Defence Readiness

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I respect the hon. Lady, and I respect the strength of her view on this matter, but we have to deal with what is certain. In my view, it is extremely unlikely that any new cases would lead to prosecutions. It is, however, certain that were this process to recommence, it would damage the morale of our armed forces at a time of war on two fronts, and that would not be in the national interest.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Having served in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many veterans I was there with and others who were there before, and there is a scintilla of a real question mark about how they will be treated. The vexatious nature of these complaints will, of course, eventually drag them back into the courts. That is the fear. They are sure that they are innocent, but by the time the courts have finished with them, innocence would not matter at all, because their life would have been destroyed. Does my hon. Friend not agree?

[James Cartlidge]

I do not need to add a great deal to that, because my right hon. Friend served in Operation Banner and speaks with great authority. He has always been passionate on this issue, and he hits the nail on the head. As so many veterans have said to me, it is the process of the lawfare itself that is so punishing. It is so damaging, it is not in the national interest and it will damage the British armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). He will recall that I voted for him to hold his position, and I will come for payback later on. It is also very good to see my area neighbour, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), in the Chamber. I will listen with great interest to what he has to say, and I hope that the Labour party finds another use for him through its talent spotting, if I can put it like that.

Before coming to the topic of defence in this debate on the Address, I want to touch on another issue that has arisen. My brilliant assistant, Alice Stuttaford, spotted yesterday something that tells me that we have a slight problem with the Government’s commitment to the legal position on the use of slave-made products by Great British Energy. In answer to a question from Politico about whether they were implementing what, thanks to many Labour Back Benchers and many Opposition Members, is the law—my amendment passed and became law—and applying it to the producers as well, a spokesman for the Government said:

“We have strict procurement controls in place to ensure that any solar panels”—

it is not just solar panels, but all elements to do with net zero—

“are free from forced labour, as far as possible”.

That is not the law. There is no caveat to the law. Everybody rebelled on the Labour Benches, and Opposition Members also voted for it, and we implemented an absolute, which is that it is not for Great British Energy to use any products that have been produced using any kind of forced labour. I know that this is not the speciality of the Ministers present, but I ask them to raise it, because I also saw that the Gracious Speech contained very peculiar commitments to using immigration as a way of tackling forced labour. That is not good enough.

We need to reinforce the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and make it an offence for any company to import or use any items or goods that were made using forced or slave labour. That should be a unifying factor across this House, and I do not know why the Government have now watered down their intention. Madam Deputy Speaker will know this full well as she has been party to it: this cause goes to the root of one of the issues I will come on to, which is the threat that we face from places such as China. If we go on strengthening such places by buying their slave-made goods, then we do our own defence no good at all. What is needed is a wide-ranging commitment through the Modern Slavery Act to ban all products made by slave labour.

This debate is on defence, and we are now facing the greatest threat to our freedom across the western world since the 1930s. I do not believe that the threat is less than it was during the cold war; in a way, it is a greater threat, because at least during the cold war we already knew and recognised what war was about, why we had to be prepared for it, and what we were defending. We have lost lots of that. Many people out there do not fully understand how the threat has changed and grown.

The reality today is that one shipyard in China makes more naval ships than the whole of the United States in one year. China has over 130 times the capacity to build naval ships than Europe and America have at the moment. I say to people who do not think that this is a threat: do not necessarily listen to what those totalitarian states say; go and have a look at what they are doing. They are producing and preparing for war. I am not, I hope, scaremongering, as I believe this to be a reality.

China is reinforcing and supporting Russia in its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Without China, Russia could not have continued this war. Russia was running out of ammunition, but China brokered an arrangement with North Korea, which now produces millions of rounds of ammunition for Russia, and even provides soldiers who, once used, abused and wounded on the battlefield, are then assassinated so that they are not a source of shame when they go back.

This is about totalitarian states. The Government should not use the phrase authoritarian states. They are totalitarian states, and there is a difference. Authoritarian states are about dictators and others who have risen to power and at some stage have to be brought down. Totalitarian states are ones where every element of how people live their lives is controlled, run and spied on—with people arrested as a result—by the state organs, regardless of who is in charge. Communism is the key here; those states are communist.

There are other extremist versions of such states. Iran is part of that alliance. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an extremist organisation, and I do not understand why the Government have failed to proscribe it. It really is high time, as it is present in our country stirring up violence and hatred. We should deal with that and say it is a criminal act for the IRGC to be here.

To that extent, how the Government respond to this challenge in defence terms is critical. I am one of those people who has argued since the end of the cold war that we made a mistake in reducing defence. Nobody listened to me then, and there is no reason why they should listen to me today, but I tell the Minister that I am going to keep on saying it. I hope Members on the Government Benches and others will ask that question.

I know what the restrictions are, and that the Treasury dictates to Departments and says, “We can’t afford this. We won’t do it.” People at the Treasury are the last people in the world to ever recognise a threat to anybody, at any time, from anything. The Treasury continues as if all was sweetness and light because it does not want to make any changes. It is for Defence Ministers to make the point about the threat.

Why in heaven’s name have we not published the defence readiness Bill? It is the Ministry of Defence’s greatest weapon in the fight with the Treasury. Every other Department—Health or whatever—know what I am talking about. It is always a fight, but it has to be, because we are facing what is likely to be our greatest threat since the 1930s. To face that threat, Ministers need to make it clear to the Treasury that we cannot skirt around this any longer; we have to spend that money and commit.

The Government have talked about being committed to 3% in due course, but that will not be enough. When I was serving, we were committed to 5% of GDP to face down the Soviet Union. We will need the same again, because I believe we are about to face an even greater threat. Ministers will know that the Conservatives will give them our full support if they are prepared to fight for that.

Let us get the defence investment plan published right away—that is really important. Those totalitarian states do not face the restrictions that we do. We have those restrictions for a good reason: we believe in democracy. But freedom is the most expensive thing that we will ever try to own, and it can be taken away with just a wish. The Government’s job is to stand firm and say that the No. 1 priority is to defend the realm from threats, internal and external. If we do not do that, we will have failed in our obligations, failed the British people, and failed our allies and friends, who look to us for leadership.

We can only lead, however, if we have the equipment to show our allies that we have the endeavour. When we took the Falkland Islands, we had 53 frigates and destroyers available to us. We could not do that today. That is the measure of how far we have gone under both Labour and Conservative Governments. The Ministry of Defence must tell the Government, “Enough is enough. We are going to publish this Bill and the defence investment plan—and, by the way, where is the China audit? Let’s publish that too”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I genuinely congratulate the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on a remarkable speech and wish him well in his future ambitions? His speech and its content were, I am afraid, not as germane as the contribution of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who chairs the Defence Committee. I agree with everything that he had to say; I only regret that I could not put it as elegantly as him.

The resignation letter of the right hon. Member for Ilford North is worth reading, and I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have read it closely. He wrote on Thursday that

“where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift”,

and that should worry the Government. I agree with him, and I am thinking in particular of the defence investment plan, which we have not seen. I am conscious that the defence readiness Bill, which we were expecting in this King’s Speech, has yet to materialise, and that is of deep and profound concern.

In the 1930s, we arguably faced a similar situation to what we are up against now, and the Government of the day decided about five years in advance of the outbreak of the second world war that they must gear up our defence industrial base for the future. They created things such as shadow factories, initially with opposition from industry. Those were centred largely, at least initially, on the automotive industry and the production of aircraft, but went on to extend much further than that. It was a truly co-operative venture that led eventually to this country being able to turn out more aircraft in those early years than Germany could.

I would have thought that this Government would have learned those lessons and now be bringing forward, as a matter of urgency, its own defence readiness Bill. The Government have missed an opportunity, and I am sorry about that, because there is no shadow of a doubt that industry is being held back, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, in its ambition to partner with the Ministry of Defence and with Ministers to get things going, whether that is reprovisioning what we have rightly sent to Ukraine or fitting our armed forces for the future.

