Ukraine

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I have been struck by the thoughtfulness and decency of several contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am proud of the SNP’s role in these discussions. I am proud that, despite our domestic priorities and political differences, we have been able to work with the Government. I commend the Minister for the Armed Forces and Veterans on his opening speech, and the Defence Ministers on their openness and the way that they have worked with both sides of the House. That is genuine on our part.

Hon. Members can be damn sure that the SNP is part of the international coalition in defence of Ukraine: we believe in freedom, democracy and human rights and we believe that we should be good neighbours who should not live in fear of bigger powers. Of course, therefore, we are part of that and where we agree with the UK Government, we have agreed, as my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said. On military support and sanctions, we have been vocal in our support of the UK Government’s position. We have often urged greater efforts than we have seen, but we have supported them.

The only big difference between our position and that of the UK Government is on refugees. We would like to have seen the UK emulate the EU’s approach of waiving visas for three years. We think that would have been proportionate and fair. Instead, we saw a Home Office system that the Scottish Government have made work in Scotland. I pay tribute to the many big-hearted people across Stirling, Scotland and the UK who have opened not just their hearts, but their homes to the people of Ukraine who really needed support at that time. I was in Killin a few weeks back, and I was really struck by the care and affection that locals have had for the people who are guests in the community, and I do commend them on their effort.

It is right today that we take due stock of events in Ukraine. As we have heard, the conflict is at a pivotal moment. Ukraine is winning and the Kremlin is losing. We take no pleasure in that fact, but there is a justice to it, in that aggression is not successful and there have not been the results the Kremlin was hoping for. President Putin’s statement overnight came from a position of weakness, as we have heard. His nuclear blackmail and his activation of the reservists, breaking a promise that he made, come from a position of weakness, not strength. We must be vigilant to the true risks that are presented by the Kremlin’s aggression not just against Ukraine, but against the liberal international order.

We must also be steadfast in support of the Ukrainians themselves. We need to redouble our efforts. They are winning, but they have not won yet, and I fear there is an awful lot of heartache ahead for the Ukrainians before we see a resolution. So I was glad to hear from the Minister that military training and the supply of matériel and intelligence support will continue, and it does so with wholehearted SNP support. We may have points of difference and we will seek greater information on some points, but we do support that very strongly. I was also glad to hear that the eventual negotiated outcome—because there will be an eventual negotiated outcome; there always is to every conflict—is going to be on Ukrainian terms. A prerequisite for any talks, which as we have heard must be set from Kyiv, not from anywhere else, must be the withdrawal of all Russian occupying forces from all sovereign Ukrainian territory, including of course Crimea.

I say that the conflict is far from over, but I would suggest to the Government a few points that we need to continue and take forward, because we cannot take our foot off the pedal. We have heard mentioned already the Ukraine fatigue among the general population and among the media, and we must make sure that we are not succumbing to it as well. Ukraine continues to need our support.

We need to keep sanctions under review. I will be taking part for the SNP in the next debate, when we will revisit sanctions. We do need to keep them under review, to make sure that loopholes are closed because loopholes are being exploited, and we do need to make sure that any opportunity to raise pressure on the kleptocrats is taken. That is an evolving situation.

We also need to be honest about and to guard against the influence of dirty money at home now. The UK is vulnerable to this, and we have seen a belated start on this from the UK Government, with our support, but we need to see much more. Our financial and property systems are nowhere near as transparent as they need to be, and they are vulnerable to dirty money. The overseas territories are playing a role that needs greater scrutiny than they have had, and we need to continue those efforts. We have seen a belated start to that, but we need to see more.

On looking after refugees here, I have mentioned that people have opened not just their hearts, but their homes, and they need more support. We have seen a paper chase of a system that I do not believe is fit for purpose, but people have now largely negotiated through it. However, where we have seen too much paper chase, we are now seeing too little money. We strongly support—and we would really urge the Government to take this forward—doubling the monthly payment to £700 a month, because energy costs and the increased costs of having guests are hurting people, and that needs to be taken care of.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

To pick up the comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), there is a cost to this for people in the UK. He was right that we have to be honest about that, and I think the hon. Member is also making that point. However, we also need to reinforce the point that there is a bigger cost to our constituents if we do nothing. Does he agree with me on that point, and that we really need to ensure that people see we are doing this for a much greater reason? All the points he is making about refugees are absolutely right, but we are trying to prevent something much wider and much more destructive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. That was quite a long intervention and there is a time limit, so such interventions do prevent other people from having their allocation. If interventions are taken, it would be good if Members could still stick to their five minutes.

