given that we it's all very well having creative ways in which we can put down sanctions, but they are only as good as their enforcement. And my I am concerned at times when pushing the government on exactly how much effort they're putting into enforcement and how much investment is going into enforcement. My concern is that that although they may sometimes look good on paper, I am always concerned that there may be things that are slipping through the net, and we need to make sure that what we say we mean and we do it.

Let me move on briefly to to a couple of other issues that I would like to cover. The first is that that of course, although there is a a hot war going on in Ukraine, and that is one war which is going on in Europe. We are all agreed that Europe is also at war with, with with Russia on another basis. And that is the new warfare, the hybrid warfare, the sort of warfare that is more difficult to be able to identify, and whether that's sabotage or whether they are subjecting us to cyber attacks or to to mis and disinformation.

We are at war with Russia, and they are trying to undermine our democracies and undermine our countries. And nowhere as clearly as around the Black Sea, where around the Black Sea, which is, of course, a huge strategic importance to to Russia. And if you think about the countries around the Black Sea, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, they have all been subjected to a level of of, of hybrid warfare, which we need to look at, not just because we need to be there and to be of assistance to those countries, because we are all in it together, but also because it is a portent of what could happen to us.

So it is right to describe Moldova. And we heard yesterday from the committee from Anna Revenko about the ongoing hybrid warfare that that Moldova is subjected to. It is at the forefront of, of hybrid warfare. It has cyber attacks, illicit financing schemes, prolific information manipulation campaigns, political rhetoric espoused by Kremlin linked actors. Now, there may be some of us sitting here thinking, well, we already have some of that. In fact, we probably have all of that, but we only have that as a low level.

But we are heading for elections, and elections are always a time when a democracy is at its most vulnerable, and we must not be complacent. I fear that sometimes we are, though we are a great democracy. We've been going for a long time. We think I'll be fine because of course we're an island. If we were Finland and had Russia right on our border, we'd have a very different attitude. But in modern times you doesn't matter whether you have a land border or not, they can still try and influence your democracy by undermining you particularly.

And I think it is clear if we open our eyes, we can see there is ongoing disinformation that is trying to undermine our democracy right now. And the problem is the public are not alive to it. And the last thing anybody ever wants to admit is that they have been lied to, and they've fallen for it. And trying to explain to them afterwards that they've done that is just impossible. We need to make sure that we are countering it right now, because I'm telling you, as far as the Russians are concerned, you know, we are as Europe is when it comes to Europe.

We are a number one enemy. We are. Absolutely. When you look at their rhetoric and the sort of things that they say about us, it is absolutely Britain who they loathe more than practically any other country. I'm proud of that. But I think that we need to be we need to be mindful of what it means for our country. They believe that we are responsible for triggering the Second World War, that we are responsible for, for for triggering many subsequent conflicts.

In today's context. You know, this is projected onto the war in Ukraine, where Britain is portrayed not merely as a supporter of Kyiv, but as the architect and the main driver of the conflict. You listen to some of the things which their Secret Service have been saying about us openly. It's as if everything that's happening in Ukraine is down to us. I wish it was, but I fear that. But but the but the rhetoric is definitely against us. They advance this kind of conspiracy vision in which Britain is not just acting as Ukraine's ally, but rather as the mastermind behind a proxy war, persuading Europe to fight to the last Ukrainian, the chairman of the of the State Duma even alleged recently that we were orchestrating specific incidents, such as the shelling of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border.

And so it goes on. Their their, their propaganda routinely accuses the UK of being involved in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage targeting Russian, Russian or Russian nationals. They include the poisoning of Litvinenko, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. It seems all of this is down to us and the terrorist attack committed by Islamists in the in, in the at the, the city hall. If you read the propaganda, they continue to point the finger at Britain.

It used to be America, but for some reason America is not in their sights so much anymore. But we are, and in a way we should be proud of it. But we need to be mindful of this, and we need to stick together. And we need to stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine, they fight the war for us, and we continue to give them every support and we should be proud of it. And I am proud of the fact that in this chamber and in this country, we are united behind them, with the exception of those who are not here this afternoon.

But we remain united, and we must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remain united until the end, until victory. Slava Ukraini I call the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I welcome the time for this debate on welcome the time for this debate on Ukraine today, as we meet at a key moment, American peace proposals welcomed by the Kremlin suggested demilitarised zones and buffer areas, phrases that sound technical
17:01
James MacCleary Portrait James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
but whose consequences could be catastrophic. Ukrainian people see such proposals for what they are a ruse to circumvent Ukraine's defences and continue the invasion. Later. Russia's relentless assault in the east has intensified despite them reaching and passing the grim milestone of a million Russian troops killed or injured on the front line. Zaporizhzhia, a city of 670,000 people, is now under serious threat. Russian drones are striking the city itself. Emergency services have prepared a plan to evacuate a third of the population if fighting damages the nearby nuclear power station.

This is the reality of Putin's war. Madam Deputy Speaker President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and disdainful of the rule of law. Just look at his actions in Venezuela. Britain must take an active role in ensuring Ukraine's interests remain at the heart of all future negotiations, reinforcing collective deterrence and signalling that European security and Ukraine's sovereignty remain non-negotiable. That also requires honesty about the United States. What concrete security guarantees have actually been secured, and can the government seriously assure this House that they would endure beyond the next conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin? The United Kingdom and France have committed to the potential deployment of troops in Ukraine.

Should a peace deal be agreed. Any discussion of UK or French troops on the ground must be about deterrence, not escalation, limited in scope, tied to a political settlement and never an open ended deployment. It is right that the Prime Minister has committed to putting any deployment of British forces to Ukraine to a vote in this place. Any commitment of this kind, though, must be credible. That means having the personnel, the equipment, the logistics and the funding in place not just to deploy, but to sustain a force.

Over time, serious questions remain about our current ability to do that. So can the Minister set out in clear terms how the government intends to ensure any future deployment to Ukraine would be fully resourced, properly equipped and sustainably funded and not announced before the means to deliver it actually exist. The government must increase the size of our armed forces, plug gaps in military capability and fix the broken procurement processes. Without a clear defence investment plan for our military, it undermines the credibility of announcements of overseas deployments.

Alongside military deterrents, we must also apply maximum economic pressure. Yesterday morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, residents in my constituency were surprised to wake up to find various fruit and vegetables and cans of milk distributed across our beaches in Seaford and Newhaven. A container passing through the channel container ship passing through the channel had shed some containers in the last few weeks, and they washed up another day. They could find their beaches covered in oil from leaked from a sanctioned Russian tanker, part of the Russian shadow fleet, also passing through the channel.

That is why we must take every action possible, not just to restrict the shadow fleet to prevent the flow of money into Russia, but also because it presents an active threat to this country's security, both its economic security, military security, but also our environmental security. We welcome, therefore, the government's announcement to ban UK companies from providing services such as insurance or maintenance to ships carrying Russian liquefied natural gas. It is a big step in the right direction and we genuinely welcome it.

UK owned or insured carriers have transported £45 billion worth of Russian products since 2022, but we must do more. The government's recent oil price cap reduction is insufficient. Liberal Democrats believe the cap should be lowered to at least $30 a barrel, with stricter enforcement, to ensure no UK money supports Russia's war effort. The government should also be giving serious consideration to a total ban on Russian oil and gas exports. I think many people would also share my astonishment at the news that the UK still imports £1.7 billion worth of goods and services from Russia, and that this figure actually increased in 2025.

The most impactful contribution this government could make, though, is pushing for allied action to unlock frozen Russian assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock has introduced a bill to seize billions in frozen Russian assets and direct proceeds to Ukraine's defence and reconstruction. It is welcome that the government is also welcome, that the government is threatening legal action to secure £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich's Chelsea sale. Liberal Democrats have called for this for over a year. It should never have taken this long, but we very much welcome forward movement in this area.

Putin must be punished, not rewarded. So it is deeply disappointing to see the European Union fail to agree on on a reparations loan using Russian assets. Britain must show great resolve and make Putin pay literally for his invasion. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are all appalled by the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. This is a war crime. We support the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab. However, these initiatives are in danger due to President Trump cutting their funding again.

Frozen Russian assets could be used to fund this shortfall. Support for Ukraine also means doing right by Ukrainians here in the UK. Ministers must provide certainty on length of leave to remain and urgently resolve the status of young Ukrainians studying at our universities and colleges, who cannot be left in prolonged legal limbo. Russia continues to pose a profound strategic threat through its invasion, cyber attacks and energy coercion. That threat extends far beyond Ukraine, particularly to the Baltic states and deterrent.

There must therefore be pan-European. If it is to be credible, it would be wholly inappropriate to contemplate restoring Russia's G7 membership. The UK must oppose Russia's readmission. The United Kingdom must step up its contribution to European defence through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and deeper cooperation with our European allies, and be unequivocal in defending the sovereignty of all NATO partners, including in the High North and in Greenland. Aggression and violations of sovereignty will not be rewarded. Madam Deputy Speaker as we debate in comfort, Ukrainian soldiers manned defensive positions in freezing conditions.

Ukrainian civilians flee their homes. Ukrainian families live with the daily terror of drone and missile strikes. They are fighting for freedom, sovereignty and their very existence. They are fighting for principles we claim to hold dear democracy, the rule of law, self-determination. We will. Will we stand for them for as long as it takes? Or will we allow fatigue and the bullying of autocrats to erode our resolve? The Liberal Democrats are clear. We will not look away. We will not accept an unjust peace. We will push for maximum economic pressure, for seizing frozen Russian assets, for proper support for Ukraine's defence, and for democratic oversight of any British military involvement.

The unity of this House with one party, a small but notable exception, reflects the strength of the British people's commitment to our Ukrainian friends. They must be tired, but we must never tire of talking about them in this place. They are fighting for all our futures, and we must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to stand by their side for as long as it takes. Yeah. We have 16 speakers and I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have 16 speakers and I don't want to put a limit on, but if everybody speaks for around eight minutes and monitors themselves and minutes and monitors themselves and everybody will then get an equal eight minutes. So let's try and be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mindful. David Taylor. I shall try and take your advice, but I want to start by paying tribute to what others have said already, and also to the fact that there are a number of MPs in this House, of all parties that are
17:08
David Taylor Portrait David Taylor MP (Hemel Hempstead, Labour)
-
-
contributing in lots of different ways, in trying to stand up to the for the Ukrainian people, not only for the Ukrainian people, not only in speeches in this House, but actual initiatives that they're doing. And I just want to very briefly talk about my own motivation, which actually does start in in Syria. I refer to my register of interests, of which I register of interests, of which I have a role regarding Syria. Members of this House will know that I have a deep seated passion that I have a deep seated passion for seeing that the Syrian people have a proper, free and inclusive future after years of brutal dictatorship from Assad.

And of course, Putin was central to that. Half a million people died in Syria because of the actions of Assad and Putin. And I do believe that if our country and the US had taken a stronger role back in 2013 when that red line was set, I do question whether or not Putin would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine. Crimea in 2014. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. And I do also just want to take a moment to reflect on something that the Minister said about that the Minister said about parties not being absent here, because there's another party that's not absent here, which is your party, and there is a number your party, and there is a number of members of that party and a number of members of the hard left that look to this conflict in Ukraine and blame the West, and Ukraine and blame the West, and members might remain.

Remember a ridiculous statement that blamed NATO expansion on the reasons why Putin invaded Ukraine? Let's be absolutely clear. There was no excuse, and there never will be for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Putin's actions in Ukraine. On that point, I will. Does he agree that if anybody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree that if anybody has any doubt about Putin's motives or morality, they should look to whose partners are in this war? Iran, a country who is killing its own people in its streets and is now executing them. Is he not an now executing them. Is he not an absolute disgrace in anybody that shows any sympathy for Putin? Really should look at who his friends are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friends are. Yeah. Well, I think we know who their friends are. That's a matter of public record. But and I completely agree. And if I'd had time to say this yesterday, I would have spoken in Iran statement about the role that Iran is playing in Ukraine. Shahed drones that we've all, if we've been to Ukraine, have had to cower from, are being provided by the Iranian regime. So the sooner they fall the better. I do want to praise the party opposite for the role that they played in the lead up to the conflict, as well as my own, in particular Ben Wallace for the role that he played, and in particular, getting those NLAWs in place because it was so crucial at the start of the conflict that Kyiv did not fall.

And of course, much as we might praise the actions of our government or any other government, we also have to, of course, praise the bravery of the Ukrainian people at the start of that conflict in stopping those tanks rolling into Kyiv. I'm very grateful to the work that Ministers are doing and the Prime Minister is doing to try and support the Ukrainian people, the billions that are going in in defence spending. We've heard some of those figures already, particularly grateful to see the 3.5 billion industrial treaty that's going to be spent on hardware, the continued support for Interflex training, the Ukraine Defence Contact Group with over 50 partners, and also the British built octopus drones that are going to be so crucial as well.

I'd just very briefly want to say that I absolutely welcome the talks towards ceasefire. Who wouldn't want a ceasefire? And I also welcome the commitment with France to deploying peacekeepers at a future point. But I do want to share my own concern that we, of course, need to keep continuing support to the Ukrainian people, because my personal fear about any pause in fighting is that the Russians will just use it as an opportunity to regroup and go again, and we cannot be under any illusion as to the threat of Russia.

Many of us have also been part of the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme. I had an opportunity to go and visit our fantastic troops in the naval base in Estonia just before Christmas, and it really does bring home just how real the threat from Russia continues to be. And I'd also like to refer to a couple of trips that I've also made myself to Ukraine since the conflict started, the most recent one almost a year ago, actually, which was focussed on drone technology and the absolute imperative of supporting the Ukrainians to defend themselves.

