War in Ukraine

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Of course I agree with that, and I will come back to how we work with our allies later.

The first thing we must understand is how the character of war has changed. In today’s war, everything is a weapon: disinformation, terrorism, sabotage, assassination, psychological manipulation, malign influence, cyber-attacks, economic warfare, menacing undersea cables—even energy, food and fertiliser are used as weapons. Let us also not forget that Russia has weaponised the abduction of Ukrainian children, which is just one of the atrocities that it inflicts on the occupied territories. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) cannot be here, but I hope that her cause will be taken up by someone else in the debate.

Make no mistake: we are today already under a sustained assault through a co-ordinated campaign that merges all these weapons and others, and these attacks are steadily increasing in audacity and seriousness. They are sometimes reported in the press but often downplayed by wishful Governments who are unwilling to acknowledge these attacks for what they are. They can appear to be isolated acts of espionage, sabotage or diversion, but they are not. They are elements of a systematic, strategic offensive designed to undermine public trust in our Governments and our democratic systems, to fragment our societies, to establish groups that destabilise our countries from within, and above all, to probe our defences and to find weaknesses to exploit further. This is a test of the resilience of our entire society.

This is hybrid warfare, or grey-zone warfare, but the term “total war” might be more accurate as a description. “The New Total War” is the apposite title of a recent book authored by the former Member for the Isle of Wight, Bob Seely. The Baltic and Nordic countries and Poland are currently the main targets, but so is the UK. Indeed, the UK is singled out by Russia as public enemy No. 1 because Russia sees the UK, quite rightly, as a bulwark against threats and coercion that intimidate some other countries.

But grey-zone warfare is by no means the only threat the UK faces. Our critical national infrastructure is exposed, particularly offshore. NATO and the UK lack comprehensive air defence. Just this week, Putin said Russia is “ready” for war with NATO. We have to be honest when we answer this question: how ready are we?

There is also a dangerous narrative taking hold that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia in Ukraine and that we must just accept this. That is wholly wrong. There are in fact detailed assessments, publicly available, which demonstrate that Russia cannot win militarily, so long as NATO countries continue to give military and financial support to Ukraine and economic sanctions against Russia are maintained and strengthened.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I give way to the hon. Lady and thank her for her support.

[Helen Maguire]

Is the hon. Member aware that the Russian state is so deprived of military equipment currently that it is taking tanks out of museums to try to get them on to the battlefield?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That is certainly true, but the Russians are also depending more and more on what they produce in their factories rather than their legacy stock, which is making the war more and more expensive for them. They are not in an ideal position.

The initial Russian dash for Kyiv was disastrous for the Russian army. The Russians failed from day one to establish air superiority over Ukraine, which is effectively a no-fly zone for Russian military aircraft. Ukraine has succeeded in developing technology and tactics that make Russian attempts to advance extraordinarily costly. Ukraine’s ability to strike at Russian military and economic assets deep in Russia is increasing. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about a Russian victory over Ukraine. If we continue to sustain Ukraine and to undermine the Russian economy with sanctions, Russia will be forced to change its calculus for carrying on.

Nevertheless, Putin is projecting confidence that he is winning, but let us be clear: this is not because of the military situation but because of a lack of political will in so many NATO countries. If Putin wins, it is only because we let Putin win, as we let him win in Georgia, the Crimea and the Russian oblasts of eastern Ukraine before he embarked on the attempt to take Kyiv. He proved that we are soft, and his confidence is based on his continued belief that nothing has changed.

It has often been pointed out that the combined GDP of all NATO is vastly greater than Russia’s, so we should have nothing to fear, but that advantage only matters if we have the will to use this economic superiority to defeat Russia’s expansionist agenda. War is about nothing if it is not about willpower. Sadly, with a few notable exceptions such as the Baltic states and Poland, we have yet to demonstrate that willpower to win.

That is particularly due to the United States. First, the vacillation of President Biden and his fear of fuelling escalation gave Russia time to build up its war machine and exploit wider alliances. Now, the despicable and disastrous attitude of President Trump seems to offer Putin the opportunity to achieve everything he wants: the subjugation of Ukraine, the humiliation of NATO and the enlargement of the Russian sphere of influence at the expense of European security. Ironically, the effect of the Trump Administration’s 28-point peace plan has been to encourage Putin to keep the war going. That is because Trump appears ready to give President Putin everything he wants—Ukraine as a Russian vassal state. There is no incentive for Putin to stop this war under these circumstances, while the US is seeking to force Ukraine and Europe to accept peace at any price. It sometimes looks as if European resolve might also crumble. Trump thinks he is the master of the universe, but he is in fact being psychologically manipulated by Putin with flattery and—I make no bones about it—with bribes.