Some have already mentioned hollowing out. It is worth saying that in 1989, every country in the western world was taking a peace dividend. It would have been extraordinary had they not, and they would have been punished by the voters, but that was then. The big lesson I have learned from what has happened in the years since 1989 is that Governments can afford to titrate what they provide in order to defend this country against the threats facing it—although that is never popular electorally—but they must do nothing to reduce the armed forces below an irreducible minimum, so that armed forces can regrow rapidly, as happened in the years immediately preceding 1914 and 1939.

Governments must also do nothing that will damage long-term projects, because procurement is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap—procurement takes decades. I think we have learned from that mistake. One of the mistakes that the previous Government made was delaying the Dreadnought class. That was because, as I referred to in the intervention that the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) generously allowed me to make, of pressure from our then partner in the coalition Government.

Right now we are facing the prospect of our principal ally, the United States, backing off in terms of its support for us and our European allies. We can no longer entirely rely on that on which we previously relied heavily. If, as seems likely, the United States proceeds with this particular course of action, we will be the only provider of a nuclear deterrent declared to NATO, and it is therefore important that in the defence readiness Bill—when we see it—we have a reaffirmed commitment to reprovisioning the continuous at-sea deterrent apace. Much work has been done in respect of infrastructure and at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, but we are still facing a rundown Vanguard class that is obliged to go on patrol for upwards of 200 days, with a consequent impact on the men and, now, women who man the submarine service. Of all the pinch point trades in our armed forces, it is those in the submarine service that should keep us awake at night. It is imperative that we accelerate that programme.

I also ask Ministers to look at the F-35A provision, and to agree with me that providing 12 airframes is hardly sufficient given the threat that we now face. I need to know, I should like to know, and I am sure the whole House would like to know when the F-35As will be operational, as opposed to the provision of training airframes. Is it the intention of the Government to expedite that programme? Is it the intention of the Government to exploit the option that they have kept open to have more than 12 of those airframes, and will Ministers confirm that they will be nuclear-enabled?

I strongly urge Ministers to consider the sovereign defence fund Bill in the alternative King’s Speech, which would repurpose the National Wealth Fund to overhaul our vital defence industrial base. Governing is about difficult decisions, and it seems to me that defence is a more urgent priority right now than using the fund—in the words of the Government—to help tackle climate change, and, indeed, a more urgent priority than ramping up welfare, as Lord Robertson has made very clear. The defence industrial base will be pretty useless if it is not populated by men and women with the skills that are necessary to deliver what is needed in order to keep this country safe.

The youth opportunity Bill, which also features in the alternative King’s Speech, has the kind of imaginative content that I would have expected from an incoming Government who had 14 years to think about these matters. Unfortunately not: all that we had from the Prime Minister on young people on Wednesday was a load of waffle. Time and again, it is as if he is a passive observer rather than an active participant. The youth opportunity Bill explains how genuine investment in our young people will power and grow the economy, delivering a virtuous circle from which everyone benefits. It will cap state funding for pointless, work-irrelevant, badly taught degrees from third-rate institutions that are perpetrating a fraud on a generation, and will grow well-focused apprenticeships such as those offered by Wiltshire College in my constituency.

Let me now say a few words about special forces. We must approach these issues with a great deal of care. I am extremely concerned by the messaging that has gone out from this Government in relation to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—not so much the case that has been put before the House by the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the way in which it has been received. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sitting next to the Secretary of State for Defence, will know very well—because his contacts are probably better than mine—that this messaging has caused a degree of disquiet, particularly among units that are crucial to this country’s defence and security. They will perceive that, in years to come, a future Government may decide that what is happening now, and what is acceptable now, is no longer acceptable.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

This business with what is going on over Northern Ireland is not alone, because it builds on a perception and on the gratuitous pursuit of soldiers involved in Afghanistan and Iraq—partly by the Prime Minister in a previous life, but certainly by lawyers knowing full well that what they were pursuing were in fact complete untruths. That has made those former soldiers wonder what is the point. If politicians will not stand up for them, who will?

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with him. This is about more than Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland has a read-across to a number of theatres where our men and women are actively engaged or could be in the future. The exodus from some of these units will cause irretrievable and irrecoverable damage to our ability to protect the men and women of this country.

I have no doubt that Ministers are acting with the best of intentions, but I urge them to look at the messaging that is being given to the men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent, and to decide what they can do to address this legislation. I would say “Scrap it and start again”, but if they cannot do that, I ask them to consider what they can do to prevent the idea from gaining penetrance among those units that the Government are simply not on their side, and in any event even if they were, that Governments in the future might, by the standards of the day, decide that what is being done at the moment in the name of the state and in the King’s name was no longer acceptable. Lawfare is a real and present danger to the men and women of our armed forces, and, knowing him as I do, I feel certain that the Secretary of State is cognisant of the threat that it poses.

Conscious of the frog in your throat, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall end my remarks there.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, then I will make some progress.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge regard for him. We go back quite a long way, and I hope that what I am going to say now will be helpful to him and his Defence team. Poland is planning eventually to spend 9% of its GDP on defence. It is approaching 5% today from a standing start. Everybody in this House with an ounce of common sense wants the right hon. Gentleman and his team to succeed and to get the money they require to increase our defences, but we are behind the curve. I am not blaming him; I am blaming other elements in Government. Will he use this opportunity to send the message to the Government that the House requires that we get the money, publish the plan and get on with making defence successful? The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), has said this, and Members on both sides of the House want the Secretary of State to have it. Please take this message back to the Chancellor: “Enough is enough. We have to do this for our security.” Will he now do that?

[John Healey]

We have to do this for our security, and we will do this for our security. In the meantime, we are getting on and doing what is necessary for Britain’s security.

Defence

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

Defence is very clear about what it requires. We are working collectively across Government to come to a joint decision on where that spending portfolio will fall.

There are points in this motion that are obvious. The world is more dangerous, and we are investing more in defence, but recognising that is the easy part; the real question is whether we are prepared to make the decisions required to deal with it. Defence is not a shopping list, and it must not be treated as such. It is not about picking a number of troops, as mentioned in the motion, and it is not about shifting money around on paper. It is about building a force that works—one that is properly equipped with the correct equipment, properly supported and able to operate alongside our allies. In my time in uniform and since coming into this role, I have spent time in multiple different operational theatres, and I know that this is not about the size of the armed forces; it is about the plan. This is about the purpose, the equipment and how people will be integrated. Simply stating that we should add 20,000 extra troops to the Army, with no clear or concise understanding of how they will be used, is not the way to go about business.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The Minister is making a powerful case. A man with his record and history coming to this place is to be congratulated, and I am enthused to see him in his place today, as I think we all are.

We have talked about the non-appearance of the defence investment plan, but there is another review that has not appeared that has even more impact: the review on China and the threat that it poses to us. That was promised again by the Government. I raise this issue because under Conservative and Labour Governments, I have gone on constantly about the growing threat, and we have not faced up to it. China is critical to this matter; if we watch the tankers going into the strait of Hormuz and out again without any problems, we begin to realise the incredible links that China has with Iran, Russia and North Korea. Is the Ministry of Defence demanding that that review is handed to it and published, or has it forgotten about it?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for a very balanced contribution, as always. On the specific issue, I will come back to you and write to you on where we are and how the review is moving forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I will continue and then give way in a minute.

We have taken more action in the past 20 months than the Conservatives managed in the 14 years before that, with more than 1,200 major defence contracts, 86% of which have been awarded to British-based businesses. The Conservatives argued that we should spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030; we are delivering it by 2027.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Al Carns]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.

However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. I will raise them with the Security Minister, and push exceptionally hard.

The motion suggests that we are failing to learn lessons from Ukraine. Let me make it absolutely clear that these are two separate issues. This Government are leading. We committed £4.5 billion in military support last year, building on £3 billion annually. We have co-led the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has helped to secure over $45 billion of investment, and in February alone a further $35 billion was raised. However, we have not just provided funds; we have adapted.