And we had some absolutely amazing meetings whilst we were over there with the Deputy Defence Minister, Sergey Boyev would also with MPs, Ukrainian MPs and many of you will know Dmytro NATO and Alexander Maraskovsky, who were members of the Economic Affairs Committee, and I think it was Dmytro who actually referred to the vital importance of drones and the need for what he called a Kalashnikov in the sky. And what he meant by that was that a Kalashnikov, of course, is a very durable weapon where if it does break in any way, it's very easy to repair what the Ukrainians continue to need, as well as the, the high high, the sort of most important high technology that we see is they need these everyday drones that can really help on the front line to do reconnaissance so that they know where the Russian positions are, but also to help them as they try and make advance advances.

So yes, we need investments in advanced technology, but we also need the sort of the skies, weapons that are where the parts are easy to come by, where it's easy for them to repair as well. And at this point, on the subject of drones, I also want to echo a point that the hon. Member for Romford made, which is that I agree that we need to look at how we can get more UK finance into Ukraine through joint ventures that can help with the production of drones as well.

And if we can work with the City of London to look at ways in which we can unlock any barriers that might exist, I think that's absolutely a worthwhile venture because we we do need to get more capital into the country to help Ukrainian companies as well as our own, to build drones. I mean, the octopus drone scheme is a is a brilliant example of trying to work with the Ukrainians. I think there is a real opportunity here. The Ukrainians have got the data.

They've got the real lived experience that can help us build drones together, that will help us in turn, as well as them in this war. So, yes, I hope in the wind ups, the Minister might talk about the ways in which we can work with the City of London to unlock more capital into the country. I also briefly want to talk about a second trip that I did way back in 2024, when I was a humble candidate. And because there are a number of organisations around the country of ordinary people up and down the UK who are trying to help in a really grassroots way in any way they can.

And in this moment when you know there is lots of talk of people talking about charity begins at home and sort of thinking about problems just here alone. I think it's remarkable. There have been so many ordinary people around the country who have stepped up and helped people that they will probably never meet, but some people have met. They're gone out to Ukraine and I want to pay tribute to them. I myself went out with an organisation called help 99 who deliver pick up trucks that maybe a farmer doesn't need anymore, that soldiers are using on the front line to get from A to B again to that earlier point, the long range missiles and all the sort of expensive technology is really important.

But we do also need the things that are going to get into the ground, that are going to help the soldiers in order in level. And and on that note, I want to just pay tribute to those organisations. I had the privilege of hosting an event here in Parliament last year where over 60 individuals and over 30 organisations from around the country came together. I'd really like to encourage the government to look at ways. And my final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, where we can ensure that any excess vehicles on the government estate via the Home Office or Network Rail and so on can be donated cheaply.

Let's get the Treasury to write off these vehicles. It wouldn't cost that much money, but it would make a difference to ordinary soldiers on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the front line. Thank you very much. Father of the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know you want us to keep our comments fairly brief, so to save comments fairly brief, so to save time, I want to associate myself completely with what the Minister said in his support for Ukraine and the opposition spokespeople and the chair of the Foreign Affairs
17:17
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
chair of the Foreign Affairs committee. So Ukraine's fight is our fight. They are brave and noble people, showing enormous courage. None of us here, none of us here have any sympathy whatsoever for Putin and what he has done. And I think we should be reasonably confident, not downhearted. We should be proud of what we've done as a nation from the very start. And I don't think we should assume that Putin is necessarily going to win. He's got an economy the size of Spain or perhaps of Italy, or we have vastly more resources.

These regimes can seem very strong where they can collapse very quickly. Who knows what's going to happen. He's only a prototype dictator. In the four years. He's only marched 30 miles, where Stalin marched all the way from the Volga to Berlin. So, yes. All right. He's refusing all these peace officers offers. He's determined to get the rest of the Donbas. I agree that over four years, thousands more dying, his economy destroyed. He might get another 30 miles and get the rest of the Donbas.

But so what? What's he going to achieve for his country? It's a cruel, unnecessary, pointless. There is criticism of Mr. Trump, but at least he's trying to get some sort of peace deal. And I think we are. Influence is limited, but we should support his efforts. But one thing we can't support is Cravenly getting a peace deal, which allows Russia to grab even more territory than it has failed to get over the last four years, and get the fortresses that Ukraine needs for its survival.

So there is hope. Now, I know that some people think that it's almost as bad as Germany invading Poland in 1939. It's almost worse because I made it my job really, to over the last 40 years, partly because my wife is half Russian, to try and understand the Russian psyche. I think it's worse in a sense, because so many Russians, not the Russians. I know, of course, who I associate with, but so many national nationalists. Russians view Ukraine.

Ukraine means border country as part of Russia. They view Kyiv like we view Canterbury as the source of the Russian rust. So I'm afraid these Russian nationalists will not give up. They want to grab the whole country. So we must remain firm. I would go along with anything the government wants to do in support of Ukraine in terms of sanctions, upping sanctions, stopping tankers, doing anything they like. But in the few moments that I have, I do want to question the government on this idea of sending a small force of British troops, the coalition of the willing.

I don't want to be the coalition of the naive willing. I mean, I've sat through so many of these debates. The debate on Iraq, where I was one of only 15 Tory MPs to oppose Blair's invasion, the Afghanistan debates, the Syria debate where I refuse to support Mr. Cameron. There is so much danger here in deploying perhaps just 7000 British Under-resource troops in a country the size of France, with the population of the size of France, with an 800 mile front, where thousands of people have been dying every month, 7000 people.

Now, if America was prepared to come in, if it was a NATO mission, then I think the House would be very willing to accept our involvement. But compare this with what was happening in West Germany. Compare the size of our army now to our size of the army then. Do you know that we had Madam Deputy Speaker 120,000 service personnel in Germany? We had 55,000 British troops, excluding the RAF in West Germany. We had 900,000 NATO troops in West Germany, including the Bundeswehr.

America was totally committed. Now, my hon. Friend, I noticed and I noticed what the Liberal Democrat spokesman said. They didn't immediately say I'm going to support the government, did they? They asked some quite serious questions and we, if we have this debate, have got to go on asking these questions. What are the rules of engagement? What happens if I'm right and Putin will accept some temporary ceasefire and then will march in again? What's going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen to our 7000 troops? And listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I do take on board his points. But I think one of the things that we have yet to perhaps things that we have yet to perhaps give sufficient emphasis to is whether or not Putin actually wants peace, because, I mean, I fully peace, because, I mean, I fully understand that the plans need to be made in case there is a peace, that it is rather based on the idea

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it is rather based on the idea that he actually wants to stop. And I, for one, am not really sure that he does. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree with that entirely. I'm not sure this is ever going to happen. I'm not sure it's ever happen. I'm not sure it's ever going to be a ceasefire. I think he's just determined to carry on and for another four years and and for another four years and again, another 30 miles. So I agree with the hon. Lady, but I do think as as the national parliament here, given the size of our army, given the resources that we have, I think we have a right to question the Prime Minister.

Now, I quite understand if your Prime Minister is hell, you know, you've got to deal with the NHS, with the farmers, with the Conservative Party. Much better to be grandstanding the Liberal Democrats, much better to be grandstanding on the world stage and say, yes, we're prepared to put our troops in. But it is grandstanding and it is extremely dangerous. And I'll end on this point. Just imagine. I know it's probably not going to happen, but there is a ceasefire. We put it in Putin marches again.

Does anybody here really, in their heart of hearts, want to be involved in a shooting war with Russia? Does anybody here I've got grown up children. Does anybody want to hear their son to be called out there and be killed by a Russian drone? There's thousands of brave Ukrainians. This is serious stuff. So I'm so pleased that the two opposition parties are asking the questions. And that's what we all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to do. Follow that. Johanna Baxter. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it will come as no surprise to colleagues across the House the issue that I want to focus on in my contribution, which is the treatment of Ukrainian children, treatment of Ukrainian children, because when I first visited Ukraine, that was the issue that struck me to my core, the fact that
17:24
Johanna Baxter Portrait Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)
-
-
struck me to my core, the fact that Russia have stolen 200, sorry, 20,000 Ukrainian children from their homes. And Russian authorities themselves report that over 700 Ukrainian children have now been officially registered in Russia. A heinous war crime that continues today unabated. And 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subject to militarisation and indoctrination. And in recent months we have seen clear and deeply disturbing evidence, alongside harrowing testimony from Ukrainian children who have been abducted by Russia and from those trapped in the occupied territories, that the militarisation of Ukrainian children is accelerating at pace.

It is no longer about propaganda quietly slipped into classrooms. What we are now seeing is the deliberate transformation of schools into instruments of war. An $8 billion down payment on Russia's future military Ukrainian children being placed on so-called specialised traps funnelled into paramilitary movements now firmly embedded within the education system. Children are prescribed mandatory hours of military training and forced to attend military camps, and if they refuse, they risk failing their secondary education, leaving conscription into the Russian military as the only future left to them.

One child told Save Ukraine they showed us different types of grenades and mines. How much pressure a mine can withstand when it explodes, how to lay mines, clear areas, set, set tripwires and dig trenches. Whilst I was digging a trench, they deliberately threw a grenade in to make it feel like the real battlefield, and another child recently rescued by Save Ukraine reported that Russian soldiers conduct psychological testing, asking questions of them like how do you feel about killing? Do you enjoy hurting people? And do you want to be a tank operator or a pilot? That fear of violence and punishment of forced conscription is not isolated.

It has become a daily reality for those living in the occupied territories. It is not education, it's coercion. It's cold, it's calculated and chillingly familiar. From the darkest chapters of occupation and history. For those children not trained to fight, they're trained to police. They're being shaped as the next generation of law enforcement officials. And whose laws are they being taught to enforce? Putin's laws that silence dissent through violence, laws that tear children from families, laws that now allow children as young as 14 to be prosecuted for terrorism, with penalties reaching life imprisonment simply for opposing Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Children in the occupied territories live under constant surveillance. Their phones are checked, their social media is monitored, and any sign of Ukrainian consciousness is routinely treated as suspicious, disloyal and extremism. And Russia's treatment of the children reveals their long term strategy with deep security implications for Europe and NATO. I am proud of the leadership the United Kingdom has shown in standing with Ukraine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the arms we have supplied to the sanctuary we have provided. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I am deeply concerned that whilst reports suggest where 90% of the way towards a peace agreement, the way towards a peace agreement, the language on the abducted Ukrainian children remains Ukrainian children remains disturbingly vague. There is no clarity on how the stolen children clarity on how the stolen children will be traced. There is no clarity on how they will be returned, bearing in mind that many have now been trafficked to Belarus or North Korea, what happens to the youngest children who were ripped from their homes and may not now be able to remember a time before they were placed with Russian families? And who will adjudicate if there are disputes on the documentation of children.

Bearing in mind that many mothers in the occupied territories were forced to register their children as Russian simply to secure maternity care, and there remain disparities between the individuals that we in this country have sanctioned for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and those sanctioned by the EU and US. I flagged those disparities to the Minister, and I completely understand he cannot comment on further designations, but I urge him to look again at that list. And I do thank the Minister very sincerely for his efforts, because I know he takes this issue incredibly seriously.

And to that end, can I urge him to ensure that the same determination and resolve that is shown to the international Coalition of the willing is now, at this pivotal time in peace negotiations shown to the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children. Will he push for a meeting of that coalition again at the earliest opportunity, so that they can establish a clear post-war plan to secure international consensus on the fate of the abducted children and make absolutely clear that their return must be a non-negotiable next step in any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

There can be no lasting peace without the return of the stolen children. Slava Ukraini.
17:30
Bernard Jenkin Portrait Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. and I shall be as brief as I possibly can. I very much welcome this debate, though it did come as a bit of a bit of a surprise. And I think one of the reasons that not very many people are here is they weren't really prepared for this debate, and there is no Prime Minister and no motion. And and out of 400 Labour MPs, there's fewer than 20 in the House, which I think projects an unfortunate message for a government debate on Ukraine.

But nevertheless I still welcome it. But I do look forward to a proper debate on a proper motion where there may even be whipping and everyone will have to turn up and hear what the Prime Minister has got to say, particularly about this deployment, which I'll come to in a minute. I'm not going to repeat the speech I had the privilege of delivering on in the debate granted to me by the Backbench Business Committee on the 4th of December, except just to reiterate that Russia cannot win this war militarily.

They will only win because of Western weakness, because of our weakness, our lack of resolve. If we support Ukraine, Russia cannot win, which is why his diplomatic efforts are so vigorous. And there's far more that we could do than we are doing. And in particular, we could re-arm our re-arm our own armed forces much more quickly than we are. And I know I get smiles from the government front bench when I say this because they agree with me. But this government is not delivering the scale of the defence spending increases that we need.

A very briefly, I'm going to be as swift as I possibly can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We just today it was reported 18 tankers from the Russian shadow fleet have passed through the fleet have passed through the channel since the Defence Secretary's statement in this House on the 7th of January on curtailing on the 7th of January on curtailing Russian oil exports. So does he agree with me that we must show the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with me that we must show the Russians we mean what we say? I completely. Agree, and there should be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree, and there should be a NATO operation to intercept every ship that comes into the operational area of NATO in the North Atlantic and the North Sea, around the north of Scotland. We could choke off a significant amount of this, and we're not doing it. We're letting it carry on now, getting all the NATO Europe powers in line with that. That's a problem. But let's do it. NATO, the NATO nations in Europe together could show Trump we are prepared to deliver for European security, but we're not doing that at the moment.