But something positive in Europe may finally be happening. Despite the tendency of European leaders to focus on the differences between them, Merz, Macron, our own Prime Minister and the leaders of NATO and the EU have shown remarkable unity. There is a realisation that a so-called peace agreed on Trump’s terms would not be peace at all. Putin would continue his campaign by other means. There would be little or no deterrence to discourage Putin from resuming military action on some bogus pretext at some future date. As Kaja Kallas, the European Union foreign policy chief, has explained:

“Russia has never truly had to come to terms with its brutal past or bear the consequences of its actions”.

She has argued that the nature of the Russian regime means that

“rewarding aggression will bring more war, not less”.

She is right: Putin will come back for more.

The democratic world cannot forget the lessons of history. The attitude of some is an eerie parallel of what Chamberlain said about Hitler’s annexation of the Czech Sudetenland, which he described as

“a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

Let this House never forget that Russia signed the 2004 Budapest memorandum, which probits the use of military force in Ukraine. President Putin disregarded that undertaking when he annexed Crimea and then attacked eastern Ukraine. How many times do we need to learn this lesson? In Putin’s world, Russia recognises no international law, only its own absolute sovereignty, so a Russian signature on any treaty is not to be trusted, unless it can be externally guaranteed by people who have the necessary force.

Putin is already taunting the UK and NATO with hybrid war attacks. A Russian ship firing lasers at UK military aircraft in neutral airspace would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. This cannot just be ignored. Russia is testing NATO responses and mocking our slow pace of re-arming. The consequences of remaining passive would be dire for the credibility of NATO as a deterrent force. Letting Russia have its agenda would also increase Russia’s credibility with neutral countries, at the expense of NATO and our allies. They will see the EU and NATO as representing waning powers, unable to contain Russia as we did during the cold war.

The agreement on much tougher proposals at Geneva last week, while still engaging with Secretary of State Rubio, is a real achievement. The latest news that Putin has again refused to stop the war exposes him as the true aggressor. This is a war that he could instantly stop oh so easily. So long as Europe and NATO continue to support Ukraine, and Ukraine refuses to settle on Russian terms, then Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, until he realises that there is no diplomatic shortcut open to him.

The biggest risk we face is that Trump loses interest in his peace effort and withdraws support for Ukraine. However, there is already evidence that Trump’s power over the Congress is waning. Abandoning Ukraine would split US politics. We must hope that the US will also continue with intelligence support, but we should be ready for that to stop. If necessary, Europe should offer to pay for that intelligence, if that enables that intelligence support to be continued.

Settling for a fake peace on unsustainable Trump-Witkoff terms would be far worse. We in Europe have to accept that President Trump’s actions have demonstrated that he does not care about Ukraine, and his commitment to European security is, at best, ambiguous. The right plan is for European NATO to be ready to continue to support Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s demands whatever happens, to continue to support Ukraine’s military, and to help to finance Ukraine’s increasingly effective defence industries. That is why today’s motion refers to the release of the €140 billion Russian frozen assets in Europe, which is vital. Russia will then continue to suffer the astronomical attrition, on men and matériel, at vast financial cost. More intensive sanctions must also bite on their economy.

In truth, we can kid ourselves about the Russian economy, but it remains pretty resilient. However, sanctions have reduced foreign exchange earnings by some 20%—they come only from the export of oil and gas—and Russia’s domestic banks are now the only buyers of Russian Government bonds. This is not a long-term sustainable position for Russia. Secondary sanctions applied to the Russian shadow fleet, and to countries that enable that shadow fleet to exist, have made and can continue to make the export of oil and gas less and less profitable, or even loss-making for Russia.

Above all, we see the Russian army advancing so slowly in Ukraine, taking tiny areas of land at incredible human cost. We are seeing a land war that Russia cannot win. It has taken all of this year for Russia to take the small town of Pokrovsk, and at the cost of some 100,000 casualties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate and setting out so many key points in his opening speech.

It has been 1,379 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine—1,379 days of Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, 1,379 days of Ukrainians forced from their homes, and 1,379 days of Ukrainians fighting for their country and for Europe. As we stand in this House and debate today, the devastating war continues. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has reported that the total civilian casualties from January 2025 to October 2025 are 27% higher than during the same period last year. The number of casualties for the first 10 months of 2025 has already exceeded the total for all of 2024. Since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, there have been over 53,000 civilian casualties and 14,500 deaths. Alongside civilians, the number of military casualties stands at around 400,000 for Ukraine and over 1 million for Russia. It has been a complete loss of human life.

