Syria

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Christian community in Syria is one of the oldest in the world. Up to the civil war, it was about 10% of the population; now, it is down to 2%. Aid to the Church in Need has described Friday as a “black and painful day” for Christians in the Latakia area, with Christians being murdered in their cars and in their homes. Will the Minister—representing, as he does, a Christian country—call out the new Sunni Muslim Government of Syria and say that they have an absolute duty of care to all minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites or others?

[Mr Falconer]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, and my constituency neighbour, that we do, of course, call on the interim Administration to ensure the full representation of every one of the minorities in Syria—Christians, Druze, Kurds, Alawites and many others.

Palestinian Rights: Government Support

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This will be a very personal speech. I declare that, with a number of colleagues from all parties, I have just returned from a trip to Israel and the west bank organised by Yachad, a moderate Jewish group that seeks to promote peace between Arab and Jew. I refer to my declaration of interests.

We went to a couple of the kibbutzim that were attacked on 7 October, which was of course incredibly moving. I want to start, in order to have a fair balance, by unequivocally condemning Hamas and all their dealings, and the way they even killed women and babies. It is not my purpose to apportion blame or take sides. I am pro-Israeli and pro-Jew, and I am pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian.

What was most moving about the trip was to be in a kibbutz listening to an 80-year-old lady. On that day in October she was cowering with her husband; her daughter was down the road. Next door to her daughter, people in their eighties were deliberately burned to death. What did that woman say to us? She said, “All my life, I’ve striven for peace, and I will go on striving for peace. I even took my driving test in Gaza. I have many friends in Gaza.” What an inspiring moment that was.

Later, we talked to another Israeli woman, whose son had been shot dead by a Palestinian sniper when he was simply doing his military service. She too said, “I’m absolutely dedicated to peace.” We talked to the brother of a hostage who was a conscript dragged from his tank—he is still a hostage—and he also talked of peace. We talked to a youngish Palestinian, whose father is very well known and has been imprisoned by the Israelis for a very long time, and they also talked of peace. We talked to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who also talked of peace.

The purpose of this debate, if we have any moral authority at all, is to convince our moderate Israeli friends that it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel to hold down in occupation some 5 million Palestinians—2 million in Gaza and 3 million in the west bank. There are many moderate Israeli citizens—I would say a majority—who agree with that supposition. However, there are some extremist settlers who have the completely wrong idea that somehow they can expel people who have lived for centuries in the west bank from their ancestral homelands. That is something that I know our Government and everybody in this debate will unequivocally condemn.

On our visit, we spent time in the west bank. It was incredibly moving to visit a small Palestinian settlement on dry lands to see how they were coping. We saw a beautifully turned-out little girl, the same age as my granddaughter, living in those appalling conditions. In that very hot and dry climate, they traditionally sheltered in caves to protect themselves from the heat, and from the cold in winter, and extremist settlers had deliberately smashed the caves. We went to another village nearby where the hall had been deliberately smashed. The moment that we turned up, two young settlers—I can only describe them as punks—turned up with sub-machine-guns, in a clear act of intimidation.

The purpose of this debate—and I agree that our influence is only moral—is to draw attention to what is happening on the west bank, because so many eyes are fixed on Gaza. I will not talk a lot about Gaza; it is incredibly important, but I have very little time and I want to talk about the west bank.

Data from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs suggests that there were 1,800 incidents of settler violence on the west bank between 7 October 2023 and 31 December 2024, which is an average of four a day. With the whole world’s attention on Gaza, perhaps there has been too little attention on the west bank. The Nablus governorate saw 411 incidents. These incidents vary in nature; they include up-front violence but also other forms of harassment.

The olive harvest in October and November has been a particular time of tension. Harvests have been interfered with and crops damaged. Often the police, army and armed settlers, organised as civilian security co-ordinators, are either physically present or alleged participants. Settlers and soldiers have attacked, beaten or threatened harvesters. There are even eight cases of live fire being directed at Palestinian farmers. Soldiers shot and killed a 59-year-old Palestinian woman from the village of Faqqu’a. Agricultural equipment has been stolen, property damaged, and crops taken or destroyed.