But I think it is essential for us to discuss this so-called coalition of the willing. Now, what what we all know that there are some armed forces personnel in Ukraine already, and they're providing advice and logistics and training and intelligence and supporting planning and HQs and that sort of thing. Actually, we've probably got more to learn about fighting the Russians from the Ukrainians than we can teach them. But 7500 troops in formed units, a brigade supporting a combat battalion or two.

Is this what we're talking about? I've got very, very grave doubts about this. And what would be the rules of engagement? How we provide for core security would be just preventing, presenting a lovely target for Russian Russians to attack, which they might not attack directly. They might be accidental, but, you know, that sort of they would blur the areas and create all sorts of problems if we were so overt. Unless we've got a force in there that can actually fight and defend itself against the Russians.

I have my doubts about this and how we would respond if Russia escalated in that situation is a very open question, but I have no desire to be an armchair critic of the government's policy. And this brings me to the main point I want to make. It's become fashionable to believe that Parliament has a right to tell the government when or when not to deploy troops. There is no constitutional basis for this whatsoever, in fact, that the Prime Minister assumes his office.

He takes the seals of office and takes the responsibility upon himself about when to direct the armed forces into harm's way. And there is no constitutional impediment for him doing that. What we saw in the Syria debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for his most excellent speech. What we saw in the Syria debate was a humiliating, a humiliating abdication of the government's responsibility when it knew it was right to deploy armed forces in Syria, and then it volunteered not to do so because of a of a very finely balanced debate and and vote in the House of Commons.

And the Prime Minister stood there and said, OK, I get it. I mean, this is really A-level politics o level statesman craft. It was ridiculous. And he's completely right. It projected weakness when we knew that the Russians were supporting the Syrians, the Syrian government, in murdering and deploying chemical weapons on their own people. And it was weak of Obama to say this was a red line and then failed to do anything about it. We projected weakness. We invited Putin to try again.

And I totally agree with him about the consequences of that. Now, the point is, the government has the responsibility to make this judgement. It cannot pass this judgement to 650 armchair generals. George, drawing in the House of Commons. When we don't have the intelligence, we don't have the assessments. We can we can express our views and we can hold the government to account for the outcome of what they decide. But I put it to him that the put it to the Minister that in that debate on Syria.

We learned something, that the Prime Minister doesn't resign when he loses the crucial vote. Now, partly part of that was the fixed term Parliaments Act. I mean, if he'd made it a vote of confidence, would he have won it and would there have been a general election? No, there wouldn't have been. He might have had to resign, but there wouldn't have been a general election. And we were in a very artificial point. But I put it to the Minister this time, if the Prime Minister brings a vote to the House of Commons and he loses it, he would have to resign and hand over to somebody else, or he would have to call a general election because we no longer have a fixed term parliament.

We're back to real accountability because the accountability counts at the ballot box. And the final analysis, the one power the Prime Minister has is to call a general election and ask the king to dissolve parliament. And if he'd lost such a vote, that would be the only honourable thing for him to do. But he cannot come here and engage in the kind of abject, humiliating abdication of responsibility we've seen before. And just ask about the other experience. The government of the day won the Iraq vote.

I happen to think it was still right. We got a democracy in Iraq of sorts. Iraq is no longer a Soviet puppet, a Russian puppet, but who in this house still believes that was the right decision? The polls went in favour of the Iraq war at the last minute. Maybe that helped Tony Blair get the vote over the line. Was that a good basis for making a decision? No, it wasn't either. The government makes this decision for itself and holds itself accountable to this House, or don't accept the seals of office, don't become Prime Minister because that's the job.
17:38
Alex Sobel Portrait Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )
-
-
Alex Sobel. >> Alex Sobel. >> I'd like to start by thanking the Leader of the House for giving us this debate. He could have us this debate. He could have chosen any topic to fill the space this afternoon, but he chose for us this afternoon, but he chose for us to have this debate on Ukraine. And I I'd like to say it's a privilege to serve as chair the Ukrainian APPG. I can see many members of the APPG here. It isn't full.

Other members can still join. We we would like to have every backbench member of the House as a member of the APPG. But I think I want to start with first person narrative about what is happening in Ukraine now. As we approach the midway point through the Ukrainian winter in the middle of January, the realities of lived experience, what it really means and feels like. Russia continues to have the ability to strike on a daily basis and take out Ukraine's energy infrastructure.

Their energy security is constantly under fire. I spoke with Leslie Vasilenko. I know many people here know Lesha, the chair, the British group in the Rada who's in Kyiv. She said to me, I've had no heat in my flat for four days and this was yesterday. It's minus ten. It's now -13. This is a situation in half of Kyiv. No electricity apart from a couple of hours in the night. Some buildings have no water. I'm writing this to you in total darkness and wearing four layers.

The schools are not working. The sound of generators is less and less heard as they are breaking down en masse, given they're not designed to work non-stop. And in such low temperatures, hospitals are working at limited capacity, and every night Russia is deliberately eating more and more power generators and gas infrastructure. Their task is to freeze Kyiv out. At one point, Mayor Klitschko even appealed to the people of Kyiv to leave the city. Putin's invasion nearly four years ago resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools, she continues.

This includes Russian state sponsored abductions, Ukrainian children, to my hon. Friend so brilliantly spoke about and the rest of my colleagues at the OSCE, Dmytro Shabanov, Maksim Petrov and Vadim Gold, who I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington is raising as an OSCE rep on Ukraine. Less is the OSCE PA chair, the parliamentary support team for Ukraine. And so I'm really happy that we can support her and continue to support the work that's going on now in terms of our support for their engine structure.

Octopus signed a significant deal with large private energy company in Ukraine for £100 million. We need to see much more like that. I was really pleased. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about that. A bunker under the school on the south bank of Kyiv that we both went to together when we were in opposition. And I just, you know, we just need to think about those children now, not in that school which has got a generator, but in their homes freezing and all of those other people, millions of people in Kyiv now being frozen out.

And what more we need to do, not just to provide emergency energy generation, but also that long term renewable secure energy. Because for us, renewable energy is a matter of energy transition and all those things. We just had the statement right before this, but for them it's national security. It means the difference between being able to heat their homes, be able to keep the lights on, be able to use their mobile phones, and not because it's much easier to take out a gas fired power station or nuclear power station by the Russians than it is to take out a wind farm or a solar farm.

And and we need to ensure that we do everything we can in terms of Ukraine's energy infrastructure. I just want to move on quickly just to talk about, because one of the things that I do as the chair is I write many letters every week for Ukrainian members of the Rada to be able to come and visit us here. And I know that that that is not just members. That is right across the piece, because so many Ukrainians have family members here, have other ties to the UK, but it is still so difficult for Ukrainians to get visas.

I just want to ask the Minister about how can we further reduce bureaucracy for Ukrainians to come here and liberalise those short term travel visas, which are, I'm afraid, say, still difficult to get? I just want to briefly talk about sanctions. Sanctions are one of the few non-military tools capable of influencing Russian policy. That's leverage that should not be given away without meaningful concessions, without conditions to withdraw to 1991, borders and binding agreements and recreation ceasefire could freeze the conflict away that perpetuate Perpetrates instability.

Europe and UK cannot repeat the mistake of 2014, when sanctions over Crimea and the Donbas were limited and political will dissipated. That leniency enabled Moscow to believe that further escalation would be tolerated and led to the full scale invasion 2022. So my view is that whatever happens, whatever negotiate, whatever agreement, we need to keep Russian sanctions in place, we need to continue to restrict their ability to operate because we are. My concern is that we will allow future conflicts to happen because Russia's territorial ambitions are not constrained just to Ukraine or conflict.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the topic of sanctions, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and he is a tireless champion for the UK Ukraine relationship, including through the 100 year including through the 100 year partnership. Does he agree with me that it is worth commending the government on the action that has government on the action that has been taken in the past month in issuing a license through Ofsi to issuing a license through Ofsi to try and move forward? The £2.5 billion proceeds of Chelsea Football Club money that remains frozen and has done for almost four years now, that could be used to support the victims of conflict, including in Ukraine.

And will he also join me in calling on the government to try and move faster in unlocking the more than £700,000 worth of assets that belong to Peter Arvan, one of Putin's closest oligarch friends. That has been frozen for quite some time now by the National Crime Agency. That could also be used to support the Ukrainian people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It's taken too absolutely right. It's taken too long to see that Chelsea Money, my long to see that Chelsea Money, my hon. Friend from Hemel Hempstead, talked about the aid convoys. Can you imagine what they could do with that money from the Chelsea sale in terms of supporting Ukraine? What we could do in terms of buying generators and what we could do in generators and what we could do in terms of energy infrastructure with those billions actually from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chelsea sale, so. Briefly give way. All right. I just. Want to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to say. Very briefly that I hope that if that money is unlocked, we do also look at which ways we can look at which ways we can compensate the money that is then going into Ukraine to free up money that might be able to go to other conflicts around the world where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conflicts around the world where we've had to sadly make some reductions due to the cut in the aid Budget. Torfaen is inviting me to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Torfaen is inviting me to comment on our older cuts. I think we probably share the same opinion about. I think actually that that that absolutely. There's a principle here about reparations, whether that is from the from the Russian state or from individuals that have benefited from this war or from the gangster kleptocracy that runs Russia. So we need to do both those things. And I think that there is there's probably a wider discussion to be had about how we can support Ukraine and actually retrench some of those monies.

Some of the other areas, particularly areas like Syria and hopefully actually Iran, that will need Oda money from the UK now and in the in the near future. I know my time is nearly up, so I'm just going to make a couple of questions which the Minister can answer at the end. So in terms of that, this much vexed question about our deployment of troops to Ukraine, it is very early and I just want to just maybe council some members when they're talking about this, that, that when you when you're talking about in terms of the language and the approach, we need to be very reminiscent of the run up to the Second World War and how Lord Halifax approached this and that.

There was there was an agreement in Munich and there was, Chamberlain said it would be peace in our time. And then the war started and the war came to us. Russia's territorial ambitions are not limited. They are unlimited, and we need to be very cognisant of that. And we need to be on the front foot and not on the back foot. And I understand all of the concerns about our ability to deploy troops. So my question really is what planning are we doing at this stage? What early, what's the process? What can we do to reassure MPs and the public that we are making the right, making the right planning steps towards that and thinking what we can do now we have very welcomely and I'm sure my hon.

Friend the Defence Minister will, will, will be able to answer this. We have very Welcomely announced plans to develop new tactical ballistic missiles with Ukraine strength, Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia, Russia. Could the government talk more about how we're going to do this and when we're going to do this, what the timelines are, because our own air defences are are insufficient, and we need to think in the future that, that, that if this war is protracted, if Putin doesn't settle, if we don't get to a ceasefire, then we ourselves could be threatened by drones, by missiles, by all those things that we hear about every day in Ukraine.

And we need to be ready for our own defence as well as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence of Ukraine. Thank you. There are still 12 members wishing to speak. I wasn't going to wishing to speak. I wasn't going to propose a formal time limit on. So please could members perhaps restrict themselves to about five restrict themselves to about five minutes? And shall we learn from example, before I put a formal limit on Stephen Gethins?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limit on Stephen Gethins? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the Minister for his comments and associate myself with comments and associate myself with his comments as well? I have some significant and substantive questions to ask, but I want to reflect for a moment on the human side of this conflict. And that is important. And the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South did that as she always did very, very well. I've travelled a lot to Ukraine over the past 20 years for
17:49
Stephen Gethins Portrait Stephen Gethins MP (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Scottish National Party)
-
-
work and for other purposes. One of the most significant was on Friday night when I drove into Kyiv during night when I drove into Kyiv during the bombardment, and I was reminded that that bombardment on the early that that bombardment on the early hours of Friday morning was not aimed at any military target. It was aimed at the energy infrastructure. As temperatures in Kyiv reached -15 and subsequently Kyiv reached -15 and subsequently -20 Madam Deputy Speaker. It was nippy. Biden were warm to go to.

Unlike so many people, and what was perhaps told us a little bit more about the Russian administration and the way it conducts its war, where the double tap strikes, they hit apartment blocks and then shortly thereafter they hit again, killing ambulance workers. Reacting, ambulance workers reacting. I then travelled to Sumy. I believe I was one of the first British members of Parliament to travel to Sumycin Stark, the full scale invasion where we have a partnership agreement between Angus Council and my constituency and the people of Sumy, because that sense of solidarity must go beyond Kyiv, and I'm sure our friends in Kyiv won't mind that.

And I want to give a shout out to the people of Sumy who welcomed me. But as we lay flowers to the 37 people killed in an artillery attack who were out shopping, out shopping, we were moved on very, very quickly. We couldn't even more and we couldn't even mark our respects for too much longer. And as the governor of Sumy said to me that human element is so important, and can I give a shout out to Tim Marie Rimmer primary school in my constituency, Miss Baird's class, led by Miss Basic LED, wrote letters to children in Sumy as well.

And although I took other gifts, I took a tartan scarf. And colleagues in Scotland will understand that. And I mentioned us about some of the more significant issues that we're dealing with. That human element tells us why Ukraine is fighting. That human element tells us why we have a responsibility across Europe to help Ukraine at its time of need, and therefore, and I won't. OK, very briefly, but I'm mindful of time very briefly and say this does not agree when it comes to accountability for those who carried out massacres, who have raped, who have killed, who have violently tortured people, that there must be accountability.

And those Russians who did it must be brought to court and then put in prison. I thank I thank the member and I was going to touch upon let me touch upon these issues. So I try and keep to time. One is exactly that, one of accountability and how important that is. I know that's something that the members agree with. And and the Member for Strangford quite rightly sets that out on that local element. Could the Minister please speak to us about the 100 year agreement? I get the role that this place has a really important role that this place has to in response to the war in Ukraine.