I begin with those horrific statistics not to overwhelm Members with numbers but to confront us with the brutal reality that they represent. Each figure we cite serves a purpose. They help us to understand the scale of the suffering in Ukraine and the enormity of what is at stake. We must never let statistics blind us to the truth behind them, which is that these are people just like us—parents trying to protect their children, the elderly refusing to abandon the homes that they built, and young people who only ever asked for the chance to live in people. Lives full of hope and routine have been interrupted and devastated by a barbaric war that they did not choose, yet they fight. As we consider these numbers, let us remember the Ukrainians whose stories we cannot fully capture and let that guide the seriousness of our debate.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not only an assault on a sovereign nation, but an assault on democracy itself and a flagrant violation of international law. Yet despite this brutal aggression, I know that Ukraine remains unyielding in its fight for freedom. When I visited Ukraine in October, I witnessed the resilience of a nation at war. I was told that, just hours after bombs tear through towns and cities, shattered buildings are boarded up, not simply to hide the destruction, but so that children, families and ordinary citizens can wake the next morning and try as best they can to live their lives, striving for normality in the shadow of war.

Every day, the world is witness to military vehicles rolling through towns and cities, missiles striking innocent civilians and drones patrolling the skies with the intent to kill both military and civilian personnel. This is a war without morality, driven not by principle but by a hunger for territory and the attempted annihilation of Ukrainian identity. Amid the rubble, the grief and the dust lies another, silent and enduring threat. When I was in Ukraine, I saw at first hand the immense challenge of explosive ordnance contamination. Ukraine is now the most heavily contaminated country on earth, with 139,000 sq km polluted by unexploded ordnance.

This is a nation that once fed much of Europe. Before 2022, 71% of Ukraine’s land was agricultural, more than half of it arable, the highest proportion of any European country, but today farmers cannot work their land. Their fields, once the breadbasket of Europe, have become battlefields. In one extreme case, I learned of a farmer going out to farm his land in the tractor while his son was on the lookout at the side, shooting down drones to protect him. Farmers are so desperate to reclaim their livelihoods that they try to clear the land themselves, with horrific consequences. Children, tragically unaware, pick up pieces of unexploded ordnance, believing them to be toys. Save the Children’s recent blast injury report cites the figure of more than 3,000 children having been killed or injured by explosive weapons in Ukraine since 2022, while the number of children maimed surged by 70% in just one year, from 339 in 2023 to 577 in 2024. There can be no greater tragedy and no greater moral failing than a war in which the innocent and the vulnerable, our children, become its casualties.

The cost of explosive ordnance is not only human. A joint report by Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change estimates that landmine contamination is costing Ukraine an estimated $11.2 billion annually, the equivalent of 5.6% of its pre-war GDP. What further exacerbates the issue is Russia’s errant use of anti-personnel mines. Human Rights Watch has reported that Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of anti-personnel mines since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. In Ukraine, I was shown the POM-3. This device is barbaric. Once delivered and deployed, the mine operates on the seismic principle, which means that once it detects a human footstep, it will detonate. These mines cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and Russia does not intend them to. Innocent civilians are at risk from mines that they cannot even see.

The Ottawa treaty, which Russia is not party to, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons, and requires action to be taken to prevent and address their long-term effects. In recent months, five European states have formally withdrawn from the convention entirely, and in July Ukraine communicated its intention to introduce a suspension. Countries including Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have formally objected to the suspension, while others are still considering such steps. It risks seriously undermining the convention’s object and purpose, as well as broader international humanitarian law instruments, by suggesting that states can opt out of humanitarian obligations during war.

I stand unequivocally with Ukraine, and I recognise that there are no easy decisions when states confront the terrible reality of war, but I remain deeply concerned that any step away from international conventions risks further harm to civilians. As the Mines Advisory Group has warned:

“International Humanitarian Law…including the Ottawa Convention, is designed precisely for times like these.”

International law is not a luxury for peace; it is the foundation of humanity amid conflict. The UK must lead in its commitment to international law and uphold the standards that the world will depend on in future conflicts.

Alongside sustaining the international pressure, we must look to our own responsibilities. With global mine action programme funding due to end in 2026, the Government should commit to allocating a proportion of the UK’s de-mining assistance through the Ministry of Defence budget and should recognise eligible mine action activity as contributing towards relevant defence spending targets. Given the ever-dwindling humanitarian funds in the FCDO, utilising the MOD budget would safeguard continuity beyond 2026 and maintain the operational tempo necessary to confront the largest explosive ordnance contamination that Europe has faced since the second world war. I hope the Minister will address that later.

Surrey Stands with Ukraine is an amazing charity in my constituency. It provides medical aid and supports physical and mental rehabilitation for Ukrainians. It has told me of the urgent need for a register of trusted UK-Ukrainian humanitarian aid organisations, so that people can see instantly that they are credible. The charity has received medical kit from Government organisations and private companies, but if it was on a trusted list, that would empower more businesses to come forward and support its work. So far, it has shipped an incredible 168 vans of aid, £4 million of medical aid, a long-reach-ladder fire engine called Dinah, and 250 generators to communities in Ukraine. Anything that this Government can do to empower businesses to offer support, and encourage individuals to donate, would make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people affected by this war.