The west bank is economically precarious, and destroying crops or preventing a harvest is extremely damaging. Hundreds of Palestinian-owned olive trees have been torched, sawed down or destroyed. Because of the deployment of Israeli troops in Gaza and Lebanon, settlers have been drafted into the army to protect other settlers. As a consequence, some settlers have committed violence while in Israel Defence Forces uniform.

A delegation of British rabbis organised by Yachad witnessed young settlers spitting at and kicking a Palestinian woman in Hebron. And so it goes on. We went to Hebron; again, it was unbelievably moving. On the main road, right in the middle of this ancient city, it is completely deserted. A small settler movement has moved into Hebron and there are 800 Israeli soldiers protecting them. The Palestinians are prevented from even walking down the main road in their own town.

It was moving, when we went to Ramallah, to talk to a grandmother—actually, she is a very distinguished banker—who cannot even see her grandson in Nablus, because although it is a very quick drive to Nablus from Ramallah, there are so many checkpoints that it takes seven or eight hours to get there. Everywhere in the west bank, there are checkpoints.

Virtually every application—over 90% of them—to build or extend a settlement is granted, but virtually every application by Palestinians to build is rejected. This is totally one-sided. It is intolerable, and we should speak out about it in this Parliament. That is what I want to do today.

I know that it has become unfashionable to talk about the two-state solution; people say that it is just western politicians going on about it and it is never going to happen. It must happen. There is no solution other than a two-state solution. As a young MP 40 years ago, I sat in the office of Abba Eban, a distinguished former Israeli foreign minister. He said, “It is completely absurd and ridiculous for us to hold down 5 million people.” That was his view, but unfortunately there are now people in the Israeli Government who actually believe that Palestinians can be ejected.

There is a role for us, and it is not just moral. We had a very good meeting with our Foreign Office civil servants in the West Bank Protection Consortium. I say to the Minister that I hope he will give them more resources, because they are doing a tremendous job in calling out some of this settler violence.

We were anxious to get both sides of this issue, so we also had a meeting with the Israeli foreign service. They were very reasonable and charming people. They knew all about us—fair enough. Of course, I raised the issue of settler violence—why would I not? They said, “Oh, it’s illegal.” Of course it is illegal, but the Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow. They choose not to.

So many people make suggestions, but if I may make one, it is in the absolute interest of Israel to try to calm this down, to clamp down on illegal settlers, to stop all new settlements and to come to a settlement. I will end on that point. It is in our interest to go on encouraging this process, to have the moral courage to remember these people and to say that this debate is about peace. I know that everybody is depressed and full of doom and gloom that it will never happen, but people often thought that way in history. People thought the Soviet Union would last forever. I am confident that, eventually, logic and peace will break out, and these two great peoples—Arab and Jew, Palestinian and Israeli—can live side by side in peace.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, everybody, for taking part in what has been a very powerful debate. We are completely united. We condemn Hamas, but we stick up unequivocally for the rights of the Palestinian people. Everybody, from all parties or from no party, has made that point—it has even united the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

A week ago, I was in a Palestinian village with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). We went to a school that had been demolished by illegal settlers. Immediately, two punks turned up with sub-machine guns, intimidating us—that is happening all over the place. We went to Hebron. It is completely closed down. This is appalling. The whole House should unite against the extremist Jewish settlers and the illegal settlements, because it is not in the interest of moderate Israeli opinion. It is directly contrary to peace and we must fight this. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Mr Falconer]

The Father of the House, my constituency neighbour, can hear the strong support for his remarks from Members on the Government Benches.

Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I think the Foreign Secretary has spoken for the whole House today with his tone. I am sure he would agree that it is possible to be four-square behind the Israeli Government in their right to defend themselves and defeat Hamas and at the same time to care about the suffering of the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary use his charm or whatever influence he has on the incoming Trump Administration to persuade them to use their power to convince the Israeli Government that these illegal new settlements in the west bank must stop, and the pressure on the Palestinian people in the west bank must stop, because it is fuelling a sense of despair and future extremism?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his tremendous experience in the House to bear. He is absolutely right. He will be pleased to know that when I discussed these issues with President Abbas on Monday, he was complimentary about the conversation he had had with President-elect Trump on these matters, and of course, he has an existing relationship with President-elect Trump. That left me very hopeful indeed.

