Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(3 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Yesterday marked a milestone that none of us wanted to see: four years of Putin’s war on Ukraine; four years of his brutal full-scale invasion of that sovereign nation, a proud country that has fought back against Putin’s attacks and—let us not forget—suffered 12 years under the pain of occupation. This week we stand with the families mourning loved ones, the troops fighting on the frontline and the millions displaced from home, yearning for the opportunity to return.
Four years ago today, a dozen Ukrainian border guards on Snake island—a tiny, isolated island in the middle of the Black sea—were surrounded by Russian sea and air forces. When the Russians radioed to demand their surrender, the Ukrainians told the ship’s command to get lost—in fact, they told them so in stronger terms that I cannot repeat in the House this afternoon. That defiance has driven Ukrainian resistance to Russia every day of the conflict since.
That defiance burned fiercely in Kyiv last month when I met emergency workers, military chiefs, Ukrainian Ministers and President Zelensky himself, because Ukrainians—civilians and military alike—are still fighting with the same courage and determination that inspired the world in February 2022.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I am sorry that this intervention is so early, but I just wanted to reflect that I was in Kyiv at the same time as the Secretary of State, and I thank him for his visit. We were there at the same time to see the apartment block where emergency responders were hit with a double-tap strike—that is, they had gone to respond and to rescue those affected, and then they too were hit. The Secretary of State is aware of the desperate need for air defence missiles and the lack of Patriots going in. I know he will address this. Can he say whether that is being raised with the utmost urgency? We need to defend Ukraine’s skies.
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his visit to Kyiv. The fact that Members across the House have been regularly to Ukraine lifts the morale of the Ukrainian people and reminds them that the UK stands with them as strongly now as four years ago.
The hon. Gentleman is right. The night before I arrived in Kyiv, 90 Shahed drones had hit the city, 21 of which had been targeted directly at residential accommodation. The block that he and I both visited, which had had its side ripped open by one of the drone strikes, had been hit twice, an hour and a half apart, deliberately, so that the emergency workers who had gone in to help those suffering after the first strike were then hit and, in one case, killed by the second. This is an indication of cynical and illegal tactics and the war crimes that Putin is committing in Ukraine. It reminds us that we must redouble our determination to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
I will move on to the question of air defence later, but the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is quite right: he and I were both told, when out in Kyiv last month, that it is President Zelenksy’s first priority. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, when I chaired the Ukraine Defence Contact Group at NATO headquarters two weeks ago, I announced that Britain was committing an extra £500 million package of air defence systems and missiles in order to meet the urgent need that he and I both saw that day.
President Putin postures as a strongman. He wants the world to believe that Russia has unstoppable momentum on the battlefield, that the Ukrainians have no choice but to concede on his terms, and that we, as Ukraine’s western allies, have grown weary. But he is wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a war that Putin thought he would win in a week, but four years on, he has achieved none of his strategic aims. Instead, he has inflicted terrible suffering on his own people, as well as Ukraine’s. He is failing.
Of course, Ukrainian troops are certainly under pressure on the frontline, but Russia has now been fighting in Ukraine for longer than the Soviet Union fought Germany during the second world war, its forces are advancing more slowly than those in the battle of the Somme, and nearly one and a quarter million Russians have been injured or killed. The average casualty rate for Russian troops is now 1,000 each day, every day, and the average life expectancy of a conscript deployed to the Russian frontline is now less than five days.
Putin is desperate to avoid a second Russian mobilisation, and because of that he is turning to more desperate measures to plug the gaps. He is increasingly heavily reliant on foreign fighters. He has already called on 17,000 North Koreans, who are fighting for him on his frontline, and he is now preying on thousands of men from Latin America, central Asia and Africa, sending them to their deaths on his frontline.
But Putin’s war machine continues to be degraded, and his war economy continues to be damaged. In Russia, 40% of Government spending now goes on the military. Manufacturing is falling at its fastest rate, oil revenues are plunging and food prices are soaring. Make no mistake: Putin is under pressure. He targets Ukrainian cities, civilians and energy supplies and, during the coldest winter for a decade, he has killed Ukrainian children in their beds, destroyed hospital wards and plunged entire cities into darkness.
For 2026, the Government’s mission—Britain’s mission—for Ukraine is simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow, and step up the pressure on Putin.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not know whether President Putin follows these debates, but I would like him to know that the Secretary of State speaks for our entire nation. We are completely united on this. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that we are equally robust on not having any ceasefire on the basis that currently unoccupied territory is ceded? That would be an absolute disaster and would simply encouraged Putin to go further. It is very important that our adversaries know that the House is completely united on this.
John Healey
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As Father of the House, he is able to speak for the House and for all sides, and he speaks for our nation.
On supporting Ukraine’s fight today, spending on military assistance is at its highest ever level this year. Two weeks ago, I convened and chaired the 33rd meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group, alongside the German Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius. We worked to make the meeting a big UDCG with big commitments for 2026. For the UK’s part, I announced a new package, worth half a billion pounds, of urgent air defence support, which, as I said to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), is President Zelensky’s top priority. In total, the UDCG raised nearly $40 billion in new pledges of aid for Ukraine. The Ukrainians there called it the best UDCG yet. It also sent the clear message to Moscow that we are more united and more determined than ever to support Ukraine.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has been a steadfast champion of this country’s support for Ukraine, alongside his predecessors—the country is indeed united. Will he pay tribute to those in our defence industry, including in my constituency, who have been manufacturing the Storm Shadow missiles that have been used on the frontline in Ukraine, and to all the other support they will give in future?