While we wait with bated breath for a peace plan that delivers for Ukraine, this Government must continue to support Ukrainians. The proposed Ukraine-UK health collaboration would help those providing vital services, such as the Superhumans clinic, which offers free prosthetics and reconstruction to children, civilians and military personnel affected by the conflict. When I was in Ukraine, I met Zakhar Biryukov, a former member of the Ukrainian special forces. Zakhar had been warning civilians to stay away from mined areas when his helicopter came under fire. He lost both his legs and an arm, and suffered severe facial injuries. Zakhar now dedicates his time to supporting new amputees arriving at the clinic, telling them that everything will be okay. His hope, courage and optimism, his refusal to be broken, and his will to never give in to the Russians is something that I will never forget. He left a deep impression on all of us who met him. A health partnership would also deliver experience, knowledge and relationships. It would greatly support UK conflict preparedness and NHS resilience to related shocks and mass casualty incidents.

Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive across Europe and even more bold in its quest for knowledge. The former leader of Reform Wales was recently jailed for accepting bribes to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

That former leader in Wales of Reform UK was a constituent of mine. We have been calling on the Prime Minister for an independent review and an investigation into Russian interference in our democracy. Does the hon. Member support that?

[Helen Maguire]

I do, wholeheartedly, and thank the hon. Member for intervening on that important point.

In 2020, a delayed report into Russian interference in the UK led the then Foreign Secretary to tell the House that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents. This trend of Russian interference is only increasing. Yesterday, I read a report from GLOBSEC on how Russia is using criminality as a tool of hybrid warfare in Europe. If Members have not already read it, I urge them to do so. The brazen and dangerous act of the Yantar ship endangered the lives of RAF pilots and showed the lengths to which Putin will go to ascertain his military power and undermine Britain’s defence. Tomorrow is too late; this Government must act further today. They must stand up to Putin’s belligerence, seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, and funnel those into Ukraine’s defence.

I have the highest hopes for a peace deal, but am concerned about Trump’s deal. The President treats this deal as if it is a business transaction; he is throwing out the international diplomacy rule book and ignoring history. Trump’s plan would displace thousands, rip territory from Ukraine and weaken Ukraine’s military capability. With Putin rejecting the latest peace proposal, the stakes are higher than ever before. There can be no deal that impinges on Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia lined up its troops at the border and launched an illegal invasion. There was no provocation by Ukraine. The UK must lead on the robust defence of Ukraine in considering any peace plan that now comes forward. A peace plan for Ukraine cannot weaken its defence capabilities, cede territory to Russia or refuse Ukraine NATO membership.

Putin has already said that he is ready for war with Europe, and as we speak, Russia is provoking our maritime ships, attacking our cyber-security and destroying undersea cables. Ukraine has already experienced what happens when it is weakened and is forced to give up its nuclear weapons. Let us ensure that that does not happen again. It may be 1,379 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, but that is also 1,379 days of solidarity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Today we remember the courage, sacrifice and unwavering duty of those who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces. As a veteran myself, it is an honour to represent Epsom and Ewell, a constituency with a rich connection to the military, where over 8,000 soldiers trained during the first world war. Our local Royal Engineers, the 135 Geographic Squadron, have been in our community for over 75 years. Our local veterans hub sadly recently lost the last of its world war two veterans, but it continues to support more than 30 men and women. The hub brings veterans together, and I thank all the volunteers for their tireless work.

I was at the local reserve centre at the weekend, and veterans told me stories of their service. Frank Angus will be 100 next March. A lieutenant in the Royal Engineers, he was sent to Norfolk to clear mines from the beaches. He recounted the time he set alight a pile of mines, only to find out when trying to make a hasty getaway that his jeep would not start. At the event, Army chefs cooked up a wonderful curry, despite using a field kitchen. The kitchen in the reserve centre has been out of use for years, and the boiler broke 14 months ago and is still awaiting repair. There is also no overnight accommodation, and yet the squadron frequently stay overnight. Considering that the recent strategic defence review aims to grow the reservists by 20%, I was surprised by the lack of basic maintenance. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that?

Reflecting on the armed forces today, I would like to raise the case of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who was found dead in her barracks after a warrant officer pinned her down and tried to kiss her. Female personnel have reported being ignored following incidents of sexual abuse. Can the Government provide assurances that steps have been taken to improve the treatment of females in the armed forces? We also remember the sacrifices of the LGBT+ veterans who served their country yet were treated appallingly, and I ask the Government to ensure that all LGBT+ veterans receive support in applying for the Government’s financial recognition scheme.

The “lab rats”, or nuclear test veterans, have suffered for too long, with health issues lasting for generations. Will the Government meet the nuclear test victim campaigners by Christmas?

Last month I was in Ukraine and saw at first hand the Shahed drones and cluster munitions that Russia is using indiscriminately against the Ukrainians. We met amputees at the Superhumans Centre, including 28-year-old British sailor Eddy Scott.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that personnel who are injured on active duty deserve support and recognition?