At this point, I want to recall my own history. I left the military in 2024. I left because the Government and the military collectively were not learning the lessons from Ukraine. That is the very reason I left to come to this place. Labour was not in government at the time, and we were already years into the conflict. Opposition Members will recognise this as being one of my hobby horses since I have been in the Ministry of Defence.

There has been a tenfold increase in drone delivery, with a target of 100,000 this year. A new cyber and electromagnetic force has been built on lessons from the battlefield in Ukraine, and £4 billion has been committed to autonomous systems over time. We have seen Project Asgard, a hybrid Navy, a defence uncrewed centre of excellence in the SDR, a cultural change within the Army, Navy and Air Force in respect of uncrewed systems, an increase in uncrewed systems training, and cultural development in phase 1 and phase 2 training. I am therefore confused as to how no lessons are being learned. We must go faster, and we are pushing as hard as we can, but I want to be very clear about this, and I will bring you back to the first point. I left the military because your Government—[Interruption.] I left the military because the Conservative Government were not learning the lessons effectively from Ukraine.

Let me turn to the topic of Northern Ireland and morale. I do not recognise the argument advanced in the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

I am going to a make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

We come to perhaps the most revealing part of the motion: the suggestion that defence should be funded through changes to the two-child benefit cap. Let me say this plainly: you do not strengthen national security by setting it against support for working families, you do not ask the country to choose between security abroad and stability at home, and you do not build credible defence policy on that basis. It is the job of the Government to make life easier for families, not harder.

I will say something else. I grew up in a family where decisions about money took place, and I see the same pressures on the communities that I now represent. Security is not just about what happens overseas; it is about whether families feel that they can cope, whether they feel stable and whether they feel that the system is working for them. The Conservatives’ motion is not a serious way to approach defence funding, because the strength of a country rests both on armed forces that can deter and defend, and on a society at home that is stable, resilient and confident. Pitting one against the other does not strengthen either; it weakens both.

This Government are taking a different approach. We are making decisions in the national interest, and we will not be pushed into those decisions by noise or pressure—we will take them carefully and responsibly. We are increasing defence spending, strengthening our forces—whether it be recruitment or outflow, or the morale component as a whole—and ensuring that our forces are ready to face threats both now and in the future. We will publish our defence investment plan, but we will not rush it for the sake of a headline. As has been demonstrated over the past 14 years, a plan that is not properly funded or deliverable does not strengthen our security, but weakens it.

Middle East

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his case. He knows, as I do, that our British services have foiled around 20 sabotage or assassination plots with the Iranian hand behind them on British soil. He makes the case for proscription. That is a decision in other parts of the Government, but it something we keep under review, and a decision we will take with a broader view of the way that we are challenging, confronting, and working with allies to deal with the Iranian threat.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The UK-US relationship remains stalwart. Our collective leadership on Ukraine has been second to none; the Defence Secretary’s leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group has stimulated billions of pounds of investment; and through what we are doing in Ukraine, we are delivering in support of not just UK security, but European security.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

In the last few weeks, the Prime Minister has been very clear about what he considers our role to be, under international law, if we believe that allies are being attacked. Does he see Ukraine as having exactly the same status as an ally? Does he believe that we are, of necessity, directly involved, given that it is under attack?

[Al Carns]

As the right hon. Member will know, we continue to support Ukraine with almost as much capability as we can. Through leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, through capability and through industrial working groups backed by the United Kingdom and across Europe, we will continue to support Ukraine, and do everything possible to ensure the sanctity of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Middle East: Defence

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend will have heard me set out in my statement, and in response to other questions, the principles on which the decisions that we have taken are based. They will continue to inform any future decision that we take, as circumstances in this conflict may change.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Nobody supports the armed forces more than I do. The Secretary of State has my full support and respect, as he knows, but I want to ask a simple question. There seems to be some confusion among Government Back Benchers, who think the Government have somehow kept them out of this war. The Government have not kept Britain out of the war: our bases and allies are in the firing line. The Chancellor spoke about the strait of Hormuz and the necessity of taking action where applicable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will—and, under international law, can—take action against Iranian threats to oil tankers and other facilities in the strait of Hormuz?

[John Healey]

We will take the action we need to defend British interests, personnel and civilians. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our personnel are at risk—as he puts it, they are in the firing line. I am incredibly proud of the work they are doing not just to protect our bases and each other, but to protect our allies in the region and to lead the co-ordination of defensive operations that help to keep the middle east safe in the face of these Iranian attacks.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows of my support for the Government’s persistence over Ukraine, and I welcome his statement. We have spoken endlessly throughout this process. I am, however, deeply worried about deploying British troops into what is basically a first-world-war war, as it were. The fact that more than 2 million are dead or wounded as a result of the conflict puts it on a wholly different scale from anything that we have done in the last 10 or 20 years. Afghanistan and the others are very small in comparison with what we are discussing now, and I have a certain amount of cynicism. I will support the Government’s pursuit of this, but I worry desperately that we will get it out of proportion. Are we peacekeepers, or are we going to enforce the peace? These are big questions to be asked, surely, before full support can be given.

There is, however, one thing that I think the Government can do. The Secretary of State talked about Iran and the shadow fleet, the support that Iran has given to Russia and the brutality that it has, and I absolutely agree with all that, so I have a simple question for the Government: will they now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is at the heart of everything that is bad, deceitful and despicable from Iran? Will the British Government now proscribe the IRGC, full stop?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman has returned to a subject that has been raised and debated in the House before. He was a member of the last Government, and he will know that in advance of any decisions, they are never disclosed or confirmed by Ministers. As for the concerns that he has expressed, I welcome his support for the Government’s decision and their participation in and leadership of the coalition of the willing, and for the declaration of intent that was signed yesterday.

Let me make three points. First, there will be no deployment unless there is a peace agreement. Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal. Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression. We would do this alongside the negotiation of similar commitments and security guarantees with the United States. Finally, the role of any British forces is to ensure that—as I have argued in the House before—Ukraine is its own best deterrence, and its own best defence, against future Russian aggression. That is why the primary focus of the multinational force for Ukraine will be to regenerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces, and we are ready to do that, alongside them, for the long term.

War in Ukraine

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

They have not really taken it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend is right: the Russians have not already taken the town, although they say they have. The US ambassador to NATO pointed out recently that a snail crawling from the Russia border westwards would now be in the middle of Poland, had it left at the same time as the beginning of the invasion—that is how badly the Russians are doing militarily.

There is no breakthrough that would give Russia strategic military success, so Putin escalates by ramping up hybrid warfare on NATO states. He wants to move the focus of the war on to fresh battlefields. He attacks Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He could launch a miliary attack on a NATO member country using a form of warfare for which that country, unlike Ukraine, is not prepared. Such an attack on an ally would necessitate a response by the UK, if deterrence is to remain credible. It might even involve UK troops in Estonia, for example. Our troops are not prepared for the kind of drone warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine. If Russia did that, what would we do? I leave that question hanging in the air.

An attack could involve a missile attack on targets within the UK, for which we are equally unprepared, or on our offshore assets. Our allies in Germany, Poland and Finland take very seriously the real risk that Europe may be drawn into a more military confrontation with Russia, and a lot sooner than is comfortable to acknowledge.

What must we do in the face of this now obvious threat to our security? We must acknowledge and explain to our population that we are indeed at war now, and we must explain the nature of the hybrid threat. We must call out Russian hybrid attacks for what they are and we must devise robust responses, as well as increasing our own defences. Are these interceptions, and no more, a sufficient response?