The right hon. Gentleman is right: the expansion particularly undermines the 1967 settlement, and it makes it very difficult to achieve the two-state solution. Those who try to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution are saying that their belief is either in no state at all, which is entirely unacceptable, or it is in one state, in which case they had better get on and ensure equality for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T3. Leaving aside whether it is wise to spend £9 billion on giving away what is already yours, given that the Trump Administration is now less than a week away, would it not be wise to wait another week, pause these negotiations, have a quiet word with the incoming American Secretary of State, and then work out what is in our interests and those of our closest ally?

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers we have given previously on this issue. There is strong support from across the US national security apparatus—from the State Department, from the White House and from the Pentagon. We are convinced that this is a deal that has protections in it to protect our national security and that of our allies, most importantly the United States.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can the Minister enlighten us as to the attitude on the deal of the incoming Trump Administration? Does he know, or shall I ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?

[Stephen Doughty]

We very much welcome, as I have said before, the election of President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance. During the transition period, there are restrictions on what conversations can go on. As I have said repeatedly in the House, we are confident that when the full details of the deal are provided by the US national security apparatus, any concerns will be allayed.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If it is possible legally to deport illegal migrants from Diego Garcia to St Helena, is there any legal reason why we cannot deport illegal migrants landing on these shores to St Helena or any other overseas territory? Is it, as a former Home Secretary told me recently, because after five years they would acquire rights to British citizenship?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are absolutely confident that this agreement is compliant with international law, and we will be working closely with the Attorney General of St Helena to ensure that it is compliant with our law, with St Helena law and with all our international obligations.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.

Israel and Gaza

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the middle east. I was very disappointed to miss yesterday’s foreign affairs debate due to the European Political Community summit, and I welcome this early opportunity to come to the House.

Last weekend, I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, meeting leaders on both sides. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spoken to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and I have discussed the issue with colleagues from the G7 and, of course, the region. This has been a priority from day one because of the desperate situation in Gaza, and the serious risk of escalation in Lebanon in particular. I must be frank: Britain wants an immediate ceasefire. The fighting must stop. The hostages must be released. Much, much more aid must enter Gaza—Israel promised a “flood of aid” back in April, but imposes impossible and unacceptable restrictions—and there must be de-escalation on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I sincerely hope the parties will agree a ceasefire as a matter of urgency.

I have been discussing with partners the need for planning for what follows, on reconstruction, governance and security, and for reforming and empowering the Palestinian Authority, but President Biden presented his proposals nearly two months ago, so we in this new Government have not sought to cloak our position in qualifications or conditions. This horror must end now.

My visit brought home the conflict’s appalling impact. I met the families of those murdered and taken hostage so cruelly by Hamas, now separated from their loved ones for so long. I told them that the UK would continue to push for the immediate release of all hostages. I also met Palestinians displaced by settlers. Settlement expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government have seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. This Government will challenge those who undermine a two-state solution.

Finally, I met aid workers from the United Nations agencies operating in Gaza. More aid workers have been killed in Gaza than in every other conflict globally combined this year. Those who risk their life to save others are heroes. With journalists banned from entering, aid agencies are a vital source of information from the Gaza strip, and their reports are devastating: almost 40,000 killed, mothers so malnourished that they cannot produce milk for their babies, rivers of sewage in the streets, a surge in disease among children—with 40 times the normal rate of diarrhoea, and with polio now detected—and looting; one aid truck driver was killed only yesterday. I announced on my visit new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began.