[Helen Maguire]

Yes, I agree that injured personnel require support.

While casevacing casualties from the frontline, Eddy’s vehicle was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and he lost his left arm and leg. The UK and Ukraine are working to establish a strategic health alliance, but that initiative needs £1.2 million and Government support would be instrumental, so will the Minister update the House on the Government’s position?

Civilians never ask to be part of war, yet they bear its greatest costs. I urge all nations to uphold international humanitarian law and to remain steadfast signatories to the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel mines and the convention on cluster munitions. Later this month, the international community will meet at the international conference on explosive weapons in populated areas to strengthen protection for civilians from explosive weapons. No UK Minister is currently due to attend. I urge the UK to play a leading role in implementing these treaties.

Finally, in this House we bear a profound responsibility, including determining whether our armed forces are sent into conflict, so let us today think about why we send our armed forces to war and remember those we have lost, those who are injured and those left behind. We will remember them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I have to say that my hon. Friend is wrong on this. Over 400,000 jobs are supported—directly and indirectly—by defence, and almost 70% of the defence investment we make in this country is outside London and the south-east, right across the UK.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

People’s experiences of medical discharge from the armed forces vary significantly, and too often it fails those who need the support most. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the discharge process, including improving consistency across units?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. Making sure that service personnel who leave under the medical discharge are fully set up for success in their post-service life is fundamental and a huge priority for me.

Support for Disabled Veterans

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the issues faced by disabled veterans. At the last census, more than 3,000 people in Eastleigh reported that they had previously served in the armed forces; of those people, 1,045 are classified as disabled. Veterans have made huge sacrifices for our country, yet too often they find that the systems that are meant to support them are inconsistent or simply not fit for purpose.

I have previously raised the case of my constituent Mark Houghton MBE in this Chamber and written to the Minister about it. Mark is a decorated Army veteran who served with distinction for over two decades in the British Army. He was deployed in Afghanistan, Estonia and Latvia. In February this year, Mark suffered catastrophic injuries in an accident while working abroad. Mark cannot walk, yet he has been denied access to the personal independent payment and employment and support allowance because he did not reside in the UK for 18 months out of the last three years.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is great that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. Nearly half of UK veterans report being disabled. That figure is far higher than it is for the general population. Many of our disabled veterans receive military compensation, as my hon. Friend said, to support them with an injury or illness caused by service. Does she agree that it is an absolute disgrace that military compensation is included when people are means-tested for certain benefits? That leaves so many veterans and their families disadvantaged.

[Liz Jarvis]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for her intervention. I will come to that point later.

During Mark’s time abroad, he paid UK taxes, and he is now back in the UK permanently, yet he has been blocked from accessing continuous care and financial support because of the residency criteria. The emotional toll on Mark and his family has been enormous. They have been forced to sell their home of more than 20 years. In his words,

“I fought for this country. I’ve paid my taxes all my life. And now because I was abroad for 18 months I am made to suffer. I feel deserted, unwanted…abandoned. It’s devastating”.

I am sure the Minister will agree that this is an appalling way to treat a veteran. The armed forces covenant states that members of the armed forces community should be treated with dignity and respect, but in this case, as in so many others, that simply is not happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I applaud the work that Doncaster council is doing to take the needs of veterans into account. As the armed forces covenant is put into law, I hope that that is exactly the sort of thing that we will see rolled out across the country.

Although the data shows that almost a third of veterans are disabled, we must always remember that behind every statistic is a person who trained, deployed and served. Every one of those veterans will have a unique story, and faces unique and different challenges. To provide an effective support network, we must ensure that the service is tailored and flexible and responds to each individual’s needs.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the hon. and gallant Minister for giving way and I congratulate her on her position. I recently met representatives of the charity Combat Stress, which is based in my constituency. I was made aware that PTSD can come up to five, 10 or 15 years after deployment, which I did not know. At the moment, there is no obligation for GPs to be aware of the fact that individuals are veterans, so when a veteran presents to a GP, the GP might not know that they are a veteran. What does the Minister think about the mandatory registration of veterans, so that GPs will be aware that they have previously served and can provide adequate support?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

The hon. Member raises an important point. In common with any veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I find it interesting how the experience changes as we move away from it.

There are many pathways to support. GP surgeries are often the first point of contact. I urge every veteran to flag with their GP that they are a veteran, so that it is added to their medical record, as that will help primary care services understand their needs. I know that many GP surgeries and NHS trusts have gone further and ensured that they have developed veteran-friendly GP practices and veteran-aware NHS trusts.

There are other schemes that provide support. Op Restore, the veterans physical health and wellbeing service, supports veterans if they have a physical health problem of any type or severity that resulted from their service, if they are based England, no matter when the problem first appeared or when they left the armed forces. A GP can refer veterans to Op Restore. The Ministry of Defence veterans welfare service delivers one-to-one support through a network of welfare managers across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. It does a fantastic job and I commend the hard work of those managers. We also have integrated personal commissioning for veterans, which has already been raised.