[Alyn Smith]

I thought it was an excellent intervention personally. I agree with it strongly, so I am very grateful for it. We do need to make the case on an ongoing basis for the support we are giving those in Ukraine, because it is not just their freedom, but ours. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

We do need to see more accountability. I pay tribute to the UK for the support that it has given to the International Criminal Court and the Canadian co-ordination of these efforts, but we need to make war criminals and potential war criminals aware that there will be no amnesty and no hiding place. The UK can do more about that—the UK has a developed legal system and a number of practitioners who are very active in this field—so we need to put more resources into it. The SNP is part of this coalition. I am proud that we have been able to work together on this point, because this transcends boundaries and transcends politics, and that support will continue.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

The world has just witnessed Ukraine pull off a stunning counter-offensive around Kharkiv. It liberated thousands of miles of territory in what was an incredible feat of military planning. Months of distraction around Kherson were put in place, with radio silence around what people were doing around Kharkiv. It was something that brought the world with them, and showed that, yes, Ukraine will be victorious if we stand by it. That victory was not just thousands of miles of territory, but it hit Russian logistics. It liberated major administrative and rail hubs that the Russians had been using, and it will castrate Russian ability to get what it needs and to rely on those rail logistics throughout. As a result we have seen a panicked response from the Kremlin, with sham referendums and a partial mobilisation of 300,000 men.

Much has been made of that mobilisation, but a country cannot magically muster kit, strategy or skilled soldiers. We must be careful and challenge the arguments when we hear big announcements from Putin that are not tantamount to changing the situation on the ground. The performative referendums should be called “hostage referendums”, because that is what they are. It is vital that the world rejects them, and I am confident that we will. Years ago when we did not reject them, we saw Putin emboldened to do what he is doing today.

Ukrainian gains are showing the scale of the atrocities being committed by Russian troops, and it is vital to consider how we can support those affected. I will therefore focus on recommendations for what the Government should be doing. First, our international justice infrastructure is not sufficient. The International Criminal Court cannot prosecute in this situation, and as one of the foremost powers when it comes to security and justice, we must convene a plan for how we will hold people who have committed atrocities at all levels to account. Secondly, I made the point earlier about creating a specific court or tribunal for sexual violence and rape that is established at the start of conflicts, rather than at the end when it is too late to collect evidence.

We must also learn how we share intelligence. In September last year—this time last year—Britain and America went round and told our allies that Putin was going to invade. We had the intelligence, we were sure of it, but our allies did not believe us. The French said it just would not happen and that Macron had too good a relationship with Putin; the Germans said that that was not what their intelligence showed. When I asked European ambassadors why they did not believe us, they said it was because of Iraq. It is greatly concerning that they are making intelligence decisions based on what happened many decades ago when I was only a child. It also shows that we have manifestly failed to make the most important intelligence analysis and argument that we needed to make over the past decade.

Putin is no master strategist—he is a gambler. He gambled in 2014 that we would turn a blind eye to the invasion of Crimea. He gambled in Syria, where we turned our backs, and he gambled in February that we would be too divided. He was wrong about that, but Putin bases his decisions on the critical assumption that we have not adapted to 21st-century hybrid warfare. We have spent the past two decades focusing on terrorists who behave like states, but between now and 2050 we must adapt to states that behave like terrorists. To do that we need whole state resilience. That is not easy, it is not sexy, and it will take decades to put in place, but that is how we protect ourselves and our allies in the long term. That covers everything from investment and supply chains, to defending our multilaterals and the rule of law, upholding human rights, the independence of our educational institutions, and our culture and digital security. We must recalibrate.

Technology and the democratisation of information have fundamentally changed geopolitics. We are at war at all times, and the best enemies are the ones we do not know are there. We do not know we are at war with them. The point was made earlier that conversations could be taking place with people radicalised and recruited without a single word being spoken aloud. We are not ready, whether that involves energy and food sources, business, culture, finance or the military. Hostile states are infiltrating us at all levels, and we must tackle that. We as Britain can convene our allies—our ability to convene partners is one of our greatest strengths—and work together towards a more resilient society. If we do not double down, defend and stop neglecting our international institutions, we will further embolden Russia. This is our responsibility if we want fair play and respect for the rules-based order.

[Alyn Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, on cyber-resilience especially, there is a lot of good work to build on, but that it needs more resource?

[Alicia Kearns]

Without question; the hon. Member is absolutely right. We are building those capabilities within the military, but they need to be cross-force and also need to bring in civilians, whether based in the Foreign Office or elsewhere. Back in 2016, I was in Ukraine training the Ukrainians how to conduct counter-disinformation operations and integrate that with cyber, and we have seen that work pay off—Members can look at what they did over the last few weeks.

The lessons are clear. The decisions, defences and resilience that we implement now are what will defend us over the next 20 years. We need to make ourselves and our international alliances more resilient, because only in that way will we protect ourselves, return to moral leadership on the world stage, stop atrocities and be able to take a stand and protect ourselves from hostile states that will spend the next 20 years using their whole-state effort to undermine us and to hurt us.