We must constantly adapt the use of sanctions, realising that, like any weapon, Russia will devise countermeasures to evade them. We must, as a real priority, increase our military and economic support to Ukraine, however difficult that might be. We need to make it clear, by both our words and our actions, that Russia cannot win this war. I say to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who will respond to the debate, that it is not enough for us to repeat the mantra “for as long as it takes.” What does that mean? It has already taken far too long. We must commit to supporting Ukraine until Ukraine achieves victory, and soon, and that is possible.

What does that victory look like? Ukraine must be able to sustain itself as a secure and independent sovereign state, as part of the family of free and democratic nations. Victory is no threat to Russian territory or sovereignty—there is no plan or objective to topple President Putin—but this victory is the only way to prevent Russia from discrediting NATO and corroding the confidence that we democracies can and must use to prevent despots from degrading the global international order.

To help to achieve peace, we in the UK must accelerate our own war readiness, as the Defence Committee set out in its recent report. The noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who oversaw the Government’s strategic defence review, recently remarked:

“We are under-prepared…we’re under attack and we’re not safe”.

Changing that does not simply mean strengthening our armed forces, although that is essential; it also means adapting a lot of things in our country so that we can survive and fight a war. That will be difficult, even painful, so the sooner we start, the better, because it is weakness that encourages Putin—the stronger we are, the less likely we are to be attacked.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate and for making such an eloquent speech—he made all the points that I was going to make in my speech, but I will make it nevertheless.

Today is 1,379 days since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but let us not forget that Ukraine had already been at war with Russia for eight years. We all remember the rhetoric from the Kremlin: that Kyiv would fall in three days. Last week we heard from former Russian ground forces commander, Vladimir Chirkin, who made a rare criticism of the Kremlin from inside Russia. He said that Russia had not been prepared for its invasion of Ukraine. It is instructive to the House to quote him:

“we had the traditional underestimation of the opponent and overestimation of our own military”

as Russia had been buoyed by confidence from its five-day war in Georgia in 2008. He continued:

“During the first few weeks, we were taught a serious harsh lesson, and the former Defence Minister tried to find a face-saving exit from the situation, calling what was happening a ‘gesture of goodwill.’”

Chirkin also criticised the entire Russian intelligence community for telling the leadership that 70% of the Ukrainian population supported the invasion, which turned out to be entirely false. We know that well over 90% of Ukrainians—even in the east, in the south and in Crimea—support the continued sovereignty of Ukraine. That was one of the first times that a top Russian official has made such public criticism of Russia’s war effort—something that can lead to criminal charges in Russia.

Let us be under no illusion: in this country we are in our own war with Russia. Every day, the Russians undertake hybrid attacks against us, but here, unlike in Ukraine, where children are under direct threat of death and abduction from Russia, our children are under threat of online manipulation. Although our buildings are not under immediate threat of destruction by Russian drones, our borders are being tested by reconnaissance and dummy drones to assess our readiness for a full-scale war.

I have been to Ukraine seven times since the start of the full-scale invasion, and not just to Kyiv or Lviv; I have travelled that great country in its time of greatest need, visiting Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Odesa, Chernihiv, Mykolaiv, Kherson oblast, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and my sister city of Kharkiv, which has had a relationship with Leeds since not long after the full-scale invasion began. I have seen at first hand the strength, courage and determination of Ukraine and the commitment to Ukrainian culture, language and identity.

I know that the Ukrainian people will never allow their identity to be subsumed by Russia. That is why the Russian practice of stealing Ukrainian children, Russifying them and then, when of age, sending them back to Ukraine to fight for Russia is so abhorrent. It is the worst, most dystopian war crime one can imagine. We need to ensure that Russia is prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her amazing work in leading the APPG on that matter.

There is so much that we can say about the needs of Ukraine. I do not think we should use the debate to provide a running commentary on the war, or on the stalled peace talks, which Russia has disingenuously used to try to pursue its original war goals. I do want to talk about what could turn the dial.

As we all know, only maximum pressure on Russia and placing Ukraine in the strongest possible position will create a scenario where a ceasefire can be agreed. The twin approach of seizing Russian state assets for military aid and squeezing the Russian economy through the strongest possible sanctions regime may create those conditions, and it would certainly put Ukraine in a much stronger position than it is now.

We all know what assets are held in Euroclear, and we need those assets to be seized and repurposed for the self-defence of Ukraine. Euroclear has been holding about €200 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank, which is the majority of an estimated €260 billion in sovereign Russian assets held in the west. The full seizure of Russian assets is clearly proportional to the crimes committed by the Russian state against Ukraine, and any post-war settlement will incur huge reparations, so the seizure of assets is paying forward a long tradition of post-war reparations.

I welcome the news yesterday that the European Commission plans to move forward quickly with the reparations loan to Ukraine using frozen Russian assets, or an EU loan based on common borrowing, with a figure of €90 billion being reported, which is significant. That second option is due to some reservations from the Belgian Government, who host Euroclear in Brussels. I welcome Ursula von der Leyen’s statement that Ukraine must have “the means to defend” itself

“and take forward peace negotiations for a position of strength.”

I am sure the entire House agrees with that.

Publicly available information indicates that the United Kingdom has frozen private, corporate and Russian assets belonging to sanctioned individuals amounting to £28 billion. Will the Minister indicate the total value of sovereign Russian state assets currently frozen in the United Kingdom and whether the Government are prepared immediately to allocate those funds not subject to the approval of international partners, such as Euroclear assets, to support Ukraine during this difficult time?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is interesting that although we have all mounted pressure on the UK Government, and the Foreign Office in particular, to seize these assets and use their capital value—most of the assets are in cash now anyway—the answer has been a refusal. I understand the nervousness about resulting market instability, but the Government have said that the interest from the capital can be used, even though you cannot own the interest if you do not own the capital. We are dancing on the head of a pin. Would it not be better if the Government were clear, seized the capital once and for all, and regularised the use of that money, one way or another?

[Alex Sobel]

I agree. It is not just that the profits or interest from assets held here should be repurposed; we should look at how those assets are being managed, and maximise them, for use for Ukraine’s purposes. I will conclude my question to the Minister: will the United Kingdom be part of the reparations loan to Ukraine scheme, alongside the EU, if or when that comes about?

I will be brief on sanctions, as I have spoken about them many times before. More action is needed on two issues: we need to complete the sanction regime against the shadow fleet, and to sanction third-country imports to Russia. We also need to strengthen our enforcement in those areas. The shadow fleet is not just a way of Russia moving its fossil fuel exports and financing its illegal war; the unseaworthiness of the vessels is a danger to both people and the environment. In recent days, two Russian shadow fleet tankers went up in flames in the Turkish Black sea—again, that is a danger to people and to the ecosystem of the Black sea.

The shadow fleet is estimated to number about 630 vessels, and nearly all of them are old and in a poor state of repair. The recent large sanction packages from the US, EU and UK are welcome, but obviously the fleet evolves over time, and as many as 200 vessels are not yet sanctioned. We also need to use much more diplomatic muscle to ensure sanctions enforcement, in order to prevent the shadow fleet from not only docking, but using nearshore waters for repairs, refuelling and supply, which sometimes happens even in countries that have sanctioned the shadow fleet. Crippling the shadow fleet is crippling Russia.

The Government have moved on third-party sanctions. For instance, Kazakhstan has had a huge surge in imports of British luxury cars. UK automotive exports to Kazakhstan between January and April 2023 were 3,900% higher than in the same period in 2022. I was unsure whether there really was such a surge in interest in our vehicles in Kazakhstan, so I looked up the guidance on exporting to Kazakhstan from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and it states—I will be slightly long on this—that

“Russia is going to great lengths to circumvent sanctions, and continues to procure Western military, dual-use, and other critical goods through third countries, including beyond battlefield technologies. Russia relies on deceptive tactics, such as indirect shipping routes, falsification of the end-uses of goods and professional evasion networks.”