But the message that I had in my travels at the weekend was how important that local to local impact is, and that solidarity is. And maybe you can talk to us about the conversations he has had with devolved and local administrations in terms of the 100 year agreement when it comes to issues like education and other such issues. These are matters for those for those administrations rather than this one. And I do think it is important to involve others in that going forward. Finally, is this.

And it's the more substantive issue we face a significant challenge in terms of European security and have done for some years. The transatlantic relationship is not quite what it was in terms of the transatlantic relationship. We must look to Canada in many ways, but that common European approach to how we defend Ukraine, who are defending us, after all, is going to be incredibly important and it would be good to hear. I know the Minister, the defence Minister is very thoughtful on these issues, and it would be good to hear some of his reflections on how we deepen that cooperation.

And finally, this I heard so many times in Ukraine over the weekend, as we have so many other times when we visit. Thank you. To us, it's the wrong way round. We should be saying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank you to Ukraine from all of us. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Kevin Bonavia. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy. Speaker. We've heard. Some very. Powerful speeches from fellow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Powerful speeches from fellow members in. This House. Those of us are here. In this. Chamber today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chamber today. Are united in support of our friends in Ukraine. Members have. Spoken about their own.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spoken about their own. Experience of support. We spoke about other. Members not. In the chamber today. Who've.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also given their support. But remember this there are members of the Rada, Ukrainian parliament, who are doing far more than we could ever do, who are actually fighting ever do, who are actually fighting the war there, who are on the hit the war there, who are on the hit lists on Putin's list. We here must show that resolve, because what we show that resolve, because what we say in this chamber is not heard or watched just on the TVs of our constituents.

It is watched by our allies and our adversaries. So what we say here does matter. We also know that our ally, Ukraine, doesn't just depend on words, they need the tools to carry on the job. And they must know that in this country they have no truer friend and that we will be with them until

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the very end. Very happy to do so. Thank you. My friend, for giving way. As we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend, for giving way. As we know, Russia is trying to destroy Ukrainian identity, and therefore I'm absolutely delighted that I'm absolutely delighted that they're putting on Ukrainian Friendship Week this month. So will my friend agree? It's absolutely my friend agree? It's absolutely vital that we provide the opportunity for Ukrainians in the UK to celebrate their culture here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UK to celebrate their culture here. Absolutely. And the hon. Lady makes a good point about Ukrainians we have given sanctuary to in this country. They are doing a fantastic contribution and they should be proud of our identity, just as many of us are not doing it today. But many of us wear the Ukrainian flag alongside the Union Jack. They should be proud of that. Never lose that identity wherever their lives may take them. But going forward, the world must be clear about what this country's position is on the future of this horrific conflict.

Yes, we want peace. I don't want any price. And we must be clear that no peace can be made without the people of Ukraine. Here we have a proud history in this country of defending democracy, but we have locks on our history to when we decided the future of Czechoslovakia without the Czechoslovaks, we cannot do that now. And we should urge our allies that they cannot do that either. And that has got to be at the heart of this government's policy.

And beyond that, it is about the soft and the hard power. There are people out there talking about how hard power politics out there. Now, I speak as a lawyer who believes in the rule of law, but law without the power behind it is just empty words. And so I commend efforts by this government in increasing that hard power. This country is getting serious and it needs to get more serious. So I'm sure there are many members in this House that will support the government do precisely that.

Because if we do not, and if there is a piece which is just a pause Putin, we know what will happen next. Those Ukrainians are on the front line of Europe and not just Europe. Make no mistake, this hostility goes right across the world for our allies, across the Atlantic and beyond. We will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily Cameron Thomas. Thank you for giving way. He's right. That the world should know. And be in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And be in. No doubt the UK's position on Ukraine. But we should be in no doubt about Putin's ambitions doubt about Putin's ambitions either. He described as a geopolitical catastrophe the falling apart of the Soviet Union and Russia's 800 year most modern history is one of almost relentless history is one of almost relentless expansion. So for anybody to deny Putin's ambitions for territorial expansion, you have to deny both the statement and Russian history. Will you agree with me on that? Absolutely.

And we mustn't underestimate Putin, who's a clear student of history. But he draws
17:58
Kevin Bonavia Portrait Kevin Bonavia MP (Stevenage, Labour)
-
-
the wrong lessons from it. That man was an agent, a key agent in eastern Germany. When the Berlin eastern Germany. When the Berlin Wall fell, his world fell apart. He's now trying to rebuild that world so it doesn't stop in Ukraine. world so it doesn't stop in Ukraine. It goes right across all those members of the Warsaw Pact. I myself was a member of the armed myself was a member of the armed forces scheme in eastern Poland. And when I went, when I went there, eastern Poland last year, I saw our typhoon jets being scrambled to check out a Russian plane right on the edge of that.

This is happening day in, day out. So that man's ambitions has no borders. So what I urge this government to do is to be resolute, this House to be resolute, and this country resolute in defending the future of Ukraine,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because their future is also our future. Thank you, Anderson. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I just want to put out there to all members we're potentially, in the coming weeks or months, going to be voting to put months, going to be voting to put our troops in potentially harm's way. I have put a friend on the back of a Hercules in a coffin from back of a Hercules in a coffin from a foreign conflict. It's not something I want to see supporting Ukraine, and I am the only member of this House on the Ukraine-nato Interparliamentary Council.

I stand completely supportive of Ukraine, but that doesn't mean it's a given conclusion. We are putting troops in in harm's way. So we need to clearly set that out. And I want to talk about deployment from experience that I've had there. So I want to first look at two historic deployments, both of which I was on in Bosnia and Kosovo, to set out some of the challenges. It would be good if the Minister can set out later. So in Bosnia is 12 times smaller than Ukraine, and at the start there was 2400 troops that increased to 11,500 troops during the mid 90s and the size of the British Army then was quarter of a million, not the army.

The armed forces was quarter of a million. In 1999 I was in Kosovo. That is 55 times smaller than Ukraine, and the number of troops, including standby, was 19,000. The size of the British armed forces was over 200,000. For reference, the British Armed Forces is today around 136,000, significantly less. It's been declining for 30 years. What would a deployment look like today? The numbers that we've seen, and I take it that no numbers have been disclosed formally, the numbers we've seen so far in the media, 7500, 7500 troops equates to 15,000 per six month period.

You have 7500 deployed, 7500 on pre-deployment training, and over a 12 year period, that would equate to 30,000 troops tied up, prepared or coming back from Ukraine. Almost half of our army that doesn't necessarily include naval and air assets that would need to be in the region. That will take up a significant commitment as well. So if we're looking at a stabilisation in some way, shape or form of British troops on a peace deal, and bearing in mind we have all stated today that Putin does not expect respect international law, we do not believe he wants peace.

If he says, I'm going to have peace, you put British troops right on his border and he changes his mind or reneges on any deal. That's something we seriously have to consider. And if you're looking at 39 million Ukrainian residents, the rule of sort of military deployment and the armed forces Minister will know on a stabilisation force, you're looking at a peacekeeping role of 20 to 25 troops per 1000 residents. That would equate to 600 to 800,000 troops, roughly the size of the Ukrainian armed forces.

So I ask, what are our 7500 and France's 7500 going to do with a highly capable Ukrainian military military that's been there for a long time. So there is a cost to this, and I would really like to understand what considerations and what information will be made available over the coming weeks and months, because this will be a hot topic. But how are we planning for a withdrawal as well? As we're planning to put troops in there, we must have a clear, coherent strategy of how our troops will operate, for how long and what commitment.

Why are we looking to operate outside of NATO or Jeff Smith? Both Bosnia and Kosovo were NATO missions. We have that framework, and I'm very concerned the coalition of the willing will not be working coherently as the Jeff does with NATO. How is this deployment going to be funded? Because even this week, CDs has said there are in year pressures, and if cuts are not made, they will exceed the Budget, which they're not allowed to do. So I have concerns with that.

The rules of engagement of Putin does not respect any international law. How are our troops protected? Not just short term, but long term. And these are questions that we should be early on bringing to this House.
18:04
18:04
Richard Baker Portrait Richard Baker MP (Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Labour)
-
-
from only the future of Ukraine which Their fight is ours and it is Europe's. And Prince, the foreign secretary, on her first international visit in that role, announced 100 sanctions against Russia and, crucially, £142 million to support civilians in frontline communities. I want to focus my brief remarks on the importance of humanitarian support for some of those in Ukraine's civilian community who have been most acutely affected and harmed, about whose experiences and voices need to be more widely heard.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, millions of people were forced to flee. But to leave their homes has not been an option for many disabled people, and not for more than 260,000 Ukrainian people with learning disabilities dependent on their families, their carers. They had to stay in the midst of the invasion. Missile and drone attacks are terrifying for the whole community, but particularly for autistic people and those with learning disabilities. You Kravchenko has been at the forefront of supporting and protecting disabled people over these past traumatic years.

And on my visit to Kyiv, I met with Rita and her colleague Yulia Clive Betts. They founded the all Ukrainian NGO NGO coalition for persons with Intellectual Disabilities. They told me how Riesa spent 25 days sheltering in a basement with her son Alexei, who has a disability, without food, without electricity or gas. How support and coping strategies parents have used to support their children have been wrecked by the invasion. They told me of Vitaly, who had not left his Kyiv apartment in three That work has been utterly frustrated and indeed now disabled people in care institutions have been targeted by Russians Russian forces for kidnapping, as highlighted in the report by my hon.

Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the disabled community in Ukraine is at breaking point and beyond. We are providing support. £25 million from the UK government for the spirit programme is welcome. It will provide support for including for disabled children, but we have to do much more to go further to the international community needs to do more to intervene in a human rights emergency for disabled people. As with so many other groups within Ukrainian society, and I am keen to engage further with colleagues in government on these issues.

Alongside the All Ukraine coalition, Inclusion Europe and UK Friends of Ukraine of Ukraine the prospects for a peace agreement. But at this moment in time, we have to ensure we are doing all we can to support Ukraine militarily and in terms of the humanitarian need as well, including for disabled people and for those who provide care and support. Raisa, Yulia and their colleagues, their resilience is awe inspiring. Their lives have been devastated for the sake of Putin's ambitions, and we must understand the scale of the task of reconstruction, estimated at $1 trillion.

We have to hold Russia accountable for that. They must be penalised financially to ensure we can support a full reconstruction, support all of the communities who have been so badly affected and harmed because of Russia's illegal actions, and we must do all we can to intervene in this humanitarian crisis.
18:09
Martin Wrigley Portrait Martin Wrigley MP (Newton Abbot, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Martin Wrigley Madam Deputy Speaker. Like many in this House, I stand with Ukraine and its defence stand with Ukraine and its defence of the front line of Europe. I'm proud to do so. Couple of weeks ago I was helping some of the local Ukrainians we have in the homes for Ukraine scheme move home, and they were being visited by their father, who is a senior officer in the Ukrainian Navy. He was very, very grateful for the fact that we were keeping his family safe.

And he said how important it was to the Ukrainians that we were able to do so. However, there are still some things that we need to do to ensure their safety remains here in the UK. One of his daughters had just applied for the extension for the homes for Ukraine, the Ukrainian permission extension scheme, which you can only apply for 28 days before your visa runs out. She had been waiting more than 28 days. She was worried that without a visa she would not be able to stay.

I asked the government to look at enabling renewal of those visas sooner than 28 days before the end. Now, last year, I was able to win an extra two years for Ukrainians to actually gain a certain stay here on those visas, which was fantastic, and I thank the government for doing that. However, we still don't know how that is going to work and whether we will still have this 28 day problem. And we have to wait right up to the very end now.

Now, the Ukrainians I know in the UK are sitting back and waiting for help. They have all gone out and got jobs. They're starting businesses, they're doing things, they're rebuilding lives here. And we need to look at how we can make that work. One of the issues for this family was qualifications. Their daughter had high, highly rated qualifications in maths and physics from the Ukrainian school that was not recognised by the school in the UK. It would be helpful if the government could provide guidance to our schools to actually what extent they can recognise the qualifications from Ukrainian schools.

For the students who are here, that was one of their explicit asks. I add into that we should be looking at what we can do in terms of dentistry. I have a Ukrainian dentist in my in my constituency. He is going through an elongated process to try to requalify to practice dentistry in the UK. And goodness knows we need all the dentists we can get. Let's help them. Let's make it easier for them to settle here for longer. Now there is a problem with the Ukrainian permissions extension scheme that if Donald Trump were to be able to magic a ceasefire out of thin air, which I feel this House feels probably is very, very unlikely, we then have a position where we technically have peace in Ukraine.

Potentially. I dream for that day. I don't expect it to be soon. However, if we have peace, we know that the Ukrainian visas will be ended, we'll finish and we will be expecting people to go back. But we all know there's a difference between peace and safe. We know that Ukraine is covered in unexploded ordnance and landmines, which could take up to 40 years to clear, and the land that could gain peace. But it won't be safe. I have a lady in my constituency whose house is in his village is in the Russian occupied zone.

Her village has been demolished. Her house is rubble. She's lost her husband, lost her brother, lost her father. She's got nothing to go back to. I want to make sure that we look for settlement in the long term. Now, Ukraine has recently changed its law to allow people to hold second passports. The UK is not on that list yet of countries with that agreement, I urge the government to look at that to ensure that we have a process towards long term settlement in the UK, so that those industrious Ukrainians who have started businesses can actually thrive and develop and not only contribute to our economy, but can contribute to Ukraine's rebuilding.