Humanitarian aid is a moral necessity in the face of such a catastrophe, and it is aid agencies that ensure that UK support reaches civilians on the ground. UNRWA is absolutely central to those efforts; no other agency can deliver aid on the scale needed. It is already feeding over half of Gaza’s population. It will be vital for future reconstruction, and it provides critical services to Palestinian refugees in the region. I was appalled by the allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attacks, but the UN took those allegations seriously. I have spoken to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Commissioner-General Lazzarini. Following Catherine Colonna’s independent review, we are reassured that UNRWA is ensuring that it meets the highest standards of neutrality and is strengthening its procedures, including on vetting.

UNRWA has acted. Partners such as Japan, the European Union and Norway have also now acted, and this Government will act too. I can confirm to the House that we are overturning the suspension of UNRWA funding. Britain will provide £21 million in new funds, with some directed at supporting the management reforms recommended by the Colonna review. UNRWA supports more than 5.5 million Palestinians, and almost 200 of its staff have died in this conflict. I thank the agency for its lifesaving work.

As we look for a pathway out of the wider crisis, I am conscious of this conflict’s complexities and am determined to listen to all sides. I approach every decision I must take carefully. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel. There is no way out of this crisis without a route to both Palestinians and Israelis enjoying security, justice and opportunity in lands that they can call their own. We are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in a renewed peace process, and to contributing to that process by recognising a Palestinian state at a time determined by us, not anyone else.

I know that other aspects of this crisis are of great interest to the House, including the Government’s assessment of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, the investigation by the International Criminal Court, and what further measures might help to deter malign activity by the Iranian regime. Let me reassure the House that I take those issues extremely seriously. Our commitment to international law is clear, and we are following the necessary processes. As soon as I took office, I tasked officials with a comprehensive review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, and that process is now under way. I will update the House again once the process is complete.

Twenty-four years ago, just weeks after I first joined the House, President Clinton hosted the Camp David summit—a reminder that this tragedy has lasted far too long. There are those in this House who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand Israel’s predicament. To them I say that Israel is in a tough neighbourhood and is threatened by those who want it annihilated. There is no equivalence between Israel’s democratic Government and Hamas, a terrorist organisation responsible for an act of barbarism on 7 October that sought to kill countless Israelis and provoke wider conflict with Palestinians. I fully supported the UK’s role in defending Israel when Iran launched its unprecedented attack, and I utterly condemn the Houthi attack on Tel Aviv overnight.

There are also those who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand the depth of Palestinian suffering. To them I say that civilians in Gaza are trapped in hell on earth. The Palestinian people have been in purgatory for decades, and have been denied the state that is their inalienable right.

As Foreign Secretary, I understand both those perspectives. I recognise the pain and anguish felt on all sides. It makes me only more determined to do all I can in this office to advance the cause of peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is very experienced, experienced enough to know that the minute any individual describes their leverage, that leverage is lost. Therefore, if he will forgive me, I will not share that at the Dispatch Box at this stage. However, the passion that lies behind his question is a concern that, for nine months, Foreign Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box and said that the aid must get in and that we must follow international humanitarian law—and now, months later, there is a new Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box and there are still serious concerns about international humanitarian law and the aid has simply not got in in the quantities needed. He shares my frustration, and it was frustration indeed that I shared with leaders in Israel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Emily Darlington.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was not bobbing, but I am happy to ask a question. Are you sure it was me you were calling on?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Please go ahead. The Clerks are struggling a bit with new Members.

[Emily Darlington]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his entire team on their positions, and thank him for the restoration of funding to UNRWA. As someone who has worked in international development, I have seen the vital work those organisations play, and in particular those organisations under the United Nations umbrella, because they are where we can come together as an international force. Does he agree that the solutions in the Israel-Palestine conflict are not necessarily solutions here in Parliament, but solutions that we will have to work with our international partners to build?

Ukraine

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is deeply encouraging to hear what unites the two Front Benches on support for Ukraine. Whatever differences there are, those differences and concerns are expressed by people from all political parties and from no political parties. I very much welcome the tone of the debate.

The Prime Minister was right to warn that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous that our country has ever known, and to refer to an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—as a direct threat to global stability and global peace. Whether we like it or not, war has returned to Europe. Our eastern NATO allies are right to warn that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, they might be next. After all, Putin is explicit that his war in Ukraine is against NATO and the west.