Kazakhstan might receive an order from a Russian importer for goods that are subject to UK sanctions, and so cannot be obtained directly in Russia from the UK. The Kazakh firm orders the goods from a UK supplier without informing it—or others involved, such as bankers, insurers and shippers—that the end user of the goods is Russia. The UK supplier exports the goods to the Kazakh firm, which exports them to Russia. That practice, and others like it, constitute the circumvention of sanctions. The risk of that happening may affect all parties in a supply chain.

That FCDO guidance is clearly helpful and instructive to anybody trading with Kazakhstan, or pretty much any other country neighbouring Russia that is not a member of NATO or the EU—or Ukraine, obviously. I know that the Minister is not from the Department for Business and Trade or the FCDO, but how many UK firms have had export licences revoked because they have traded with countries neighbouring Russia for the purposes of sanction evasion? My concern is that we have the guidance and know what is happening—we see a rise in exports of certain goods—but we are not taking action against individual companies. The answer would be instructive. Taking action would put us in a much stronger position when it comes to supporting Ukraine and trying to stymie the Russian economy.

To conclude, what we do in the next few months will decide the fate of Europe for the next 50 years. Will we scale up our support for Ukraine and ensure that the Ukrainian people have a democratic future in the European family, or will we slow-walk and slide slowly into our own military conflict with Russia? This is the time for us all to stand with Ukraine and ensure not just its future, but all our futures. Slava Ukraini!

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on his opening remarks, which were specific and precise; I will try not to repeat many of them, but to get into some of the other issues.

My personal connection with Ukraine goes right back to a matter of months after the original invasion. I was involved with a Scottish charity called Siobhan’s Trust, which went out there to help those who were fleeing at the Polish border. When that had settled a little, the charity decided to cross the border and carry on feeding people who had been dispossessed behind the frontline. I see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) in his place; I call him an hon. Friend in this, because he came out there with me to see the same remarkable charity. It is a wonderfully bonkers British charity. The team wear kilts, put the pipes in their mouths, and dance and entertain the Ukrainians only a few miles behind enemy lines, risking themselves at the same time. They show the remarkable bond that we in this country have forged with the Ukrainians in their hour of need. The charity is peculiarly British, and that is what we are about.

We know what this is all about. We do not need this House to lead this debate. In truth, if we were to ask ordinary people on the high streets of this great country, they would immediately react, “We stand with Ukraine.” Why? Because they know what it is all about. History tells us what happens when countries fall: they do not rise again unless somebody else can rescue them. There is nobody to rescue countries like Ukraine if it is not us, after all our experiences of the second world war and our determination to ensure such a brutal war never takes place again. It is happening now.

I have to remind the US that, even if it is not a guarantor, it certainly has an obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest memorandum. It cannot sweep that aside. The obligation came about mostly because Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. I wonder whether Putin would have invaded if it had kept its nuclear weapons. Ukraine was misled by the west. We said that we would stand by the Ukrainians, and away went their nuclear weapons Then, of course, Putin eventually decides to invade—at first piecemeal, invading part of the territory, and then fully later on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is quite right that the Russians have been both singularly appalling in the way that they have behaved and incredibly poor in terms of their military activity. That notwithstanding, they would never have done this if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, which would have been its major line of defence.

I have travelled many times to Ukraine to visit charities and others and have spoken to many Ministers in Kyiv about the difficulties and problems, including in Kharkiv, not long after Ukraine had driven the Russians back. Another Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), was with me in Kharkiv, and we saw the devastation. How quickly the Ukrainians repair it is another marvel: I saw many buildings that had been shot at and blown apart—people had died—and by the next time I went to see them, which was a year later, they were back up and standing. That is a phenomenal testimony to the capability of the Ukrainians to recognise that, despite this terrible war, they have to keep on making efforts to live as natural and normal a life as they can.

President Zelensky has rightly become the signal and the character of the defence. I know there has been a difficult relationship with the White House over his desire to wear fatigues—that strikes me as a rather petty point but, no matter how big they are, some people can be incredibly petty. His whole character, responsibility and defiance in staying in Kyiv, when Russia attacked and was determined to find and kill him, shows the courage of the Ukrainians embodied in one man. We need to support him in difficult times.

We know that Ukraine is not perfect. Which country can put its hand on its heart and say it has never had corruption? Which countries have come out of the Soviet Union and not struggled with corruption? The only way people could exist in a Soviet country was through corruption, because that was how to get things done, because things were so bureaucratic and hopeless and people were not properly paid. The Ukranians are trying to get on top of that. They want to be a democracy, and they want to have freedom and human rights. Even if nothing else had happened, surely it should have been our responsibility to stand by Ukraine in its attempt to get that done. We only have to go back 150 years in this country, and we were riddled with corruption. We changed how we ran things, we changed the civil service code and we changed payments, and we got on top of it for the most part. When we talk about our lack of corruption, it came after a number of years of hardship many years ago in our history. Those who complain about corruption and point the finger should point the finger at themselves, because it is a misunderstanding of history and our obligation to a people who wish to be free. They will one day be utterly free, if we stand with them.

Russia has engaged in appalling war crimes. If people go to the battlefield, they will see what the Russians have been doing. They deliberately target civilians, so that the military will come to try and help them, and then they get a bigger target. The whole nature of warfare has been turned on its head in Ukraine. A soldier who had had his leg blown off told me the other day, “There is no safe space behind the frontline, as there always was before. You have to go miles back before you can even begin to think of putting up some kind of hospital or first aid centre, because those drones fly all day and all night. What they do is hit one soldier and lay them out, dead or alive. Then, as the others run to him, they rain down on them with their explosives.” That is why more than 50,000 people in Ukraine today who have been serving on the frontline need prosthetics.

Ukraine has the most advanced prosthetics laboratories that I have ever seen. They could teach us a thing or two. There is a whole problem with the tourniquet, because it cannot be released. Soldiers cannot get to the wounded soldier lying on the ground, because they know what will happen if they go to them, so the wounded soldier lies, often for an hour or more, with a tourniquet destroying their arm, even though it may be saving their life. They end up with terrible prosthetics requirements into their shoulder blades. Do they moan and complain about that? No, they do not. They sit down technically and work out how to solve it. We have a lot to learn from them, including on the battlefield and how they counter the drones. The Ukranians are way ahead of us, and I hope that the MOD realises that it is not us who can teach them a lesson, but they who can teach us. I spend time trying to bring companies over from Ukraine to give us that technology on drones and all these other areas where we should learn from them.

The other point I want people to learn is that we seem to talk about Ukrainians as though they were capable of little themselves. They had no defence manufacturing capability worth talking about, but today they manufacture more than 50% of their own defence needs. They do it unbelievably efficiently and they do it under regular fire from Russia. I have visited companies in Ukraine where half of the place gets blown up and in about four days they are back manufacturing and fixing things. Those are things that we used to do when we were in the second world war being bombarded. The Ukranians show the same resilience, the same application and the same flexibility.

We must stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukranians because of what they want to be and because it is our responsibility to defend those who seek freedom and democracy as their cause. It is as simple as that. The UK has been the most united over this, and I applaud colleagues from all parts of the House, because we have all stood together. It is noticeable that when we talk to Ukrainians, they always raise that point. The UK is united, and that is the most important point.

I will finish on sanctions. The problem for us is that we have failed to settle our sanctions responsibility to the degree that we should have. There are huge problems over the shadow fleet, as has been mentioned, and over individual sanctions, which we should have been using on a number of occasions. It is remarkable that with the one thing we had complete control over—the sale of Chelsea football club—£2.5 billion has sat there for three years, because we defined the ability to use it so poorly that there is now a dispute as to whether Abramovich’s own companies have a right to use the money, or whether we can seize it. We have to deal with this. If we cannot deal with that one issue, it shows how bad it will be for us in seeking reparations across the board.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Do we think for a moment that Russia would pause seizing any assets it could to fund the conflict? Is it not ironic that the Russians use the rule of law against us, despite the fact that they have no respect for it themselves?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is, of course, a fact that we stand by the rule of law and teach others to do so, but the reality is that this whole problem could be resolved if there was greater resolve—by the way, this is a criticism not just of the present Government but the previous one—in the Foreign Office and the Treasury to leave no stone unturned and resolve this matter by seizing the money.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

They need the will to do so.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The will is non-existent.