There are many things that we can do. I applaud the government for all that it's doing, but we can do more. Please help them to help themselves and help us.
18:13
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
Slava Ukraini Tom Hayes. want to acknowledge your own staunch, consistent support for the people of Ukraine, most recently representing the speaker at the International Crimea Platform to reinforce Ukraine's sovereignty. My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine, both in Ukraine and in Bournemouth itself. I commend Ukrainian relief, who have a donation centre at Castle Point shopping centre in my constituency, and the work of Carol Swiatki and other Ukrainians across Bournemouth. Whether the peace that President Trump creates is durable will depend on whether he applies sufficient pressure to Vladimir Putin to secure it.

And we don't yet know the final outline of a peace deal or even a ceasefire. But we do know that the Trump administration has pressed Ukraine to make concessions. Granted a summit with President Trump in Alaska, Putin instead demanded more territory than he had already seized in his war of aggression to date, and the administration responded not by pressuring Russia, but by putting more pressure onto Ukraine. Arms were withheld, intelligence was withdrawn, assistance that remained was limited and slow. Kyiv has been left perpetually uncertain about the reliability of US support.

Now, with the offer of a 15 year US security guarantee as part of a peace plan that should give us room for pause to 15 years will go by in the blink of an eye, unless a guarantee is exceptionally robust and unless the armed forces of Europe's democracies are included, are integral to enforcing it. Otherwise, I fear that Moscow will wait, it will rebuild, and it will return when the clock runs out. We need to be, as the hon. Member for South Shropshire was saying, mindful about what a deployment looks like, and be asking those serious questions.

And I know that the Prime Minister, a good man, a serious man, a patriotic man, having to deal with the insanity that is abroad and having to deal with difficult conditions at home, is charting the course as best that he and this government can. And I know that he puts the safety of British troops at the heart of what he does, because without genuine stability, Ukraine cannot rebuild in peace. Boardrooms will not make investments over the long term. We know, too, that this would not be peace.

It would be merely a ceasefire, a temporary pause and with the temptation to renew aggression, one that we know Putin can't resist. British competition for continental dominance would define this decade and sadly, the next. So we have to be keeping the peace as well as making it. And really, the only way we can do that is through security guarantees that are robust. And unfortunately, this does mean that we need to come to terms with a changed world. We've not known this fear before.

We've not known this fear for a long time. The feeling that Ukraine knows every single day in its bones, uniquely, the United States has been the richest and most capable country in world history. Yet nations haven't chosen to balance against it. They've chosen to ally with it. It's been a reversal of all that we've known in history, and that's because America sought collective security, self-determination, open trade institutions, legitimacy, purposeful democracy. But today that strategic capital is being diminished consciously as a matter of policy by the Trump administration, not everywhere in the US security apparatus, it should be said, but at the highest level where political decisions are being taken.

I've lived in America, I've travelled it widely. I've had the privilege of studying international security at one of its universities, and I have a deep affection for its dynamism and its democracy. But we must also face the fact that looking at the national security strategy, Ukraine and Europe are less of a priority than other parts of the world. And so European defence planners have to be spending our days tracking Russian troop movements, calculating whether Putin might order an attack on a NATO member before the end of the decade, as he did against Ukraine, and wondering whether the United States will come to our defence.

We need to be rearming. We need to be doing it faster. We need to be improving and significantly increasing our weapons manufacture. And we need to be moving closer to European democracies, not the EU per se, and defence and security, which may be too inflexible. But our European democratic friends are like minded friends who care about peace, who care about democracy, and will themselves put forward a programme of rearmament to. And I'll close in saying this, we also need to recognise that in facing the world as it is, and in trying to rearm and increase our diplomatic influence to meet it, there will be people in our country who do not like this.

We see in France, we see in Germany the rise of the far right and the populist right. And they are seeking to make an issue about rearmament. We here in this House need to be united. We know there are those on the benches opposite who are not in attendance today, will protest our rearmament and our commitment to Ukraine. We in this House need to be united behind Ukraine, democracy and peace. And we need as best we can, not to play party politics, but to rebuild that consensus that lasted for so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many, many years, but seems to me to be a threat today. Sir John Whittingdale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir John Whittingdale. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I've spoken about Ukraine and indeed initiated debates on Ukraine indeed initiated debates on Ukraine a number of times over the past 12 years, which of course was when the years, which of course was when the war which Russia is waging on Ukraine started with the annexation
18:18
John Whittingdale Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)
-
-
Ukraine started with the annexation of Crimea. And during that time I visited Avdiivka, Mariupol, Berdyansk, all of which are now under Russian occupation. I'm proud that as a result of pressing the government at that time, the UK started supporting Ukraine through Operation Orbital. This was before the full scale Russian invasion, but since then we have been in the vanguard. We have done so because we have a duty as an original signatory of the Budapest Memorandum, because we also believe in the principle that independent sovereign states should not lose territory as a result of military aggression, but also because Ukraine is our front line, because we know that Putin's threat does not just extend to the territory of Ukraine, but to all of those countries which used to be either part of the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, in particular the Baltic states.

But I'm more proud of the extraordinary resilience and courage shown by the Ukrainian people. People have talked about in this debate about the fact that it's going to be -16 tonight, but 70% of Kyiv has no electricity, as does large parts of Odessa, Kharkiv, a number of other cities. And the losses during this war on both sides have been truly horrendous. Well over a million Russian casualties. And on the Ukrainian side, although numbers have not been released, it's almost certainly well over 100,000.

So we can understand why the Ukrainians want to see an end to this war. But they want a just and lasting peace. And therefore the original plan that was advanced by Steve Witkoff and President Trump, the so-called 28 point plan, was utterly unacceptable. It required Ukraine to accept the loss of their territory. It required Ukraine to commit never to having NATO troops on their soil. The plan that is apparently now coming forward is, we are told by President Zelensky, 90% in agreement, but he's described as the requirements on territory as being very difficult.

And whilst I absolutely believe that it must be for Ukraine to decide on the terms of any peace, the idea that Russia is going to be allowed to keep any of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is very, very difficult to stomach. We have debated the terms of the potential peace plan involving the deployment of troops as a security guarantee, and I absolutely share the concerns about how that will operate that have been expressed by a number of other speakers in the debate.

But my real concern is that whilst it is important, we do talk about how a settlement might be enforced, I do believe that there is a very strong chance we're not going to get one, because Sergey Lavrov has said within the last 24 hours that a ceasefire is simply not serious. And since talk of this peace plan was advanced, Russia has stepped up its attack that the number of drones and missiles landing across the whole of Ukraine has simply gone on increasing.

And there is a real risk. But actually, as if part of the settlement plan involves the stationing of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, as we have been debating, Putin has made it absolutely clear that that is a complete red line, which he is not willing to accept. So I think we need to at least prepare ourselves for the fact that this war is going to go on for a long time, in which case I say to the Minister, where is plan B? And plan B has to involve much tougher action against Russia.

It needs to involve seizing Russian assets, stopping trade with Russia. It means arming Ukraine to an extent that has not been possible. And I welcome the recent announcements, things like Project Nightfall in the last week or so, where we will be supplying Ukraine with long range missiles in terms of assets, very quickly. The Foreign Affairs Committee this morning heard from the chief executive of the Chelsea Humanitarian Fund and representatives of the legal firm advising them about the difficulties in achieving what we all want to see, which is the use of the money from Chelsea Football Club to support Ukraine.

I would simply say to the Minister, would he please meet them because there are some serious legal obstacles and they said that they have a solution to those, but they're anxious to have the opportunity to discuss it further with the Minister. But I will end by simply saying, I would love to think that this war is going to come to an end soon. And my friends in Ukraine pray for that every night. But let us be prepared for the fact that this may go on for much longer, and that we are going to need to do a lot more to put pressure on Russia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to get them to stop. John Slinger. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I have spoken consistently about the need to protect the international rules based system. It is a system not based system. It is a system not only under direct and indirect threat throughout the world, but in Ukraine. It has clearly failed insofar as Russia invaded. And this insofar as Russia invaded. And this is a moment not to jettison it, but to redouble our defence of it, as to redouble our defence of it, as we did in the past.

Britain has a proud track record in the world wars, the Cold War, the liberation wars, the Cold War, the liberation of the Falkland Islands, of Kuwait and latterly Iraq are actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and indeed the no fly zone in northern Iraq. In each case, we defended brave victims against bullies. We use military force to uphold the rights of nations and of human beings. But we know that intervention has a chequered history, arguably Madam Deputy Speaker the warlords and government and some dubious governments notice the abject failure of the international community to prevent the genocide in Rwanda.

And even in cases where we took military action, others watched and drew conclusions. Malevolent actors around the world must have looked upon the former Yugoslavia and noticed that a quarter of a million civilians were killed before the international community got truly serious. With American leadership finally ensuring that NATO took decisive action and need. I say that Saddam Hussein got away with breaching every known international law before the Americans, this country and others belatedly took action.
18:24
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
Belated tough action, feeble action, or the absence of action, which is itself an action each have profound itself an action each have profound consequences. In the case of Syria, many people forget that Russia's move to consolidate its strategic move to consolidate its strategic military influence in that country only happened at pace once the West and the international community had and the international community had signalled they would not enforce the most basic of redlines against Assad for using chemical weapons. Assad for using chemical weapons.

Surely that must have been boldened Russia in other in other parts of the world, such as Ukraine. A point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. Despite the excellent efforts of the British military and diplomatic missions in Ukraine, which did ramp up military and other support long before 2022, and which I commend, it was self-evidently and with hindsight we can say, insufficient. I have always been hugely reassured by the almost universal cross-party nature of this Parliament's steadfast support for Ukraine Parliament at its best.

But at this crucial moment, we must do everything that we can to ensure that the sacrifice of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians is not in vain. More generally, we must make sure that the rules based system does not wither on the vine. I want to bring my comments towards my constituency where there are two home fronts at work. Our own. Here among British citizens, it is crucial that they realise just what is at stake. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we get this wrong, or if we don't get it sufficiently right, war will come ever closer to these shores, and the public are going to have to make sacrifices, because that is what is needed to defend democracy.

And then the extended Ukrainian home front and communities like mine in Rugby, where families, schools and businesses have welcomed them as they flee conflict. This is being supported by civil servants nationally and especially the settlement teams in places like Warwickshire County Council, and they do excellent work and compassionate work alongside their district council colleagues, charities, volunteers and most importantly, our citizens. And it's supported by community groups like the Ukrainians in Great Britain, Rugby branch, whose work I have seen.

It's what this is Britain at its best, living up to our values of welcoming those in need, inclusion. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to share with you some direct testimony from Ukrainian families who have been in touch with me this week. And I quote, Russia is systematically targeting the energy system using hundreds of drones and missiles. Radiators go cold and water freezes in the pipes. People no longer live by the clock, but by the moments when electricity briefly returns. Children do their homework.

It at night, parents cook food in the dark hours. Civilian life is the target, not military locations. The aim is to break people, to exhaust them, to destroy society from within. And then there are the night attacks, sirens, explosions and constant fear. They don't let you sleep. Your body is tired, but your mind stays awake waiting for the next sound. This is what it does to your mental state. You live in constant anxiety. You're always on the edge. Even in silence.

You are listening, supporting Ukraine's energy system, its air defence and its logistics is not abstract assistance. It is the simplest and most effective way to save millions of lives and to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in Europe. And I end the quote there's a lot at stake, but there's this government have made very clear we will not turn our back on Ukraine, quite the reverse. We are going to strengthen international law and the rules based system, which in conjunction with military power,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keeps us, our allies and the wider world safe. Members will be interested to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Members will be interested to know I'm going to call the front benches at 22. There are four speakers and 12 minutes. Scott speakers and 12 minutes. Scott Arthur Caroline Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, four years ago when Putin invaded four years ago when Putin invaded Ukraine, people around this country opened their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian people. And I thank to Ukrainian people. And I thank them for the generosity, particularly those in my constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham, who welcomes people to
18:28
Caroline Johnson Portrait Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
-
-
their homes, who supported them and who continue to support them. To this day, there are just over a this day, there are just over a thousand people from Ukraine, according to latest council figures in Lincoln show, and I want to in Lincoln show, and I want to focus on them. Today. I met a group just last weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker in Sleaford, who are led by Kelly Breslin and Betty Borland, who I would like to thank for their work in trying to bring the community together and to help them navigate various different systems within the British state.

I met women, predominantly children and accountant, a doctor, a dentist. I met a masseuse who set up her own business in my constituency. Firstly, they were grateful to the British state and to the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for his work in supporting them and their country. They were thankful to the people who supported them in the as their hosts. They told me of their trips out of Ukraine and the fear that many of them felt. I met two young ladies who were just 18 when they left as friends together to come across to live with the family in Ruskington and thought of my own child who similar age and thinking.

How would it be to let that daughter go across to another country, to an unknown, to live with an unknown family in such circumstances? They told me about the cultural and language challenges that they had, and one of them told me about her recent visit to Ukraine at Christmas and the five days of power outage that they had there, and the difficulties and fear that she had going back to that short period. One lady explained about how life was on hold when they first came.

They were quite content just to be safe, just to have no fear of bombs. But as time goes by, they think of the jobs that they had and the careers they had and the futures they want to have and the difficulties that they have at the moment in progressing them. So, for example, one young lady talked about the training challenges. If she wants to do an apprenticeship, she can't do an apprenticeship because her visa doesn't last long enough for her to do an apprenticeship.

If she wants to do a university course or a training course, she has a similar problem. The 28 day period by which someone has to say if someone is wanting to stay and they have to apply for a new visa they have, they cannot apply until 28 days before they're due to leave, which also causes problems with employment. And they were all very, very keen to work. I also want to ask the Minister specifically about people who are in medical profession, dentists and doctors, because it seems to me we have a shortage of both.