The strategic situation is far from satisfactory, but we are at a turning point that hinges on how US policy now develops. That was something the Deputy Foreign Secretary did not address in his remarks; I would be grateful if it could be addressed in the summing up.

The Russian military may be running out of equipment more rapidly than we think, and its economy is more fragile than its hydrocarbon revenue would make it appear. However, Russia is still able to sustain massive casualties, and the Russian population still supports the war. Russia has accepted a subservient position in its relationship with China in order to ensure continued Chinese economic and technological support for the duration of the war.

The US and Europe are distracted from Ukraine by Gaza and other theatres, such as the Sahel and New Caledonia, where Azerbaijan appears to be manoeuvring against French interests. US domestic politics delayed aid to Ukraine by six months—a delay that Russia is exploiting, albeit with massive losses in personnel and equipment.

The delay has offered Putin an opportunity to gain an advantage on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine, but the biggest danger is that Putin will win the war on the diplomatic battlefield, which is more a contest of wills than of military supremacy. Putin still believes that he can wear down the west’s will to support Ukraine before the Russian will to fight fails. Ukraine is now under significantly increased military and political pressure.

However, the re-establishment of US aid and strong statements from the UK and others, coupled with the battlefield losses, have forced Putin to take domestic measures to enable Russia to continue fighting indefinitely. The appointment of the economist Belousov—I hope that I am pronouncing that correctly—as Defence Minister marks a decision to increase the level of militarisation of Russia’s economy, putting it further on to a war footing. The new Minister will have the job of doing that, and of ensuring that the measures do not destroy Russia’s economy, as they did in Soviet times.

Any change programme—and Belousov’s appointment indicates a significant change in Russia—creates a temporary weakness in the organisation being changed. Russia is compensating for that weakness by stepping up hybrid warfare attacks on the west, which could include assassination. I do not think that we should rule out some Russian involvement in the recent attempt on the life of the Slovakian Prime Minister, Robert Fico, who may be widely identified as pro-Russian but who is not.

Official US policy is still not robust enough. President Biden does not want to allow Ukraine to lose, but nor does he want to empower Ukraine to the extent that it could inflict a crippling and destabilising defeat on Russia. The US is treating this like a regional crisis that has to be managed, but war is war, not just a crisis, and this war is part of a global conflict. A war must be won, or far more than the war will be lost.

Ukraine rightly complains that the US will not allow the weapons that it supplies to Ukraine to be used to hit targets on Russian soil. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Defence Secretary encountered that frustration when they were there. Before the recent advance towards Kharkiv, the Ukrainians had to watch the Russians build up their forces on the Russian side of the border without being able to use US weapons to disrupt them. The Russian advance on Kharkiv demonstrates—this is the elephant in the room—that the US policy of limiting weapons use is totally illogical. It puts into jeopardy President Biden’s own policy of preventing Ukraine from losing. It makes this a critical turning point.

During a visit to Kyiv on 15 May, US Secretary of State Blinken said in a speech that

“Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war”.

Did that indicate a tacit change of policy? When my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that Ukraine could use British weapons to hit Russian soil, it provoked a huge reaction from Russia, obviously designed to put others off saying the same thing. Blinken’s statement produced no reaction at all, except Russia’s advance stopped when it could have made further progress. Two days after Secretary of State Blinken’s statement, on Friday 17 May, the Ukrainians launched one of the largest drone and missile attacks on Russian targets in occupied territory and also in Russia itself, accompanied on the 16th and the 18th by massive attacks on Crimea.