I will conclude by simply saying that Ukraine should not be written off. The issue is not whether Ukraine has to make a deal now because it cannot win. Winning, for the Ukrainians, is getting back their land, their rights and their country. It is written into the constitution of Ukraine that the land that Russia occupies is theirs. People talk glibly about handing over territory as a way of resolving the conflict, but this would only lead, as has been said previously, to Russia moving again within a matter of months or years and seizing the rest of Ukraine. Putin does not care about territory; he cares about Ukraine. He believes Ukraine should be part of Russia, and he will never stop. If we show weakness by agreeing to some stupid 28-point plan, which would sell the Ukrainians down the river, Putin would come back. We would walk away and say, “Well, we did our best.” That is not good enough.

I urge the Minister to make it absolutely clear that we do not agree with any of the 28-point plan, which would sell territory for peace. But it would not be peace; it would be a short-term abdication of responsibility that would lead to the death of many millions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I was in Ukraine in September with colleagues from the Labour Benches—I was the lone Liberal in a Government delegation. Against what seemed to be mountainous odds, the Ukrainians have defied a superpower that has unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction. In war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl, but Ukraine and Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival.

Some wish to muddy the waters on this matter. As if it was not clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are, the Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine’s future—its children—who have been swallowed up into re-education camps, where they face psychological torment and indoctrination. It is a process of de-Ukrainianisation, and some estimates say that up to 40,000 children have suffered that fate. This is rancid and wicked; it is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people.

Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight—a glance at any 20th century history book tells us that—but we in the west could have gone harder and faster. Western Governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what weapons systems could be sent; all the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling. Weapons systems that were deemed too provocative and escalation-inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The frontline is a horrifying meat grinder—a graveyard on the very edge of our continent.

It was Churchill who said:

“You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”

Today, Ukraine is on the frontline not by choice, but by the accident of geography. I do not believe Putin will stop at Ukraine; it is Ukraine today, and it will be somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched on our television screens the Russian tanks roll through Georgia. Ask the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; ask the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, both of whom departed from their long-standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask the Poles, who have ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming, and are not prepared to take any chances. This has all come in response to the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre-rattling; anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine’s independence as a provocation—some act of NATO encroachment, or poking the Russian bear. There is a very simple reason for ex-eastern bloc countries tilting west: it is because we are free. We are not societies in which those who criticise the regime go missing—where dissent ends in disappearance.

While many hailed Trump’s return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table, any hints of Russian overtures have thus far been vanishingly hollow. During the furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed, the noises coming out of the White House were particularly troubling; it truly felt as though the President of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery. Branding Ukraine’s elected wartime leader a “dictator” was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of absurdity, and as Washington’s stance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

The problem is that although Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, his stick—or other such euphemistic accoutrement—seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest memorandum, and I remind the Administration in the White House that the United States was also a signatory to that agreement. Among other things, it represented a commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. To rewrite history, or to conveniently forget it, would be to bend to despotism.

Let us not overlook the broader picture, either. Other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience and ability to respond decisively and in a co-ordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts—a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China’s assertiveness around Taiwan or the way it has behaved with Hong Kong has no correlation whatsoever with the war in Ukraine? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy, very close to home indeed—a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital that could serve as a base for nefarious activities on British soil, including espionage, sabotage and coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans.

The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march, and the international order established after 1945 hangs in the balance.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Might the hon. Lady take an intervention?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. It absolutely was front and centre of the strategic defence review. There will be a couple of announcements coming in the next couple of weeks about how we hope to change the narrative and better explain, in a relatable manner, the threats or crises that take place away from our shores and how they impact us here in the UK. A small example, although attribution and where it came from is still to be understood, is the £1.5 billion bail-out for Jaguar Land Rover. That is half the two-child benefit cap for a year. That relatable statistic suddenly hammers it home to individuals in all our constituencies. They may not be focused on international policy, but they understand the ramifications for the way we live here.

Energy prices and the cost of food—one of the biggest impacts on the cost of living—are caused by the war in Ukraine. More people were plunged into poverty across the globe because of the war in Ukraine. We need to make more of a conscious effort, collectively, to describe these threats, and how they resonate here and globally, in a more forceful manner, so that people understand why taking an active stance on some of these conflicts is equally as important not only for the countries involved but for the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex also mentioned, in his fantastic opening speech, NATO and whether we are ready. Another description is required when we talk about the UK and our readiness to defend. We are a part of NATO. Statistically, when we look at the scale of NATO forces available, we see that we outnumber Russia by a significant amount, whether in the air force, maritime or land domain. I agree with his comments about the remarkable unity that Europe and the UK have shown when engaging with the 28-point peace plan—in some cases rejecting it and changing it to ensure that Ukraine is at its very centre. European and UK leadership has been second to none in that space.

One subject that has resonated across the House today is the issue of the abducted children. My hon. Friend the Members for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who could not make it here today, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have all mentioned the impact on families and children in particular. This is not new. It is part of Russian doctrine. It was used in Afghanistan. In every conflict, they round up the children, move them to Russia for re-education and indoctrination, then bring them back. We are seeing an appalling abduction of Ukrainian citizens by Russia on a scale that is described by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab as the largest wartime child abduction since world war two. It is absolutely shocking and despicable.

The UK has raised this issue at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South in highlighting the OSCE officials in Russian custody: Dmytro Shabanov, Maxim Petrov and Vadym Golda. We have committed £2.8 million to help Ukrainian children come back, and have been an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children throughout. Since the beginning of September, the pilot tracing mechanism has already identified over 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within the temporarily occupied territories.

I agree with the view that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) holds of Zelensky. His leadership, courage, determination and conviction are an example to not only the Ukrainians but the world of how a state that in some ways is dwarfed by Russia has stood up against one of the biggest militaries in the world. I also agree, being relatively self-critical of the west, about there being some institutional arrogance when it comes to defence technology. That links to the point made about Ukrspecsystems. There are false lessons from Ukraine, but there are many more real ones that we need to adhere to, learn and integrate into our armed forces—in particular, about the integration of uncrewed systems data and electronic warfare. This point will be made throughout the defence investment plan. To be clear, we did not agree with the 28-point peace plan, and have worked very hard to change it, to put Ukraine at the very centre of it, and to look at what is acceptable. I hope to discuss some of the implications of that later.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) brought up a really good point about unexploded ordnance and the use of landmines in the conflict. There are millions of landmines, now rendering large swathes of Ukraine inaccessible to the farmers or families who once owned the land. It will be a generational problem to solve, and one that Members from all parties will need to deal with collectively.

From my perspective, our support for Ukraine is unshakeable. I say to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) that, from my perspective, we are doing the most we can to support Ukraine. We are spending £4.5 billion on military support to Ukraine. We are leading the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has already delivered and harnessed £50 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. To make that more tangible, that is 5 million rounds of ammunition, ranging from 60,000 rounds of artillery all the way through to 100,000 drones this year alone and 140 lightweight missiles. There is much more to do. The defence industry is powering up across Europe. If we look at our defence industrial base, and our societal resilience in dealing with this conflict, I think we can see that we are waking the sleeping tiger in Europe.