For example, Madam Deputy Speaker, the cardiothoracic waiting list is not just going up last month, it went up last month, it's gone up at the last year and it's higher than it was when we left office. And yet we have in my constituency a cardiothoracic surgeon who is unable to practice currently and is working in a factory instead. So I asked the Minister if he could. I appreciate the time is very short, so I'm not able to go through all the examples I would like to, but if he was able to write to me or ask the relevant Minister to write to me with a very schemes available for people with skills to be able to utilise them to the fullest whilst in the country.

Thank you Richard Foord.
18:31
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you Madam. >> Speaker, and I want to speak briefly about Russian intent, the coalition of the Willing and Sanctions on Russia and I will of Sanctions on Russia and I will of course do so using open source reporting and analysis. But first, I want to praise the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people, because of course it is. You know, to them that we look to for our own safety. This is not an exaggeration, and I think it's worth articulating what we mean when we say Putin won't stop at Ukraine.

Putin has previous experience in invading Georgia, Crimea, Moldova. There is the legacy of of of conflict in, in Kievan Rus. And in what now? These days, Russia refers to as russkiy mir, meaning the so-called Russian world, that that part of the world which is which is Russian culture, Russian speaking. Indeed, 25% of of Estonia, 25% of Latvia have have Russian ethnic people. So we have NATO members that have ethnic Russians living in, in, in, in them.

And it is to them that we must look for the defence of, of Europe. Of course, we must think about the coalition of the willing that the government was talking about last week. And I've asked frequently about security guarantees for Ukraine, but I am still uncertain about the purpose of this proposed deployment. We've heard the term reassurance, but we've also heard words like peacekeeping. Is it for peacekeeping? Is it peace enforcement? Is it deterrence? Is it defence? Is it a tripwire? A little bit more information would be needed, I suppose, before this House was to vote on what is meant by the coalition of the willing.

And of course, the West has successfully called Putin's bluff. Repeatedly we did so when we provided armour such as challenger two. We did so when we provided fighter jets such as the F-16. We did so when we provided deep strike weapons such as Storm Shadow. But the deployment of British troops is is different because of ambiguity over what the West would do if they were targeted. Now, I accept that this might be intentional. I accept that we might practice deliberate ambiguity.

But just as we have deliberate ambiguity, Russia Russia tends to use plausible deniability, the former defence secretary said on the radio last week that we could see a situation where there is an attack on British troops that is claimed by Russia to be the work of of separatists within Ukraine, or indeed even a false flag operation. I appreciate that if this does ever come to a vote, that we will get an opportunity to have a much more extensive debate on that, but those are my comments on the coalition of the willing for today.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Chris Coghlan Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last year in Ukraine, a Ukrainian MP told me that her husband had served on the front husband had served on the front line for eight years. She asked me if in the event of a peace agreement, I would support British agreement, I would support British ground troops. And I of course have questions about British ground troops. But I said that I would and that I'm also potentially liable to serve myself as a reservist soldier. I am proud to be under the same I am proud to be under the same obligations to serve as any British soldier.

Yeah, because we live in
18:35
Chris Coghlan Portrait Chris Coghlan MP (Dorking and Horley, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
times of enormous peril, and we have responsibility to lead. We are threatened in the East by dictators and in the West by autocrats. and in the West by autocrats. Indeed, it is an open question whether liberal democracy will succeed in this century, as it did succeed in this century, as it did in the last. But Ukraine has been in the last. But Ukraine has been bearing the brunt of this fight, and it sacrifice has brought us time. The Ukraine still has a credible path to a just peace.

European NATO GDP alone is ten times the size of Russia's. Yet Russia has been spending $40 billion more a year on the war on Ukraine than Ukraine and Western allies. If we closed and exceeded that gap today by seizing the 300 billion in frozen Russian assets, then not only could Ukraine secure a just peace, but we would also deter Putin from crashing into Eastern Europe and testing article five here. Yeah, with President Trump disgracefully threatening NATO allies as well, smaller democracies must also ensure that we are economically and militarily strong enough to defend ourselves together.

It is the example of the United States, a country that I love, that can show us how. In the 1940s, refugees fled the Nazis to the United States. They built the atomic bomb, and they won the war. In the process, they developed a method of public research and development that academics now acknowledge, acknowledge has powered US technological and economic dominance ever since the Chancellor's recognised this. In the Spring statement, she used the 2.2 billion increase in defence research and development to upgrade long term UK GDP growth by 11 billion a year.

The current and former presidents of the European Central Bank have called on Europe to borrow to invest in defence research and development, not only to deter Russia, but also to lift Europe out of the economic stagnation that has held the continent back and the United Kingdom since the financial crash in 2008. We can do this too, madam Deputy Speaker, President Reagan described America as a beacon on the Hill. Sadly, it appears that that light is now fading, but I believe it has burned long enough for the other democracies to see it.

So now it is up to us, the smaller democracies, to ensure that we are also humanity's best last hope. Yes.
18:37
Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Briefly. >> Briefly. >> Speaker, a serious. Concern shared by. >> Ukrainians in. >> Wokingham is. >> The crimes of the Russian army.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The crimes of the Russian army. Over 20,000 children abducted since the start of Russia's invasion. the start of Russia's invasion. This is a disgusting tactic of the Russian armed forces authorised by Putin, which threatens to rob Ukraine of its future. I would like to know from the Minister, does the government recognise that these massive abductions constitute war crimes, and will the government hold Putin to account for these crimes by implementing the outstanding International Criminal Court arrest warrant against him? It is not just Putin who has been shown to be a bad actor in all of this.

My constituents in Wokingham write to me all the time to express their disgust at Trump's behaviour. Whether it's bullying Zelensky in the white House or extorting this vulnerable country of their minerals, the president has acted shamefully. If Ukraine cannot rely on Trump, then Europe must be all the more united in their support of Ukraine. Trump has shown time and time again that he does not care about international rules and obligations, and is more interested in cosying up to autocrats and increasing the coffers of the wider Trump family.

Threatening to invade Greenland as latest proof that Trump is not pro-democracy and cannot be trusted by the international community here. Clearly the government has to has to focus on joining with our European neighbours to support Afrin's territory and their way of life, and not just Ukraine. If we don't do this, history tells us the aggressor will turn their attention to the UK, which is a situation we really do not want to happen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to the front bench contributions. Shadow Minister David Reed. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think to start and to raise the point that the shadow Minister raised in his opening speech, we raised in his opening speech, we are at a major crossroad in this conflict and the stakes could not conflict and the stakes could not be higher on the line. Is Ukraine's sovereignty, the freedom of its people and the wider security of people and the wider security of Europe. Madam Deputy Speaker, in truth, the security of all of us. I think it is easy in this House to speak in abstractions such as the rules based order, hybrid threats
18:40
David Reed Portrait David Reed MP (Exmouth and Exeter East, Conservative)
-
-
or deterrence. But the reality is brutally concrete. When Russia is brutally concrete. When Russia is allowed to advance by force, the consequences do not remain. On the eastern flank. They spill into eastern flank. They spill into energy markets, cyber attacks, disinformation and sabotage. And most importantly, they shape the most importantly, they shape the calculations of every hostile actor watching to see what the West will watching to see what the West will tolerate. We all know that Russia is waging a sustained and hostile campaign against all of us.

We must therefore be prepared for long term tension. But the outcome of the war in Ukraine remains central to dealing a decisive blow to that wider threat. I think, to touch on a number of the points that we've heard from honourable and right hon. Members from across this House today, I think kicking off with the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who spoke very powerfully about the Lionheart and the Ukrainian resolve, she talked about the day to day life of Ukrainian people and how they've been attacked repeatedly by this brutal regime in Russia.

She talked about energy and the barbaric nature that the regime under Putin is forcing upon the Ukrainian people, and it needs to stop. She also raised a number of points around the shadow fleets, which I will come on to in later comments, the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes, raised an important question around deployments of British troops to Ukraine. I'm looking forward to hearing the shadow Minister's response to those points. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead talked about an almost unified position across this House, with the exception of a few parties, and I really hope those parties that don't support that unified approach take a long, hard look in the mirror and work out whose side they're actually on.

I also want to align myself with his words around the defence secretary, the former defence secretary, Sir Ben Wallace. He did really play a decisive role in those early few years of the Ukrainian war. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Gainsborough raised the point that Ukraine's fight is our fight, a point that I think we mainly agree on. We cannot consider giving Putin territory that he has failed to capture over the past four years. The hon.

Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South talked very powerfully about the 20,000 stolen Ukrainian children. I think he's trying to put that into context. 20 schools worth of children being taken over the Russian border. It's a disgusting and almost inconceivable practice, and we must not allow the world to forget what the Russian regime has done under Putin. My right hon. Friend for Harwich and North Essex, he's he's raised the issue of Ukraine numerous times now over the last few years.

And I think we can all agree that when he speaks, everyone listens. The diplomatic efforts that he raised that Russia are trying to push along now are so intense because I think they have worked out that militarily they cannot win. We know that that's the rule of the game now. So we must increase pressure on them and play them at their own game. The chair of the Ukraine, APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, talked about the pressure that Ukrainians are currently under and again refer back to heat and energy, and I want to thank him for the work that he's done to connect Ukrainian MPs with members from across this Parliament.

The hon. Member for Arbroath, and brought very I know how cold it gets in Arbroath. So when he says that it gets down to -20 it's a bit nippy. I know that he speaks from experience. The hon. Member for Stevenage, he has mentioned a number of important points around the fact that we all want peace, but it cannot be peace at any cost, and that's a point that we must continue to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, a former soldier and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, raised the really important questions.

And this is the nuts and bolts of the politics that will go forward. And I will raise that later on in my speech around troop deployments. There's also been a number of valuable insights and contributions from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, my constituency neighbour, albeit separated by an estuary in Newton Abbot. The Member for Bournemouth East. My right hon. Friend from Maldon, and again, someone who's done a great deal for Ukraine over the years. The hon. Member for Rugby.

My right hon. The right hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about the generosity of her constituents and welcoming Ukrainians into into their homes. And I think that's a story that we've heard across all of our constituencies. The hon. Member for and again, my constituency neighbour from Honiton and Sidmouth, a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he talked very powerfully about Russian intent, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley. And I think we all can say thank you very much for your service and your willingness to deploy.

If there is a deployment to Ukraine. And then lastly, the hon. Member for Wokingham talked about war crimes and again, a point that we need to remember and we need to enforce once there is a piece Madam Deputy Speaker we all want this war to end, but we've seen delay, obfuscation and maximalist demands from Putin when it comes to peace. A familiar strategy designed to divide allies and buy time. So I say to Ministers, pursue diplomacy, of course, but do so with your eyes wide open.

As Churchill warned, you cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth. And I think this is a very important point, that a weak settlement, if it's reached, simply starts the clock on rearmament. Putin will not stop. As has always been the case, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future, and any settlement must involve Ukraine and a secure to secure a just and lasting peace. Under their terms. What matters most is that Putin cannot emerge strengthened, conceding territory rewards aggression and sets a dangerous precedent far beyond Europe.

Nor should Putin's regime be welcomed back into the international fold, as this was some sort of misunderstanding. This is a war of choice, an imperial project, and Putin has not abandoned his ambition to subjugate Ukraine. This brings me to sanctions, assets and energy, where rhetoric must now become action. Although we welcome the 2.26 billion loan taken from Ukraine, profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, I do believe that we need to go further and a number of those points have been drawn out today already.

There have been a number of points raised around the Russian shadow fleet, and I welcome the report that the government are exploring clear, legal, clearer legal basis to detain stateless vessels. But what matters now is resolve sanctions that are not enforced, are not sanctions at all. They are merely suggestions. And as the Minister opposite, and I well know all too well Britain has world class maritime forces in both the Royal Marines and Special forces, with near unrivalled experience in complex boarding operations.

We should be working with allies to deter and disrupt and degrade this this Russian fleet. I also think I'm conscious of time that there are a number of unfolding situations that are linked to Ukraine, Iran and the regime currently in power has been funding the Ukrainian war. And if the Minister can give a few words to the unfolding situation and UK troops being taken out from Middle Eastern bases, just a really quick point, Madam Speaker. If I visited the the United States shortly before Christmas and a congressman made a point to me that should land in every European capital, Americans cannot care more about European security than Europeans care about their own security.

Yeah, the gap between ambition and readiness cannot be closed by speeches. And we've heard already the comments from the chief of the General Staff today about the separation between strategic defence review and the need to increase defence spending. We must now match moral clarity. Madam Deputy Speaker, with seriousness, Putin will not stop because we ask. He will stop when he is made to stop. This is the moment to get real and do the right thing. We stand with Ukraine and we will ensure Ukraine wins the peace as well as the war.
18:49
Al Carns Portrait Al Carns MP (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)
-
-
Minister Al Carns. >> Yeah. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to the Honourable and right hon. Members for their right hon. Members for their thoughtful and really considered contributions today and for their continued commitment to a free and sovereign Ukraine. It's just worth pausing and noting that Russia now has been at war with Ukraine longer than it was involved in World War Two. Yeah, and just last month there were 35,000 Russian casualties. Just think about that.

35,000 Russian casualties. So when we talk about planning, we talk about plans, we talk about regeneration, we talk about capabilities. It is not lost on the Ministry of Defence. It is not lost on this government. The severity of the situation in Ukraine. As we approach the fourth anniversary and indeed the fifth year of fighting since Putin's legal full scale invasion. And as we intensify work towards a just and lasting peace, it is our collective commitment and our unity that sends the strongest message to Kyiv and the Kremlin that we, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, stand with Ukraine.

I say this gently. Be wary of the words we say in this House, because they are interpreted very differently in Moscow. And so, yes, we have to be honest to the democratic process, but we must be also recognised. The second and third order implications of what we say here and how that reverberates around the world. And when we said for as long as it takes, we meant for as long as it takes. So before I address the questions raised in today's debate, I want to be clear.