Secretary of State Blinken’s statement could indicate the first steps towards a significant change in US policy to allow Ukraine to use US weapons against targets on Russian soil, reflecting the realisation of at least some within the Administration that Ukraine must be enabled to win in order to expel Russia from its territory. We do not know. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces could address that question in his reply. There could be other reasons, such as record daily Russian casualties in their recent attacks. If US policy is not changing, there will be a de facto stabilisation of the frontline, with Russia in a stronger physical and psychological position than before, despite having achieved little of operational importance in terms of territory, and at significant cost in lives and equipment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nothing justifies what Putin has done, but what worries me about all this is what will happen if the most likely outcome materialises: namely, a stalemate. Many people in Europe, such as President Macron and others, will say that we have to start negotiations, so what will our attitude be then?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is an unthinkable prospect. A stalemate would be a defeat. A stalemate would be a victory for Putin, who would be holding territory that he has claimed illegally. I thought the Deputy Foreign Secretary was very clear on that, supported by the shadow Foreign Secretary in the same terms. I do not think we should talk about defeat; we should be concentrating on how to ensure that we can expel Russia from all occupied Ukrainian territory.

If the Ukrainians’ hands are tied and they cannot use US weapons to strike targets in Russia itself, they will remain vulnerable to further Russian attacks. Russia will appear stronger than it really is, having obscured its growing deficiency in weaponry. Russia will be able to continue to keep up moderate military pressure on Ukraine, to prevent the Ukrainians being able to benefit from an operational pause—in other words, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Russians will have the upper hand. Russia will also step up its information warfare and influence campaign in Europe, employing hybrid and grey zone attacks.

Worse, with the US’s failure to call Russia’s nuclear bluff—that is what this policy amounts to—other states, most immediately in the middle east, will increasingly see nuclear weapons as conferring invulnerability. In the last few days it has been reported that Iran is willing to share nuclear technology with neighbouring countries, proving that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is ineffective. We should be more honest about that. Too many Governments in the west cling to the illusion that the treaty can lead to a world free of nuclear weapons, but even European countries beyond the UK and France may soon have to consider acquiring nuclear capability, or at least accepting US tactical nuclear weapons on their soil once again.

Gaza has put western influence in the middle east into freefall, while tying up western political attention and US military supplies and helping the Russian narrative to become dominant in the global south. Russia’s information efforts have played their part in making Gaza a debilitating issue for the west and interventions in other theatres, such as New Caledonia, keep the west on the back foot. The axis of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is strengthening. The temporary stabilisation on the frontline in Ukraine means that western European countries have still not yet had sufficient stimulus to make them appreciate the importance and urgency of going on to a wartime footing themselves and increasing their own defensive capacities.

If the US is, in fact, changing its policy, as I indicated it might be, that is a serious game changer and we must encourage it. It gives notice to Putin that eventually he will lose the war; the US can re-establish the credibility of its leadership of the democratic world and of NATO; the Chinese will draw an important lesson about US resolve, which will have significant implications for Taiwan; the Russian model will appear much less attractive to the global south and Russian influence will wane; and the impetus towards nuclear proliferation will lessen. Sadly, some European countries will feel let off the hook, and it will be harder to galvanise a united European defence effort.

What can the UK do? Sadly, even in the UK we are still reacting too slowly. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in December that the Ukraine war was

“existential for Euro-Atlantic security”,

but there is little sign of that understanding in our day-to-day politics. The Defence Secretary has said that the UK defence industry must be put on to a war footing, which means that the whole of Government must be mobilised for that effort, and our voters must understand that the sacrifices to fund victory in Ukraine will be far less than the costs of defeat for Ukraine in the longer term.

The UK should build a cross-party assessment, which I think has already been built in this debate, of what needs to be done to move the UK by stages on to a war footing and to increase defence capability and capacity, rather than just talking about increasing the defence budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is a very realistic speech. The trouble with this war, as with Russia’s previous wars, is that early incompetence has now been replaced by a ruthless authoritarian determination to win at any cost by mobilising the entire economy and being utterly impervious to the loss of human life. I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I have put to the House: although we may breathe fire and brimstone about how we are determined to win, what is actually happening is stalemate, and we have to work out how the west will navigate itself around a possible peace negotiation with Russia. I am not saying that I want that—it is thoroughly unpalatable and not a very popular thing to say—but we have to be realistic.