I also think that the constant threats and hyperbole from Vladimir Putin are a direct consequence of significant pressure, and of him having to live with the moral indignation of being responsible for over 1 million casualties and the devastation of large swathes of Ukraine. Like the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, I personally do not think that there is division in the UK; we are unified across the parties. I do not think that there is division in Europe, particularly among the large players in this space. I believe that we have unity when it comes to the 28-point peace plan and putting Ukraine at the very centre of that negotiation. Ukraine must keep fighting, and the UK will be with it throughout.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Llanelli, and many others mentioned frozen assets. We support the continued pressure on the Russian assets that are fuelling this illegal and barbaric war across Ukraine, and the pressure on Russia’s economic tentacles, but we must put increased pressure on Russia. It is worth noting that we have clamped down on Russia’s war machine and economic support mechanism. We have already sanctioned over 2,900 people and companies, and with our allies, we have already put in place £450 billion-worth of sanctions, which is the equivalent of two years of fighting.

We are moving forward with plans to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We welcome the European Commission’s action just this week to bring forward concrete plans to meet Ukraine’s urgent financial needs—plans that will support the defence of the nation. I look forward to hearing more detail on that, hopefully by the end of this year.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to raise a point that I have just been told about. There is a debate right now in the Bundestag about the sanctions regime, and the German Chancellor Herr Merz has given up other visits in the last 24 hours to go to Belgium to persuade the Belgians to agree to proposals on sanctions. There is pressure around this. I have just been asked to ask the Minister whether he would say that this is a very worth- while visit, and that the British Government support the intention of getting Belgium to enter into the scheme with the lion’s share of the Euroclear funds. That would make an enormous difference to support for Ukraine.

[Al Carns]

I was in Germany just last week, and when I left, I muttered, “Germany is back.” I think that representatives from Germany going to Belgium to help unlock a significant amount of resource for Ukraine can be nothing but a good thing.

Many Members mentioned the increase in hybrid conflict. The conventional war that Russia is waging is the most barbaric that we have seen since, I would argue, world war one or world war two. Nevertheless, Europe and the west must accept that this attritional, force-on-force, game-of-chequers approach is accompanied by a sophisticated chess match, the consequences of which are as deadly. I believe that Russia is probing to find weaknesses in our security and critical national infrastructure. It is manoeuvring and flanking to change opinions, both on social media and in political parties, and is seeking to circumnavigate sanctions at every opportunity, and it is doing so with like-minded autocratic regimes. We must work doubly hard to identify, expose and deter those threats, and we should have the capability to defeat them, should they prevail.

I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) about timidity and a lack of leadership. In the foreign policy space, the UK, in conjunction with our European allies, has helped the Americans come to a more workable solution, and the Ukrainians have been put right at the heart of that—and I think that the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership in that. We are still seen to be leading this fight. I look to the Conservative Benches. Whether it be Storm Shadow or Challenger, collectively we have led on this, from a UK perspective. I do not think that we are lacking in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Within the last few minutes, I read that President Zelensky is on a state visit to Dublin, but his arriving plane was buzzed by four mysterious military-grade drones. That is what we are up against, and there is not sufficient awareness of that. The fact that this Chamber is sparsely populated this afternoon suggests that this whole debate is yet to get into the mainstream of our politics and our national discourse. I emphasise again that the Government have yet to deliver the national conversation that they promised in their strategic defence review. I recognise the efforts that people in the defence community are making, and that includes Ministers, but involving the whole of Government, the whole of the Opposition and the whole of politics is what is required.

I hoped that this debate would demonstrate the unity across the House that has indeed been shown today. I thank every colleague, from every part of the House, for their contribution, and all those who signed the motion who could not be here today. The motion was intended to be a clear statement of our national intent. I imagine that it will go through without a vote, so that the signal will be sent to the world about what this country believes, and what it believes must be done. But I come back to the point that we need to underline our will and signal the force of our intent if we are to achieve what we want to achieve, and to lead our allies from the front. I believe that the United Kingdom is capable of doing that, and is to some extent doing its best to achieve it, but also that other countries are looking to us to take a stronger lead and set the best example, in line with the achievements of our history and our values. I am very grateful that this debate has taken place, and it has been an honour to lead it.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You sit in the Chair and are not allowed to speak, so many in the House may not realise your role in all this. You have visited Ukraine with me and others, and you have been a stalwart champion of all that we have been debating today, so I wanted to make sure that the House recognised the incredible attention and support that you have given.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members here for speaking in support of Ukraine, and for making such important speeches.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is now in its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Member makes an interesting point. I want to be clear and concise: of all days, today is a day of remembrance and is not about political point scoring. There is a debate scheduled on Thursday when we can discuss the issue in detail. I would very much welcome a discussion with the individuals who sent the letter, as would the Defence Secretary and others, to talk through the issues, to provide balance to the argument, to ensure that we protect our country and our armed forces from lawfare, and to ensure that they are represented and their voices heard.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I want to return to the point about commemoration. Having served before, I remember that when I got elected back in 1992, we were not allowed to wear uniforms in public because of the IRA threat at the time, and bit by bit commemorations were no longer attended. I remember my first commemoration in Chingford; we were lucky if 100 people turned out. May I say that that has been reversed? One good example is that on Sunday at the memorial in Chingford, nearly 2,000 people turned up to commemorate those who have fallen and those who went before. Is that not a very good example of how the next generation sometimes understands commemoration better than my generation did?

[Al Carns]

What a welcome intervention. I was stood with veterans during the Cenotaph march-past; it always astounds me that we stand there with 10,000 people, and as the guns fire, there is complete silence in one of the busiest capitals in the world. It is a sombre but hugely humble experience. It is an absolute pleasure to see and hear all the amazing stories of almost every constituency around this great nation, standing together united to celebrate those individuals who served or are serving, their families and the bereaved.

While we often focus on the individuals who have been lost, we must remember those who have been left behind—the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the partners, the wives and the husbands who, after one of those traumatic events, all need to adapt to a new way of life. We need to remember them all and acknowledge that while their loved ones perhaps paid the ultimate sacrifice, it is not just the individual who serves, but the whole family—and they often suffer in silence long after the event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a privilege to open this debate for His Majesty’s Opposition on 11 November, Armistice Day—a date on which the nation pauses and gives thanks for the sacrifice of our armed forces so that we can live in a free country.

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I endorse his comments about the value of our armed forces and the vital role they play in the nation’s contribution to remembrance. We all thank them for their service. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the operational role of our armed forces, which remain as vigilant as ever around the clock to keep us safe in the 21st century. Nevertheless, perhaps he will forgive me if in my contribution I too take something of a historical perspective on the vital role that our armed forces have played in the defence of our nation down the years.

I was privileged to attend the Royal British Legion festival of remembrance last Saturday evening, which remains as moving an occasion as when I first attended as an MOD Minister over a decade ago. I pay tribute to the extremely valuable role that the Royal British Legion plays in both shaping our whole concept of remembrance and in supporting our veterans, some 2 million or so of whom are still living today. As well as the national commemorations, including those at the Cenotaph, the Royal British Legion, often supported by local armed forces personnel, plays a vital role in organising services at a community level in all our constituencies, up and down the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

In my experience, every community tends to do remembrance slightly differently to account for local circumstances, but each ceremony has common elements with which we are all familiar: the emotive playing of the “Last Post”, the two-minute silence and, usually, the famous epitaph from the 2nd Infantry Division memorial—universally known as the Kohima epitaph—with those famous and stirring words:

“When you go home, tell them of us and say,

For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”

The battle of Kohima, brilliantly described in Field Marshal the Viscount Slim’s 1956 book, “Defeat into Victory”—arguably one of the best books ever written on the whole concept of generalship—was a classic example of a dogged defence by British and, crucially, Commonwealth forces in stopping the attempted Japanese advance into India in mid-1944. Indeed, the dogged, stubborn defence—often against superior odds—is a recurrent feature of British military tradition: including the English archers at Agincourt; the great siege of Gibraltar; Wellington’s army at Waterloo; the 24th Foot at Rorke’s Drift, which saw 11 Victoria Crosses awarded, the most ever awarded in a single action; “the few” of Fighter Command in the battle of Britain, to whom the Minister also referred; the Royal Navy escorting the Atlantic convoys; the Glorious Glosters at the Imjin river in Korea; and many more besides, including more recently in the middle east.