For many veterans, being able to live independently in a safe and suitable environment is of paramount importance, as hon. Members have said. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adaptations for people who satisfy a needs assessment, eligibility criteria and means test. Indeed, this Government have boosted funding for the disabled facilities grant by £86 million annually—

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Overnight, Poland faced down an unprecedented violation of NATO and Polish airspace—the latest act of belligerence by a Russian dictator hell-bent on recreating the Russian empire. This is a stark reminder that history cannot repeat itself. The drones were part of Russia’s latest large-scale assault on Ukraine, an assault in which 450 drones were launched. We thank the Polish air force for protecting the NATO alliance, and we stand with our allies. No matter what President Trump believes, it is clear that Putin is not stopping. He is not considering peace; he is testing NATO’s limits. A line has been crossed, and we must collectively stand up to this aggression.

The Government must take tangible action. Will the Minister take forward the Liberal Democrat proposals to end the import of products using Russian oil that have been processed in third countries; stop UK companies shipping or insuring Russian liquefied natural gas; and push for a further cut to the oil price cap? As Tusk said this morning,

“Actions speak louder than words.”

The strongest action we could take would be to seize the frozen Russian assets across the UK. Will the Minister commit to doing that today?

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and for her support for defence. She brought up a really valuable point: those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. This was an unprecedented attack, and an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace. We are working exceptionally hard with the Polish to ensure that they, and indeed our broader NATO alliance, have everything they need. We already have significant sanctions on Russia. There is work going on between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office looking at how we can move those forward. We will update the House in due course.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country.

The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund?

It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement?

It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use?

While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed?

Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the strategy—it is good to see cross-party support for our defence industry. I also welcome her words about the support that we provide to Ukraine. A lesson that we are learning from the war in Ukraine is that we can procure faster, better and more effectively using increased freedoms. That is precisely the lesson from our work supporting our Ukrainian friends that we are seeking to apply in order to support UK armed forces.

Negotiations on UK participation in SAFE are led jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will seek to continue those conversations. There needs to be provision of value for money for the British taxpayer and opportunities for British businesses, and I am confident that the discussions will be productive.

The SME office that we are seeking to create is one way of helping those small businesses that feel that they have an innovative project for defence, but struggle with the labyrinthine bureaucracy and confusion about who to go to. Having a one-stop shop that enables people to access those contracts and navigate the process will be a real boost for SMEs selling their products into the Ministry of Defence.

The hon. Member is right about the need for spiral development, but in reducing the contracting times, we need to be alive to the fact that the technologies that we procure need to be spiral developed at pace, so that we do not have a legacy system that then gets spiral development many years later.

On the hon. Member’s two final questions, the Type 26 deal with Norway is a superb boost for shipbuilding on the Clyde. Discussions with our Norwegian friends have already started about the build slots, but the Royal Navy will receive our Type 26 frigates in the 2030s as planned. No decisions have been made about the recruitment contract that she mentioned. The intention is to make a decision in February 2026, but I have heard what she said in relation to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—a fellow female veteran—and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their new appointments.

Reserve forces are a vital component of the British Army, and I welcomed the Government’s commitment to increasing their number by at least 20%, but the lack of a clear timeline, plan and funding is not good enough. The Public Accounts Committee agreed with that in its report, and revealed that many training sites are in the wrong locations and that their condition has declined. Good training sites in the right locations are vital to increasing our reserves. Will the Government today give a firm timeline for completing the estate optimisation programme and securing funding for the next stages?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for her congratulations and for her question. She makes a valid point and is absolutely right that we need to do more in this regard. I am afraid I cannot provide a specific timeline here, but I will keep her question in mind and hope to update her in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is clear that Vladimir Putin remains hellbent on the conquest of Ukraine, while he drags Trump along with false promises of peace. It is right of the Government to have taken steps such as putting in place the recent price cap cut, to hurt Putin’s oil profits, but the Government must go further. Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that the UK has sent over £500 million in tax receipts to the Kremlin by continuing to import petroleum products derived from Russian oil from third countries. Will the Government commit to finally closing this loophole, which is currently filling the Kremlin’s coffers?

Use of Drones in Defence

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate; I was sorry not to be able to hear from him yesterday in the battle of Britain debate.

The integration of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, into defence has transformed the way that nations think about security and the battlefield. Over the past decade, we have seen a steady growth in their use, and the war in Ukraine has made clear to the world just how central they have become. What was once considered cutting-edge technology is now an everyday feature of modern warfare. It is alarming that more soldiers today are being killed by drones in Ukraine than by any other form of warfare.