[Dave Doogan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I do not share the logic that he applies to the potential outcome in Ukraine. I began in a position of consensus, and I do not think that the Deputy Foreign Secretary would join the right hon. Gentleman in his summation—and nor would I. Whatever the size of the bite that Russia takes out of Ukraine, if Ukraine does not get it back, that is a Russian victory whatever way we cut it and whatever wrapper we put on it, and where Russia prevails, aggression and the tearing up of the rules-based international system also prevail. We cannot allow that to happen.

The strides that Russia has made in regenerating its heavy armour should serve as a wake-up call to UK and western partners. To counter that, Ukraine must have serious supplies of anti-armour weapons. I note that Russia’s missile capabilities are being regenerated at significant cost to Ukraine, and that raises serious questions about the efficacy of sanctions, which I will come to shortly. We must ensure the most accurate calibration in the reconciliation of that which Ukraine needs and in how the UK and NATO allies can satisfy that unmet demand.

Ukraine’s key foreign military aid requirements are air defences, long-range missiles and artillery ammunition. Its shortages in air defence over the past weeks have allowed Russia to conduct a destructive missile campaign against national infrastructure, civilian populations and military targets, including the largest thermal power plant in the Kyiv region. Long-range missiles are required to strike Russian supply depots, command-and-control centres and military infrastructure, and artillery ammunition is essential for offensive and defensive action on the frontline, but they remain in short supply.

The United States Agency for International Development package passed only on 23 April, as we all watched months of delay take their toll on the war effort. The battle to pass that Bill has sparked fresh fears that a Republican election victory—a matter, of course, for the US electorate—could significantly reduce essential US aid to Ukraine, so it is important that the UK, along with the rest of Europe, has contingency plans in place for a potential reduction in the US footprint in aid to Ukraine. That also highlights the need for long-term planning in the military aid pipeline, as opposed to pulsing batches.

Are sanctions working, and who is suffering? Russian oil products are getting through to the UK despite the UK officially banning the import of Russian oil from 5 December 2022. A loophole in the legislation allows Russian oil to continue to flow into the UK provided that it has been refined into fuel in a third country, after which it is no longer considered to have originated in Russia. That is deeply disingenuous to domestic and commercial energy bill payers across the UK, who are facing huge increases in their energy bills because of the rise in gas prices caused by the conflict, while aviation fuel and other distillates from Russian oil continue to pour into the UK’s economy unabated. What do the Government say to UK taxpayers, who are funding billions in military aid to Ukraine so that it can defend itself from a Russian aggression that is, if we follow the money, part-funded by UK purchases of fuel refined from Russian oil? It is desperate stuff, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you do not need to be a forensic accountant to figure it out.

UK purchases of fuels from China, India and Turkey—much of which originates from Russian oil—have increased considerably since the sanctions regime began. From 2021 to 2023, purchases from India went up from £402 million to £1.5 billion, those from China rose from £30 million to £663 million, and those from Turkey from £1.8 million to £60 million. How do the Government explain that loophole? Will they close it off and, in so doing, close off the revenue to Putin and his war machine?

Not unrelatedly, UK businesses continue to see record growth in exports to Russia’s former Soviet state neighbours. That manifold spike coincides precisely with the introduction of sanctions on goods to Russia. Are the Government even interested—let alone concerned—by that patent economic blip and reality? They should be, given the possibility that such exports could contain important components for military purposes. That matters, because although Russian missile production has increased since the war began, Russia faces a serious vulnerability: its most complex weapons, such as missiles, are heavily dependent on western-sourced components. Against the backdrop of a 1860% increase in the export of UK-manufactured vehicles to Azerbaijan, is anybody in the Government really under any illusions about what is happening there?

Russia has maintained a steady supply of the necessary components to make high-end missiles because of the incoherent approach to sanctions adopted by western states. A less laissez-faire approach to countering the Russian defence industry will help to disrupt Russian military supply chains and, in turn, Russian supply lines. That must be a strategic priority for all of us who care about the integrity and future of Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nothing I will say in this short speech in any way approves of what President Putin has done—he is an appalling man; a tyrant who has caused massive damage to infrastructure and countless deaths—but we have to be realistic in these debates. We cannot just will what we want. There is a mismatch between our determination, our interest and our will, and those of the Russian state.