There are, of course, many comparable examples from the first world war, not least the stand of the British Expeditionary Force at Mons and the subsequent first battle of Ypres. Anyone who has stood at the Menin Gate when the buglers of the Ypres fire brigade play the “Last Post”, as it swirls around that famous arch, knows that it is a truly moving and emotive ceremony to behold.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend has mentioned Bill Slim, who many who know history will say was probably the greatest allied general of the war—it was brilliant what he achieved with next to nothing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was something very special about the 14th Army, which comes out in other accounts? Apart from just fighting, there were both Indian and British members of the 14th. They served in the same slit trenches and ran to aid each other; regardless of race or anything else, they delivered for each other. The most remarkable bit of the story of the 14th was that it did not matter who they were or where they came from, they were as one against the tyranny of the Japanese.

[Mr Francois]

I completely agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend—the history of the 14th Army is a proud one. It was a marvellous amalgam, under a brilliant leader, of people from countries and races from around the entire Commonwealth who fought with one common aim: freedom. They were sometimes called the forgotten army, but they are not forgotten tonight.

After the horrors of the trenches and an understandable aversion to war in the 1920s, with Britain exhausted—both financially and emotionally—by the horrors of the great war, the Government of the day introduced what came to be known as the 10-year rule. This was not just the policy of the War Office or the Admiralty, as they then were; it was a pan-Whitehall edict, the essence of which was that Britain would not have to fight another major war for at least 10 years. This key planning assumption became the centrepiece of British strategic theory and, with strong endorsement from the Treasury, the 10-year rule soon became a rolling one, extended on an annual basis. Given that no war was expected for at least a decade, this allowed for major economies in the financing of the armed forces and an associated running-down of all three services. As one example of how seriously the 10-year rule was taken and implemented, even Winston Churchill during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s exerted pressure to cut back on his beloved Royal Navy—the same service he had fought tenaciously to expand as First Lord of the Admiralty barely a decade before.

Indeed, as a mood of pacifism gripped the nation, in 1933—the same year in which Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany—the earnest students of the Oxford Union, who are having their own problems at the moment, passed a motion by a majority of over two to one that

“this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country”.

The subsequent policy of appeasement from the 1930s British establishment—the blob of their day—was as erroneous then as it would be today. Authoritarian dictators tend to admire strength, particularly their own, and despise weakness—a lesson that any British Government, including this one, would do well to remember. History tells us again and again that the appeasement of dictators does not work, just as it failed to work in the 1930s

The 10-year rule, which by that stage had lasted well over a decade, was eventually rescinded in 1935-36 as Britain began to rearm in response to Hitler’s increasingly bellicose behaviour. Nevertheless, that rearmament, and comparable action by our allies, was ultimately insufficient to deter what then became the second world war—a brutal conflict in which over 50 million people died, far more even than had perished in the supposed war to end all wars some two decades before.

I mention all this not just because I studied history and then military history at university, but because if—as Members of this House believe, and as I have always believed—the ultimate goal of our armed forces is to save lives by deterring war and persuading any potential aggressor that they could not prevail, then even today we all need to ask ourselves, regardless of party, whether we are doing enough to secure the peace by maintaining sufficiently strong armed forces to provide such a vital deterrent effect. It is a historical fact that twice in the last century, this country paid an immense cost in both blood and treasure to defeat militarism.

Today, the threats are somewhat different, with a war on our doorstep in Europe following Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are in effect now fighting for our freedom too, and we must back them to the hilt as a result. We also see a major rearmament by China; North Korea continues to develop even longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, now with support from Russia; and Iran continues to exert malign influence across the middle east, even after the successful American strike on its emerging nuclear capabilities. The circumstances may have changed, but the principle remains exactly the same. We in the western democracies cannot drop our guard against the growing powers of the 21st-century autocracies—something that those who fought in the second world war would instinctively understand only too well.

Bearing in mind the Minister’s caution, I was genuinely concerned to read one passage of the Government’s recent strategic defence review—its seminal defence policy document. On page 43, under the heading “Transforming UK Warfighting”, it states:

“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”

I say to the Minister in all sincerity that that seems to contain an echo of the 10-year rule of the 1920s. While there was a great deal of good in the SDR, not least the intention to speed up our highly bureaucratic procurement system—about which I have always held firm views, as the Minister knows—I nevertheless worry, given increasing threats from Russia and now also from China, about whether the Ministry of Defence today displays the genuine sense of urgency that is required to meet the challenges we now all clearly face. Before I am accused of selective quoting, the same paragraph of the SDR goes on to say:

“This vision could be achieved more quickly should circumstances demand it and should more resources be made available.”

Notwithstanding those words, with much of the new money in the SDR unavailable for at least two years and a multibillion-pound programme of in-year efficiency savings now under way, I merely ask whether we have really learned the lessons of the past century as well as we might have.

In conclusion, we in these islands have always ultimately been prepared to make great sacrifices to uphold the freedom of Europe, and indeed of the wider world. That is why, given our history, we should never forget that the first duty of Government remains the defence of the realm. In response to the philosopher Edmund Burke’s famous challenge that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, twice in the past century our own good men and women across the nation stood up to and defeated such evil, with our armed forces in the lead. Rightfully, we solemnly remember that sacrifice each and every November, including in this House tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The west midlands has a very proud tradition of being at the heart of British invention and engineering, and it has huge potential for the future of defence engineering and invention. In the last year, the Ministry of Defence has spent £1.7 billion directly into the region, which is the highest level for the last 10 years. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), met with the Mayor of the West Midlands just last week to discuss what other opportunities there may be for firms such as that and areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) in the west midlands.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, I have brought a company over from Ukraine to show us what it can do with drones. Us getting hold of that technology from Ukraine helps us to supply Ukraine, as well as ourselves. However, the key issue I want to ask about is that of rare earth minerals. They are normally discussed in a business context, but they are critical to the defence of the United Kingdom, and having a supply here in this country, directly owned by us, must surely be a critical issue. Has the Secretary of State looked at this issue, talked to his colleagues in Government and said, “We need a supply that we produce in our own country and use here”?

[John Healey]

The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that that we are doing so with close allies. We are also doing so with Ukraine. The right hon. Gentleman has been one of the voices in this House that has pushed us to do more with Ukrainian industry, and I know he will welcome our groundbreaking agreement with Ukraine, through which it will share for the first time with another country its intellectual property for the critical interceptor drone called Octopus. We will develop that further, manufacture those drones at scale within weeks and months, and return thousands to Ukraine to help its fight against Putin.

Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He will know that I am passionate about the need for us to increase our uncrewed systems portfolio. We have already committed, in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, to create an uncrewed centre of excellence. That will help us to rewrite our doctrine and concept, but also to integrate drones back into the military and ensure we have a high-low mix of fifth and sixth generation capability, massed with low-end uncrewed systems. Every night, night on night, we have seen an increase in drone attacks on Kyiv and other cities, from Dnipro to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and back again. They are increasing on an unprecedented scale. Some could argue that Putin has been emboldened recently, but we are seeing an increase and we must do everything we possibly can to support the Ukrainians.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so.

May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears. Also, European nations must be told that they cannot buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for his stalwart support on both defence and foreign affairs. Our sanctions programme has been pretty impressive to date. I can almost guarantee that when the US President comes over, there will be discussions on a whole range of topics and that Ukraine will probably be central, alongside other issues within the UK.

Imposing a penalty on Russia is exactly what we have done in a bipartisan way. When the previous Government were in office, we led the way on equipment going into Ukraine. We are continuing to do that. We have seen a huge uplift in the amount of resources going to Ukraine, financially and in terms of weapons, but also, importantly, in industrial build across Europe. That is not just in the UK, but across all our European nations. Industry is required to maintain the pace and scale of the conflict, which I think has caught people out in the past.