However, the benefits of drones are undeniable. Drones allow us to project force and gather intelligence without putting soldiers directly in harm’s way. They give commanders a real-time picture of the battlefield, overcoming traditional line-of-sight limitations and extending awareness deep into enemy territory. They have become central to surveillance, targeting, logistics and even battlefield medical support. For example, drones equipped with advanced thermal imaging can locate casualties hidden in rubble, smoke or woodland. They can deliver medical supplies, bandages, medication and even defibrillators into remote or inaccessible areas, providing rapid aid while reducing the need to send medics into danger.

In defensive operations, tethered drones are able to remain airborne for hours, providing uninterrupted surveillance and protecting bases from surprise attack. AI-enabled drones can patrol throughout the night, automatically detecting and flagging suspicious activity, which reduces the pressure on human surveillance teams and cuts the risk of fatigue.

Cost is another factor. Compared with tanks, aircraft or armoured vehicles, drones are relatively cheap to produce, quick to deploy and often expendable. Ukraine’s experience shows how even commercial drones adapted for reconnaissance or artillery targeting can deliver immense tactical advantage. Their real-time video and geolocation data have significantly improved artillery accuracy, reducing waste of ammunition and increasing strike precision. Drones have also enabled Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes deep into Russian territory, disrupting logistics and undermining morale.

However, alongside those advantages, we must acknowledge the challenges. Drones are not a silver bullet. They come with ethical concerns about remote warfare, accountability and lethal decision making, and the potential for escalation when operators can strike from thousands of miles away.

Technically, they are also highly vulnerable. Drones depend on data links—radio or satellite based—and GPS signals to navigate and communicate. Adversaries with electronic warfare capabilities can jam, spoof or hijack those links. That is not theory: as has already been mentioned, in 2009 Iraqi insurgents intercepted live US drone video feeds using cheap, commercially available software. In Ukraine, Russian jamming and interference has disrupted as many as 60% to 80% of drones before they reach their targets. That has forced Ukrainian forces to innovate using frequency-hopping communications, deploying fibre-optic cables up to 50 km long, and even experimenting with AI-based navigation when comms fail.

The lesson is clear: we must be realistic about what drones can do. Overreliance on them would be reckless. Ground forces remain indispensable for holding territory, engaging with civilian populations, providing humanitarian relief and responding to dynamic battle conditions. Drones can enhance these missions, but they cannot replace them. A balanced force of combined arms structure is essential.

I welcome the Government’s announcement of a £2 billion drone investment package and the establishment of a drone innovation centre. Those are important steps, but technology alone is not enough. A fleet of advanced drones is only as effective as the people who operate and maintain it, and all three services will need drone pilots. That should form part of basic training.

Drone warfare requires highly skilled professionals—pilots trained to control aircraft in contested environments, engineers able to maintain complex systems, data analysts capable of interpreting live feeds and AI specialists who can design resilient autonomy. Without those skills, our investment risks being underutilised or, worse, ineffective. Recruitment, training and retention must therefore be a central part of any strategy. We need a robust pipeline of talent if we are to scale drone operations responsibly and securely.

We must also recognise the speed of innovation because our adversaries are not standing still. They are rapidly working to advance their drones as well; if we are to maintain our edge, sustained research and development is a necessity. That means investment not only in next-generation drones, but in secure communications, anti-jamming technology, counter-drone systems and resilient AI. It also means collaboration, working closely with universities, private sector innovators and start-ups that can bring new technologies quickly to the table.

It is essential that the UK can quickly adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of warfare. Drones are not just another tool; they are reshaping the character of conflict. They save lives by keeping soldiers out of harm’s way, they improve precision and they provide persistent surveillance and awareness, yet they also carry risks—ethical, strategic and technological. Our task is to embrace their potential while also guarding against the vulnerabilities. We need investment in technology but also in people. The Government must work to balance technological innovation with conventional strength and ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of research and development, so that we are not only consumers of new technologies but leaders in shaping how it is used responsibly in defence.

The Battle of Britain

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this important debate.

The battle of Britain remains one of the most decisive victories in our nation’s history. In the summer of 1940 the Royal Air Force, outnumbered and under immense pressure, faced down the Luftwaffe. In doing so, it prevented invasion and gave our nation hope. Victory was a turning point in the war, a symbol of resilience and testament to the power of co-ordinated defence. We rightly honour the few—the young pilots whose courage inspired a nation. But we must also honour the many—the engineers and fitters, the armourers, the women of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force who tracked raids on vast plotting maps, and the factory workers, many of them women, who ensured that damaged aircraft could be replaced. Their unseen work sustained our pilots in the air. Their story is one of collective effort, resilience and sacrifice.

