Ukraine
Debate between John Healey and Edward Leigh(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his visit to Kyiv. The fact that Members across the House have been regularly to Ukraine lifts the morale of the Ukrainian people and reminds them that the UK stands with them as strongly now as four years ago.
The hon. Gentleman is right. The night before I arrived in Kyiv, 90 Shahed drones had hit the city, 21 of which had been targeted directly at residential accommodation. The block that he and I both visited, which had had its side ripped open by one of the drone strikes, had been hit twice, an hour and a half apart, deliberately, so that the emergency workers who had gone in to help those suffering after the first strike were then hit and, in one case, killed by the second. This is an indication of cynical and illegal tactics and the war crimes that Putin is committing in Ukraine. It reminds us that we must redouble our determination to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
I will move on to the question of air defence later, but the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is quite right: he and I were both told, when out in Kyiv last month, that it is President Zelenksy’s first priority. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, when I chaired the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters two weeks ago, I announced that Britain was committing an extra £500 million package of air defence systems and missiles in order to meet the urgent need that he and I both saw that day.
President Putin postures as a strongman. He wants the world to believe that Russia has unstoppable momentum on the battlefield, that the Ukrainians have no choice but to concede on his terms, and that we, as Ukraine’s western allies, have grown weary. But he is wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a war that Putin thought he would win in a week, but four years on, he has achieved none of his strategic aims. Instead, he has inflicted terrible suffering on his own people, as well as Ukraine’s. He is failing.
Of course, Ukrainian troops are certainly under pressure on the frontline, but Russia has now been fighting in Ukraine for longer than the Soviet Union fought Germany during the second world war, its forces are advancing more slowly than those in the battle of the Somme, and nearly one and a quarter million Russians have been injured or killed. The average casualty rate for Russian troops is now 1,000 each day, every day, and the average life expectancy of a conscript deployed to the Russian frontline is now less than five days.
Putin is desperate to avoid a second Russian mobilisation, and because of that he is turning to more desperate measures to plug the gaps. He is increasingly heavily reliant on foreign fighters. He has already called on 17,000 North Koreans, who are fighting for him on his frontline, and he is now preying on thousands of men from Latin America, central Asia and Africa, sending them to their deaths on his frontline.
But Putin’s war machine continues to be degraded, and his war economy continues to be damaged. In Russia, 40% of Government spending now goes on the military. Manufacturing is falling at its fastest rate, oil revenues are plunging and food prices are soaring. Make no mistake: Putin is under pressure. He targets Ukrainian cities, civilians and energy supplies and, during the coldest winter for a decade, he has killed Ukrainian children in their beds, destroyed hospital wards and plunged entire cities into darkness.
For 2026, the Government’s mission—Britain’s mission—for Ukraine is simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow, and step up the pressure on Putin.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not know whether President Putin follows these debates, but I would like him to know that the Secretary of State speaks for our entire nation. We are completely united on this. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that we are equally robust on not having any ceasefire on the basis that currently unoccupied territory is ceded? That would be an absolute disaster and would simply encouraged Putin to go further. It is very important that our adversaries know that the House is completely united on this.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between John Healey and Edward Leigh(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his efforts so far, but our efforts are still puny compared with those made when there was last a major threat, in the 1930s. In 1933, we spent just 2.2% of GDP on defence. Remember George Lansbury, the leader of the Labour party, who wanted to abolish the RAF altogether? By 1938, we were spending a massive 7%. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a whole new gearing-up of our efforts? He could start by recommissioning the RAF bases that were open in the 1930s, but have now been closed, such as RAF Scampton.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the recent record—the 14 years of hollowing out and underfunding of Britain’s armed forces that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned. I am proud of this Government’s investment of an extra £5 billion in defence in the first year, and our commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and alongside 31 NATO allies, we have signed up to spending 5% by 2035 on core defence and security, including national security.
Strategic Defence Review
Debate between John Healey and Edward Leigh(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
History repeats itself. In 1935, we spent just 3% of national wealth on defence, and because we rearmed almost too late, we almost lost civilisation. By 1945, we were spending 52% of national wealth on defence. Given that we face a crisis in Europe, with an unparalleled Russian rearmament almost as great as that of Germany in the 1930s, will the Secretary of State do the right thing by history and give this House a firm commitment to 3.5%, not as an ambition, but by a set date?
John Healey
Given the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there are two things that I am surprised he has not welcomed. The first is the historic increase in defence spending that this Government have already put made, with an extra £5 billion in our first year in government alone; he will remember that when his party came into power in 2010, it cut defence spending by £2 billion in a year. We also have a commitment and plan to increase spending to 2.5% in two years’ time and to 3% in the next Parliament, which is an ambition that I am confident we will fulfil. He is right to say that if we are to meet the challenges of the SDR, and the challenges of reinforcing our industrial base and our armed forces, we cannot do it alone. We are not doing it alone; we are one of 32 nations in NATO. The second thing that I am surprised he has not welcomed is our security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union, which is potentially a first step to working with other European nations in the EU, and using financing that may be available in Europe to do exactly as he urges.
Ukraine Update
Debate between John Healey and Edward Leigh(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What worries me is that President Putin has said he will not accept NATO troops on the ground. In the absence of NATO troops on the ground, could we not be back to a 1939 Sudetenland situation where the aggressor takes a slug of territory and then moves in several months later? Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is absolutely convinced—perhaps he can also convince President Trump—that in the absence of NATO troops on the ground, this is a worthless peace?
John Healey
No one is talking about NATO troops, Madam Deputy Speaker. The coalition of the willing is a coalition of nations—many but not all of which are NATO members—willing to come together to discuss the military options and plan in close liaison with NATO because there are potential implications for NATO.
President Trump is leading the negotiations. President Putin is not yet negotiating seriously, and is therefore not in a position to lay down terms like those he mentioned. Securing the ultimate objective that President Trump, President Zelensky and we all want to see—not just peace, but a lasting, durable peace—will require reassurance and security support for Ukraine while it develops the strength of its own deterrents to do that for itself in the longer term.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between John Healey and Edward Leigh(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
John Healey
We will indeed work with the Home Office on the future of RAF Scampton.