Let us go back in history. When people in the west discuss Ukraine, they often assume this is a simple case of a large state invading a small country that has always been independent. That is not the view of the Russian state or most people who live in Russia. Ukraine means “borderland”, and for centuries, since Catherine the Great, Ukraine was effectively part of Russia. Even under the Soviet Union, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation, and it was only willed to Ukraine by diktat in the 1950s. Not a single Member of Parliament objected to that and the Crimean people were not consulted.

I am not in any way defending the Russian position—what they have done is appalling—but from that historical reality, and it is a reality for the Russian state, they are absolutely determined to pursue their objectives, as wrong as they may be. As we have heard, Putin is a tyrant. He has put the entire Russian economy on a war footing. He is apportioning a part of the economy to defence that we have not been spending since the second world war. Although we may want to win the war, we have to be realistic. Given the mismatch in resources between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and given all the difficulties that the Ukrainian state has been trying to cope with in the management of its economy for many years, with corruption and many other issues, it is extremely unlikely, sadly, that Ukraine can win this war.

As I said earlier, this war is following the pattern of earlier wars that Russia has engaged with: early incompetence replaced by an utter determination to win that is completely impervious to the loss of human life.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the right hon. Member not agree that if the battle in Ukraine is lost, then it will go to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and eventually the whole way back to us? The battle in Ukraine has to be won. It is not a matter of giving in; we have to win it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If we are going to win this war, we have to be prepared to give the resources necessary to do so. The truth is that such is the overwhelming predominance of the American industrial military estate that it could have won the war by now. America could have armed Ukraine to such an extent that it could have won. America could have allowed the Ukrainians to use its weapons to bombard Russian forces within Russia. America does not want Ukraine to humiliate Russia and win this war. America does not want Ukraine to lose the war. America could have won this war by now, as it won the second world war, but apparently it is not prepared to will the resources. We may not agree with that or like it, but that is the reality. We all know the strength of the American economy, and we all know that for months weapons deliveries were delayed.

All that I am trying to do is inject a note of reality into this debate. We cannot keep having these debates, saying, “We are determined to win this war. We must win this war”, when we are not willing the resources. I therefore ask the House these questions. Are we determined to put our own economy on a war footing? Are we determined to spend less on health, education, justice, and all the other good things in which we believe, in order to win this war? Are we prepared perhaps to put our own troops into Ukraine? Are we prepared for our own young men to die, or are we just prepared for thousands of young Ukrainian men to die and not have a single casualty ourselves? Those are the realistic questions.

The most likely outcome is that there will be horror and stalemate, and eventually somebody in Europe—President Macron or that sort of statesman—will then say that we have to conduct peace negotiations. What do we do then? Will we be part of a movement to have peace negotiations? Will we reward Putin for his aggression? Will we accept that there is a stalemate, and therefore Russia is enabled to grab part of Ukraine? What is our attitude? Nobody yet in this debate so far has seriously addressed those questions. All they have said is that we will win this war.

Members should look deep down into their hearts. Is there anybody sitting in this Chamber—I mean not what they say publicly, but what they think privately—who actually thinks now that Ukraine will win this war? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] They say that, but how? Given the huge mismatch in resources between Russia and Ukraine, and given the fact that America is not prepared to furnish Ukraine with sufficient armaments to ensure that we win, how will we? I am with you all. I am prepared to put our own economy on a war footing. I am even prepared to send our own troops to Ukraine. I am prepared to spend less on all the things I value, such as health, justice and all the rest. But we have to be realistic, and at the moment we are not being realistic. As a result, Europe is trembling in a sort of arthritic way, neither pursuing the war with full vigour, which is how we won the second world war, nor prepared to conduct peace negotiations. The result is a stalemate, which is deeply damaging to our reputation, our economy and everything else.

I just pose the question. I am not saying that we should give in or that we should have peace negotiations, but I ask those on the Front Benches to be realistic in this debate.