Ukraine's security remains our security. As so many members have said today, and without a just and lasting peace, lasting peace in Ukraine, Europe is less secure. And the UK. Madam Deputy Speaker, is less secure, which is why we have been at the forefront of international efforts on both sides of the House to increase pressure on Putin's war machine and seize the opportunity to secure a just and lasting peace that has arisen from President Trump's commitment to the end of the war.

And it is why we will continue to do all we can to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to secure that peace and sustain it. I appreciate the support from our approach that has echoed almost from all aspects of the House today, and I will try to address the questions raised by honourable and right hon. Members. The hon. Member from Lewes talked through security guarantees. May I reassure the hon. Member that our Chief of Defence Staff, our Secretary of State for defence and our Prime Minister have worked tirelessly to deliver and hopefully put in place the security guarantees.

That is really important because it is linked to peace and force posture. No security guarantees, no peace and indeed no force posture. They are all intrinsically linked. I would also like to reassure that our ability to generate the force, prepare the force, deploy the forces, sustain and and reconstitute the force. I have complete and utter confidence in our military to do so. If they are asked. The hon. Member from Hemel Hempstead brought up an excellent point. He brought up the point in sum that says history doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

Georgia Chechnya one. Chechnya two. Syria. Libya. Ukraine. Ukraine. Again, this is a repeat and a consistency that Russia is showing to disregard in all ways, shapes or forms the historical norms that were put in place after the Second World War. And I also welcome his comments to say that Ukraine unites us all, and it's above politics, which I think is one of the greatest strengths of this house. The Father of the House and the retired hon. Member from Gainsborough. I completely empathise with what you're saying and I can absolutely support that.

There is no braver forces than those standing in front of the Russian machine. What I would say that I would never ask someone to do something I wouldn't do myself. And if I believe our way of life is under threat or that of our allies, then I would happily go to the front. The hon. Member from Paisley and Renfrewshire South. Can I just commend from all members of the House the sterling work you have done to highlight the plight of 20,000 children and indeed put in place the process to return them to their rightful home.

It is worth noting this is Russian doctrine in action. We are dealing with our barbaric nation that has part of its doctrine to steal, kidnap and re-educate large swathes of the population. We're just seeing it playing out in Ukraine. The hon. Member from Harwich and north Essex raises a very valid point, and it links to the details of the operational plan. There is a time and place of where we need to talk and discuss cross-party of what that looks like to do.

The detail in here would be nothing other to give the advantage indeed to our adversary. And I also welcome his comments about armchair generals. I have full confidence in our generals, in our admirals and our air Vice-Marshal and marshals to deliver. When tasked, we must ensure that we do not apply political pressure on them to such an extent that we end up with politicised advice. And I would also agree that the inability to vote on Syria actually emboldened Russia and result in a whole cascade of events that you could argue if you played this game back in Ukraine, leads back to some of those decisions in the first place.

The hon. Friend from Stevenage. I agree completely with his view that Ukraine must be at the centre of any negotiations. And again, my hon. Friend from South Shropshire, I deeply respect his gallant insight and understanding. But what I would say is just about language right on his border numbers, rotation, peace support operations, peacekeeping, comparisons with the Balkans. Language really matters when we're talking about military tactics and doctrine, and it's really important, and it's our job in government to ensure those members with a vested interest understand that detail when the time is right, so that we can represent it correctly in the House.

But again, I have complete faith in our military leadership. And the hon. Member from Glenrothes and Mid Fife, Mid Fife, I commend the Ukrain enabling and supporting. The Ukrainians must be at the centre. The negotiations and we are supporting them to do so. On the Shadow Fleet, I completely concur. We have some of the best capabilities in the world. There is much to be done. We have done a lot already, but there's more to do. I would say watch this space.

And then on Qatar I won't be drawn into comments on force posture, but what I can say is the safety and security of our forces is absolutely the forefront of my mind. During any period of instability. To bring me on to the comments to the hon. Member of Romford asking about the details of the deployment. From my perspective and some of the conditions you put on us were almost as many as Putin would have put on the peacekeeping force itself to talk about troop numbers, talk about rotations, talk about border policing, naval assets and jets.

At this point in time, we would give away too much information to our adversaries who are watching or individuals who perhaps aren't on these benches today. It's a really important matter that at the right time, the right place and the right forum, the information is shared so we can unify the house and come up with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right political and military decisions to deliver the support to Ukraine. That is required very quickly. Yes, please. Welcome his.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welcome his. Summary of this. Would he commit to ensuring that every member outside of this place can have that information to help inform decisions as we go forward, when the time is right, without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the time is right, without operational security breach. Always provide the briefings at the appropriate levels. I would the appropriate levels. I would like to pay my thanks to the chair of the Committee for Islington South and Finsbury. She highlights a really important point about hybrid warfare. This is important. There has been several comments about there is no border with Russia. But let me tell you, there may not be a border, but there is a front line. That front line since the North Atlantic, it's since the cyberspace, and it sits in influenced space and it has been breached every time, every day of every year.

National Cyber Security Centre has already said 20,000 attacks in 2024, 400 serious, 89 nationally serious. That cost the UK 15 billion every year. Hostile state activity against the Mod is up by 50% and global instability at the start of this conflict. Increased food prices through fertilisers, fertiliser costs, inflation the highest point in 45 years. What I would also like to say is one of the key lessons that many members have mentioned is resilience, the resilience of the Ukrainian people. And this is why we need to think about resilience here in our nation.

Our country's security is not measured only by what it can deploy overseas, but what it can do, what it can deny its adversaries at home, a society that can absorb shocks from pandemics, cyber attacks, economic disruption, corruption and, importantly, disinformation. These hostile state actors with far fewer options. Resilience is not a soft concept. It is a hard requirement of modern deterrence. I support Ukraine 110%. I know the House does. Briefings will come at the right time and the right place to deliver the right decision here, in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House, here. The question is that this House has considered the situation in has considered the situation in Ukraine. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Martin Vickers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Martin Vickers. Yeah. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to take part in this adjournment debate. And I thank Mr. Speaker for granting it. As advised to the speaker's office and with the Minister's agreement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great
18:59
None Portrait Adjournment: Future of the Lindsey Oil Refinery and the wider UK oil refining sector
-

Grimsby and Cleethorpes will take a few minutes of my time. To some extent, the points I've been making extent, the points I've been making are similar to those in my Westminster Hall debate, which took place on the 11th of December. Before I return, before I turn to the specific issue of the closure the specific issue of the closure of the Lindsey Oil refinery in my constituency, I want to question the government's position regarding the government's position regarding energy security. The loss of Lindsay Hoyle refinery will reduce the UK to just four refineries.

All of this makes us even more reliant on imports in a turbulent world situation. And as we know, world markets can result in supplies being disrupted at a time when we have a very unpredictable American administration, we are becoming more and more reliant on American owned businesses. And I question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether that is wise. Will my hon. Friend give way? I'm very grateful. To my friend and neighbour for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my friend and neighbour for introducing this debate. And of course, as local members of Parliament, we must be primarily Parliament, we must be primarily concerned about our constituents who have worked there. But it's not the point he makes. Very powerful the point he makes. Very powerful that we just had this debate on Ukraine in an increasingly dangerous world, the government dangerous world, the government really must look into its own heart as whether its policies on energy security are meeting national security.
19:01
Martin Vickers Portrait Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)
-
-
Well, I thank my right hon. Friend, the Father of the House, who makes a very important point and strengthens the argument that I was trying to make. The reality is we are exporting skilled jobs, and the government seem to find that acceptable. Now, the Minister of State has previously stated that the market would adjust as indeed it has. But it begs the question if we say say the same, if another refinery were to close, at what point will we recognise that we must retain some refining capacity in the UK, surely for strategic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons, if no other? Surely I give way. The hon. Gentleman, thank. You very much, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would just like to, before I make my point, I would just like to thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham for firstly bringing this debate, but also for his Westminster Hall debate. We sit on opposite sides of the chamber, on opposite sides of the chamber, but I thoroughly respect how much he stood up for his constituents and the wider oil refining industry and the wider oil refining industry in the United Kingdom. I thank him for that.

I am going to speak about about Grangemouth and specifically

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the jobs that have been lost there. Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. The hon. Gentleman, is not going to speak about Grangemouth. The topic of the adjournment debate is the Lindsey Oil Refinery and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Lindsey Oil Refinery and Leishman. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression it was on the wider UK refining sector. Anyway, I would just like to say on that note that we talk about just transition. It's often mentioned in this chamber, but with job losses and no future jobs available, that is the definition of a very unjust transition. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and equally, I recognise how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he has stood up for his constituents over the Grangemouth issue and I compliment him on that. Further, at that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Further, at that. Gentleman. Can I thank all we can? I also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank all we can? I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and for bringing it forward. And he's right to refer to the Lindsey he's right to refer to the Lindsey Oil Refinery. But it's all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that is affected by it. Because we have become vulnerable. We rely on foreign entities. And does the hon. Member further agree that for the nation's energy security and future energy provision, we need to right this wrong and invest in British based refineries and energy provision? Because everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland suffers as a result.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. No debate would be complete without such an complete without such an intervention. And and he's absolutely right that it is the absolutely right that it is the United Kingdom's energy security that we are referring to. If I can turn now to the future of the turn now to the future of the Lindsey refinery, which has been part of the local economy in my constituency for over 50 years, constituency for over 50 years, it's not just a tragedy for the immediate, tragedy for the immediate workforce, 124 of whom have already been made redundant.

But for the area as a whole, the bars, the restaurants, the hotels, haulage firms, Humberside Airport, catering supplies the list goes on. North Lincolnshire Council received around £2 million a year in business rates, which could steadily reduce over coming years and needless to say, that would leave an enormous hole in their Budget, with the consequent impact on the local community and last week's energy question time. The Secretary of State, in reply to me, said the fault lay with the owners practice, and I agree that the directors do indeed bear responsibility.

But it is my constituents who are feeling the consequences. The Minister of State has previously stated that the government are not in the business of saving failed businesses, even if it seems when they are vital. National resource point. Yes, I probably give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the hon. Member for giving way the. He is right that the UK government did say that they the UK government did say that they are not in the business of saving failing businesses, but they have washed their hands of some of the key contributing factors as to why these businesses are failing, such as the signalling they are doing as the signalling they are doing about the North Sea in terms of new licences, but also that these refineries use vast amounts of refineries use vast amounts of energy.

And in the UK they enjoy the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's the government's responsibility. I welcome the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and he's absolutely right that energy costs have played a major part, not only in the struggles that Lindsay Hoyle have had, but other, particularly manufacturing businesses. And the manufacturing businesses. And the comments from the government are they're not in the business of saving business. It seems to come saving business. It seems to come rather strange from a Labour government in particular. Ministers have repeatedly said that there is a legal process and the insolvency practitioners must follow that.

And of course, I accept that. I have previously used the phrase that I feel the government are hiding behind the administrators. I say that because they have refused to consider the wider implications of the refinery closure, such as the local economy, the workforce and national energy security. I have asked, on more than one occasion, if the government would prefer a sale of the whole business that would allow the business to continue production and to or to resume production. Alarm bells rang for me when I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of state following my Westminster Hall debate, and it said the sales process must remain ongoing, with the Official Receiver and special managers continuing to engage with all interested parties.

However, they have confirmed that none of the credible. That's the important words the credible offers received, would enable a return to refining operations within the next few years, or allow all employees to be retained. Note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that she refers to credible bids. So we have an acknowledgement that there were indeed credible bids and mentions the time frame. This contradicts the repeated statements from government that there were no credible bids. Either there were credible bids or there were not.

Which is it, Minister? In fairness to the Minister of State, I think when the Member for Great Grimsby and I met with him last week, he did at least acknowledge that the government would have preferred a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entirety. The hon. Member give way. I give way to the honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Picking up this point, if there was a serious bid to buy the whole site, to invest in it, to keep it site, to invest in it, to keep it going, to maintain the jobs and to grow the jobs, surely in the grow the jobs, surely in the interests of the local area, but also the strategic interest of Lincolnshire and the country that should have been taken into account, and therefore, will he ask the Minister to ensure full transparency on this whole process so that we can establish whether or not the were credible alternative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bids to keep Lindsey Oil Refinery going? The hon. Gentleman for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman for that intervention and he makes the he supports the point I was making supports the point I was making that I got it in writing from the Under-Secretary of state that there were credible bids. It is the issue were credible bids. It is the issue of credible bids. It's it's one of the most important unanswered questions. Following last week's questions. Following last week's announcement about the sale of the assets to Phillips 66, who I should say at this point are an excellent local employer and provide hundreds of well-paid jobs.

But I have corresponded on met with four consortia who wanted to buy the business in its entirety. When I spoke to the union representative yesterday, he said there were seven such expressions of interest. But the four that I've been in contact with reference FTI, the, the agent, and they've reached the same conclusion that they have been ignored and not allowed to put forward their case in sufficient detail for an informed judgement to be arrived at. The Minister will no doubt be aware of an email to the Prime Minister from James Ascot, who's acting on behalf of axiom.