This was an international battle. Pilots and personnel came from across the Commonwealth and from occupied Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia and, most famously, Poland, whose 145 pilots played a decisive role. Indeed, the Polish No. 303 Squadron was the highest scoring unit of the entire campaign. Even volunteers from neutral countries such as Ireland and the United States chose to fight for Britain’s freedom. The battle of Britain was in every sense a collective endeavour. It was fought not only with Hurricanes and Spitfires, but with morale. Ordinary people endured blackouts, bombings and sleepless nights in the shelters. Yet the blitz spirit, stoicism, humour and neighbourly solidarity carried communities through. Churchill’s words and the sight of duels overhead helped forge a powerful sense of national unity—that resilience, both military and civilian.

In my constituency of Epsom and Ewell, the war touched daily life. Residents sheltered in Anderson shelters through long nights filled with anti-aircraft fire. On 18 August, remembered as the “hardest day”, Flying Officer Peter James Simpson of No. 111 Squadron was forced to bring his stricken Hurricane down on the RAC golf course at Woodcote Park, Epsom. Having engaged a Dornier bomber, his aircraft was raked with fire. He was injured but managed a forced landing near the clubhouse in an act of skill and courage that left its mark on our town’s history. A painting of that moment still hangs in the clubhouse, a vivid reminder that Epsom itself lay beneath the skies of the battle, and that this is not just a national story, but a local one as well.

Commemoration must go hand in hand with commitment. Just as the country pulled together to defend our liberty in 1940, so too must we pull together now to support those who have served. The UK Government must provide better care for all veterans, ensuring that their contributions are not forgotten and that they receive the recognition and support that they so rightly deserve. It is a scandal that in 2025 veterans continue to fall through the cracks. More than 2,000 veterans’ households were assessed as homeless in 2022-23, which is unacceptable. A fair deal for veterans must mean access to high-quality, affordable accommodation. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the building of 150,000 new social homes every year.

Mental health support must also be a priority. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 30,000 referrals were made to the NHS veterans’ mental health service. Over half of veterans surveyed said they had experienced mental health problems. These are men and women who put their lives on the line for us. It is not right that so many are left suffering with depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder without timely support. The Liberal Democrats are calling for regular mental health check-ups at key stages of veterans’ lives, better recording of outcomes, and a campaign to end the stigma that still too often prevents people from seeking help.

For today’s serving personnel we must get the basics right. It is shameful that some members of our armed forces are housed in substandard accommodation. Peers reintroduced to the Renters’ Rights Bill the Liberal Democrat amendment to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence housing. I urge the Government, when the Bill returns to the Commons next week, to accept that amendment as a positive safeguard for our service personnel. They deserve that decent standard as a minimum.

Remembrance is also about education and awareness, as many have already alluded to. The story of the battle of Britain must continue to be remembered in ways that reach future generations, whether through services of commemoration in our communities or through museums, exhibitions or teaching in our schools. Access to local stories, such as those from Epsom and Ewell, should sit alongside the national narrative so that young people see that this history is not distant; it happened on the very streets where they live today, and for their freedom and the peace that we enjoy today.

Eighty-five years ago, the few gave everything to defend the many. Today we honour their courage, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to ensure that their legacy lives on not only in words, but in the way that we care for those who serve today, and in the way we continue to tell their stories for generations to come. Remembrance is much more than words; it must be action as well.

Ukraine

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps.

I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine?

We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s strong focus on the need for further economic pressure on Putin and on Russia. She will recognise that the UK is out ahead of many other countries in the number of vessels we have sanctioned as part of the Russian shadow fleet. We are always ready to take further steps in that regard, and I hope she will see very soon from the Foreign Secretary the UK’s determination to go further still on economic pressure and on sanctions. She invites me to offer an update on progress on the use of seized assets; I am unable to do that, but she will know that this is not just a matter of whether it will be effective as a UK decision. The detailed work that is still being discussed with other key allies continues. We recognise the potential for using those assets seized from Russia to help rebuild and support Ukraine—that is something we are working on.

The hon. Lady urges us to lead European allies. It is not unreasonable to say that that is exactly what we are doing, not just through the UK providing our highest ever level of military aid this year, but in the way in which we have now stepped in to lead the UDCG. I will chair its 30th meeting alongside Minister Pistorius next week. We have also stepped in by leading the coalition of the willing with the French—more than 50 nations are part of the discussions about planning for Ukraine’s long-term future, and I will host the Defence Ministers alongside Minister Lecornu this week to discuss that further.

However, there is one other point that I would make to the hon. Lady and to this House. It is often seen as the European coalition of the willing or the European UDCG, but these are coalitions of nations that go well beyond Europe. I was in Japan last week, and Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan has joined the discussions for the coalition of the willing. Some of the most stalwart supporters of Ukraine in terms of military aid since the start of the Russian invasion have been allies of ours—steadfast supporters of Ukraine from other parts of the world, from Australia to Japan and from New Zealand to Korea. That signals to Putin not just that Europe stands steadfast with Ukraine in challenging and confronting his aggression, but that we and many other countries see this as a security matter in the Euro-Atlantic that is indivisible from security in the Indo-Pacific.