In it, Mr. Ascot states that the Ministers have publicly stated that no bids were received for the full Lindsey Oil refinery site that would safeguard the future of refining operations and protect jobs. This statement is factually false. Our committee did our company did submit a fully funded, credible bid for the entire site on behalf of our client, expressly structured to preserve and continue operations, safeguard jobs, provide a full credit and liability solution and a separate cash acquisition value at £400 million.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

existed. Yeah. Would you like on that point? I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way. He's very generous. He is, though, setting out a seriously curious sequence of events. If you relate it to the actions of a well-intentioned government relative to a vital industry. And is he concerned, as I am, that this is more about the beliefs of the is more about the beliefs of the Secretary of State, rather than the industrial imperatives of these islands, and that the government, in pursuit of decarbonisation, which they are failing at. They are,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deindustrialisation. Yeah. Gentleman for the intervention. And he makes an important point And he makes an important point about the overall policies of the government in relation to net zero. government in relation to net zero. I want to say that Adam Wilson from Falcon Petroleum wrote to me what Falcon Petroleum wrote to me what they describe as, and I quote, the unsatisfactory experience we have had with the bidding process with had with the bidding process with FTI. We own and operate four refineries in Europe and the Middle East.

With advancement of technology, we have been able to able to go carbon neutral to all our refineries. We had pledged to turn Lindsay Hoyle carbon neutral within two years. If we had successfully purchased it. I could give other examples, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what I have said so far makes it clear that the approaches to FTI from consortia that wish to purchase the whole business and continue production have been rebuffed. The potential investors, the employees and all of those affected have a right to know.

The government has chosen not to get involved. Yes, they've offered a training guarantee, which is helpful, but much more is required. As suggested by the Minister last week at a meeting that I and the Member for Great Grimsby had, he has suggested that the Minister for investment, the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood of Great Grimsby, the local authorities and other agencies could provide investment in the area and that we get sit round the table and with a early at an early opportunity.

We need better transport connections and early decisions from government on the many proposals in their in-tray that could boost the Humber region economy. To sum up, Madam Deputy Speaker, why didn't the government act to ensure production continued and engage more fully in the process to achieve that? And could he give a date as to when the Minister and Lord Stockwood will visit the area and put in place a structure that helps us to recover the local economy? And could he also give details of how many jobs will be saved by the P66 deal? The receiver's job is to ensure the best deal for creditors.

Can he explain why a sale of assets rather than the business better achieves this? And as the government are one of the creditors, how much are they owed and how much will P66 return to the Treasury? I look forward to the Minister's.
19:13
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
-
Very good. >> Thank you. >> Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for being securing this debate and for being very gracious with his time for workers and their families across the Humber. The last six months have been bruising, to say the least. People who spent their working lives keeping a complex site safe, compliant and productive have faced prolonged uncertainty, and they've done so with dignity and professionalism. And I want to put on record my support for them and give assurances that they are always at the forefront of my mind when pushing for clarity in this House.

It is important that accountability still matters. On who is ultimately at fault for the collapse of the refinery in September last year, the High Court froze around £150 million worth of assets belonging to the former owner of the refinery, Winston Pillay, also known as Sanjeev Kumar. For workers and communities who've paid the price for the reckless financial mismanagement of Mr. Pillay, this action will be welcomed. But what happens to those assets? How long will they be frozen? Can they be used to help support the site and develop the site or or support some of the intervention measures that the government has discussed? There are also concerns, and the hon.

Gentleman has has detailed them very, very clearly about the process of the Official Receiver. And I think that there is some justification here. The whole process has been incredibly opaque, very difficult to to engage in communications under legal frameworks that barred government and elected representatives from having any kind of input. So the the targets that the official receiver was working to have not been clear at all. We are in the dark, as are the workers, and that has caused even more uncertainty and distress for those people.

Is this really the best outcome for the site? I am encouraged by Phillips 66 taking on the site, but it cannot be ignored that there has been ministerial correspondence that says that there were credible bids. We've heard the numbers. They are disputed. Is it four? Is it seven? Is it just one? Is it actually none. But we do not know because we cannot get any answers on that. There. The state, the the shift in position from the government now says that now there were no credible bids or certainly none that had any immediate refining capacity or that could run the site as a going concern.

Opening the books on the matrix that the Official Receiver used and how they reached their decision, understanding that there may well be a commercial interest, but to do it under a Chatham House scheme at least then that elected representatives are able to make an assessment on behalf of their constituents, surely is something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the government could do. I give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I will give way. To the hon. Lady. She talks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the hon. Lady. She talks about the need for us to be able to scrutinise that which was deemed a scrutinise that which was deemed a credible bid. Would she like to ask the Minister about whether or not the government will be applying commercial in confidence rules to the scrutiny of that, to cover the scrutiny of that, to cover their tracks over what was and what was not a credible bid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I disagree with that, but I would urge the government to be prepared to open some of the process that happened. I understand that there will be commercial sensitivity, and I hope that there sensitivity, and I hope that there can be a route found to enable us to be able to scrutinise the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information that is available. I give way. Thank you. My hon. Friend, that there are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, that there are bidders and they think that they there is a credible bid. So I think we are entitled to demand from the government that we don't want just asset stripping going on here. It's not just the local community, it's a vital national resource. And the House of Commons needs to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

informed and big time. And I would also say we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I would also say we have been given trusted privilege to secure information and secure documents as a whole house in the documents as a whole house in the past. And, you know, all of us were required to go to a room to sign in to read documents when it came to exiting the European Union, for example. So there are ways and means by which we can do these things, and some trust in the elected representatives, not least because so much of the information that came from the companies was made available to local representatives anyway, because they emailed the details to us.

So it would be very interesting to understand why the official receivers deem them to not be credible. But I will move, move forward because decisions have already been made and it seems challenging to say the least, that we that we would be kind of going backwards in this. But the the written statement of 22nd of July, delivered by the Minister for energy, confirmed two important commitments for those directly employed at Lindsay Hoyle a package guaranteeing jobs until under a redundancy scheme that will end in March.

So that's another 240 people who will be made redundant at the end of March, and a package guaranteeing jobs and pay, sorry, and a training guarantee as well. There have been concerns over that training guarantee, and I would ask the Ministers to look more closely at that as we move forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Martin McCluskey. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, I'd just begin by thanking the hon. Member for by thanking the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham for securing this debate. And I know that he and this debate. And I know that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, have been Grimsby and Cleethorpes, have been engaging closely with the Minister for energy on this issue. I know that he stands ready to continue to engage with them around the detail of of this issue.

Let me start with perhaps Lindsay Hoyle refinery, which is what we are debating this evening, which entered, as we know, insolvency on the 30th of June 2025, due to the untenable position in which the owners left the refinery, which gave government very little time to act. And I know how difficult this has been for workers, for their families and for the local community. The insolvency process at the refinery is led by
19:20
Martin McCluskey Portrait Martin McCluskey MP (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, Labour)
-
-
the court appointed official Receiver, who must act independently in accordance with independently in accordance with the statutory duties, and since the insolvency, we have worked with the Official Receiver to protect Official Receiver to protect workers and ensure the safety of the site and the security of fuel supplies. This has allowed time for supplies. This has allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site and in its assets. Now, after a thorough process to after a thorough process to identify a buyer for the site, the Official Receiver has now determined that Phillips 66 is the most credible bidder and can provide a viable future for this site, and I am glad to say as a result, that the sale is expected to complete in the first half of 2026.

Phillips 66. As many hon. Members will be aware as an experienced and credible operator of its Humber Refinery next door to Lindsay Hoyle, it already supplies fuel to the region and has consistently turned a profit in recent years, and this sale allows Phillips 66 to quickly expand operations at its Humber refinery. The company has decided not to restart stand alone refinery operations at Lindsey due to the limitations of its scale, facilities and capabilities. Evaluations. This is their words, not mine. Evaluations have shown that refinery is not viable in its current form and while disappointing, this is not totally unexpected given the long history of problems with the business.

We understand that the previous owners title were seeking to sell Lindsey for several years and sold it to Prax for a nominal amount, and since Praxis acquisition in 2021, the refinery has recorded around £75 million of losses. In addition, following a thorough assessment of offers, the Official Receiver confirmed that none were credibly put forward that would see a return to refining operations in the next few years. Phillips 66 plans to integrate key assets into its Humber refinery operations, expanding its ability to supply fuel to UK customers from the Humber refinery.

This is positive news for boosting domestic energy security, securing jobs including hundreds of new construction jobs over the next five years and creating future growth opportunities for renewable and traditional fuels. That all being said, I do recognise that Ministers in the department recognise that this is a very worrying time for workers and I am glad to report that the remaining 250 directly employed workers are guaranteed employment until the end of March, although I know that will be cold comfort for many of them.

Phillips, 66, will provide further information on the number of jobs that will be retained as they move towards completion of the sale in the coming months. And I know my hon. Friend, the Minister for energy, has asked Phillips, 66, for clarity as soon as possible and to retain as many of these jobs as possible. The government will continue to support the 124 workers affected by the redundancy that happened last October. And as my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend has alluded to, this includes, of course. Minister giving way. The bottom

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister giving way. The bottom line is that P-66 are mothballing this site. They're using certain bits of it in order to use those parts rather than invest in their own site. Will the Minister agree own site. Will the Minister agree to allow a full, open, transparent process to look at the bids? The alternative bids that have come in alternative bids that have come in that would have kept this site open, would have kept many more jobs and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retained a strategic national asset. The Deputy Speaker the member will know that discussions like these are commercially confidential, these are commercially confidential, and the Official Receiver has undertaken an independent process undertaken an independent process to come to the decision that he has come to. As I was saying a moment come to. As I was saying a moment ago, as my hon. Friend alluded to during the debate, the support for the 124 workers affected by the 124 workers affected by redundancy last October includes the training guarantee to ensure that they have the skills they need and are supported to find long term jobs, which goes above and beyond the usual level of support offered in insolvency situations.

I am pleased to confirm that many, the majority of them have already taken up this offer, but I would be pleased and my hon. Friend, the Minister for energy, would be pleased to discuss any issues that she may see emerging in that training guarantee. I believe that the agreement with Phillips 66 marks the next step in securing industrial future for the site and the workers, who are badly let down by their former owners. The circumstances surrounding the insolvency as a whole are deeply concerning, and that is why the Energy Secretary immediately demanded that the Insolvency Service launch an investigation into their conduct and the circumstances surrounding insolvency, which is on going.

More broadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, just to address the issues in the broader UK oil refining sector for a moment, the UK is refineries continue to play a vital role in maintaining reliable supplies of essential fuels that keep transport moving, industry operating and support households with their day to day lives. And we appreciate the contribution goes far beyond fuel alone. They are anchors for local economies, providing well-paid, skilled jobs and supporting a wide web of supply chains from chemicals to plastics to advanced manufacturing.

These facilities also enable the production of specialist materials that many of our industries rely on. For example, the Humber Refinery produces the UK's only anode grade petroleum coke used in electric vehicle technology, while follies output of specialised rubber helped ensure vaccine vials can produce securely during the pandemic. And crucially, our refineries are also adapting for the future. They are investing in modernisation, low carbon fuels and technologies such as carbon capture, all essential to the UK's transition to net zero. And the Humber region will have a have a major role to play in this over the coming years.

While overall fuel demand is expected to shift over time, sectors like aviation, maritime and heavy industry will continue to depend on refined products well into the future and we want to preserve our refining sector and keep it competitive. And as set out in the autumn Budget, we are now reviewing, of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Melanie Onn. Thank you, Minister, for giving way on that point of keeping UK oil way on that point of keeping UK oil refineries competitive, what is the position of the government and what will they be going forward with at will they be going forward with at the summit in May with the EU when it comes to discussing ETS?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it comes to discussing ETS? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will commit to writing to the hon. Member on that point, on both hon. Member on that point, on both Cbam and the ETS as a follow up to this debate. As I was saying, we want to preserve our refining sector and keep it competitive. And as set out in the autumn Budget, we are now reviewing critical policies to address the challenges that the sector faces. Let me briefly, in the time remaining, take you through the steps we've already taken to help the downstream sector adapt and stay competitive.

Firstly, through the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation and the new Sustainable Aviation Fuel mandate, we are backing the production and use of cleaner fuels. The Humber Refinery has already delivering sustainable aviation fuels at scale, and refineries at Folly and Stanlow are benefiting from government support through the Advanced Fuels Fund to bring next generation fuels to market, while we are also working to de-risk investment in SAF production through the Revenue Certainty mechanism. And secondly, we are working closely with industry on major decarbonisation efforts, including carbon capture and hydrogen projects within industrial clusters such as Viking and Hina, which will be central to keeping UK manufacturing competitive as global markets tighten emission standards.

The UK ETS Authority's decision to maintain current benchmarks for the 2027 scheme year provides the consistency and breathing room that energy intensive industries need to plan investments and manage costs effectively. And the autumn Budget. We committed to assess the feasibility of including refined products in the carbon border adjustment mechanism that is a key priority for industry and would help ensure UK refineries are not undercut by imports produced to lower environmental standards. Collectively, these measures signal our determination to create the conditions for continued investment, innovation and long term competitiveness as we transition to a low carbon economy and looking ahead, the government is deepening its engagement with the sector to ensure a smooth and secure transition in the coming years.

And it is important to note that Minister Shanks led the first ministerial round table.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's not Minister Shanks. We don't refer to our colleagues by their name, Martin McCluskey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their name, Martin McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for providing me there. My hon. Friend, the Minister for energy, as Friend, the Minister for energy, as referred to before, led the first ministerial Round table for more than a decade with the sector and than a decade with the sector and we will continue to engage with the industry. In closing, let me be clear. We recognise the importance clear. We recognise the importance of the Lindsey Oil Refinery and the Lindsey site to the local community and national economy.

The integration of these assets into the Humber refinery will boost energy security and support high quality employment locally. The UK refining sector matters and that is why this government is acting from supporting low carbon fuel production and deploying carbon capture and hydrogen, to launching a call for evidence that will shape our long term strategy. We will work with industry, with devolved governments and with communities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver a managed transition. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as of that opinion say I. The ayes have it.
11:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Scotland
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page