John Healey
I will indeed. We are proud of our British defence industry. It equips our armed forces, it has helped to equip the Ukrainians and it has helped to provide the essential aid to keep the Ukrainians in the fight for the last four years, and my hon. Friend’s constituents who work at MBDA in Stevenage are playing a really important part in that. Ukraine reminds us of a deep lesson that we had overlooked for too long, which is that when a country is forced to fight or faced with conflict, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. We take great pride, on all sides of the House, in the great innovation of British industry and in what its workers are able to do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioning Storm Shadow reminds me of the fact that, particularly in the early days of the conflict, there was resistance, often from the other side of the Atlantic, to supplying Ukraine with some of the longer-range missile systems that are necessary to inflict pain on Russia in its centre. Now that President Trump’s contribution has been reduced to supplying weapons that the Europeans have to pay for before they can go to Ukraine, do we have greater freedom to supply longer-range, more effective weapons to Ukraine, or are we still somewhat beholden to the wishes of people on the other side of the Atlantic?
John Healey
The principle on which we have donated British-made weapons to Ukraine has been consistently for the defence of Ukraine. That is how Ukraine has been using them, and using them effectively.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the tone of the Secretary of State’s speech and offer him my wholehearted support. Will he say a little more about the valuable work under way in our tech industry on defence technology and how he is modernising procurement to encourage those vital companies to come forward?
John Healey
I know that my hon. Friend has some advanced defence tech firms in his patch. There are things we can do in this country that are valuable to Ukraine, and I will come on to a particular joint programme we have with Ukraine in a moment, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that the Ukrainians have the most creative, combat-experienced defence industry and armed forces in the world at present, and we also have a great deal to learn. It is important that we are able to welcome Ukrainian firms that wish to set up new factories and plants in the United Kingdom. I know that the shadow Defence Secretary has welcomed such a Ukrainian company into his constituency—it is set to open this week, I hope.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On the subject of tech, the Defence Secretary may be aware of NP Aerospace of Coventry, which, among other things, manufactures body armour. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Ministry of Defence is at the moment purchasing body armour that is fitted to the female form—not for the British Army but for Ukraine. That is perfectly fine, but will he ensure that the British Army, too, puts out a statement of requirement for body armour for women, since it would be inappropriate if, at some point in the future, British servicewomen found themselves serving side by side with Ukrainian servicewomen without having the high-tech body armour that the Ukrainian servicewomen have? Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to declare an interest as the father of two servicewomen.
John Healey
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s two daughters for serving this country. Secondly, I hope that he was able to visit that Coventry firm’s exhibition in this House yesterday to see for himself what it produces. Thirdly, I hope he agrees—I think he does, by his intervention—that first and foremost our duty is to support Ukraine, but I am very conscious of his broader point. We procure for Ukraine and we learn lessons. We need to ensure that our own forces are equally well equipped for the future.
On securing the peace for tomorrow, we all welcome the US leading the push for peace, and no one welcomes those efforts more than Ukraine. When the peace comes, which we all hope to see this year, Britain will be ready to help secure that peace for the long term. I am proud to serve in a British Cabinet under a Prime Minister who was the very first world leader to commit troops on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. Following the Paris summit that he co-chaired last month, the work of the coalition of the willing is more advanced now than ever. Yesterday, he chaired a meeting of 36 coalition leaders, who confirmed that Ukraine can go into 2026 confident in the knowledge that when the war ends it will have security guarantees, a big prosperity agreement and a path to EU membership.
The coalition of the willing’s multinational force for Ukraine will deploy when peace is agreed to secure Ukraine’s skies and seas and to regenerate its armed forces for the future. Both the British Army and the Royal Air Force are now conducting exercises in preparation, and I have already accelerated £200 million to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to deploy.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
When will this House see the force structure of the British component of Multinational Force Ukraine so that we can properly scrutinise it?
John Healey
The detail of the structure and the deployment will become clear and depend on the context and detail of the peace agreement. In the context of a decision to deploy, the Prime Minister has said that the House will have the chance to debate and vote on that deployment, and I suspect that we will be able to set out the detail at that point. The hon. Member and other experts in the House will then have the chance to examine and debate it and, I trust, give it their approval so that any British forces will be deployed into Ukraine in the context of a peace deal with all-party support.
There is no more serious a decision for any Defence Secretary or any Government than committing our armed forces on operations, but I want to be the Defence Secretary who deploys British troops to Ukraine, because that will mean that we will have a negotiated peace and that the war will finally be over. Britain has been united for Ukraine from day one. The House, as the Father of the House said, has been united for Ukraine from day one.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall this week is called “Voices from Ukraine”. It is a collaboration between my constituent, the sculptor Stephen Duncan, and celebrated Ukrainian sculptors Oles Sydoruk, who is serving on the frontline in Ukraine, and Borys Krylov. It is an extremely moving set of meditations on both the horror of the conflict and the resilience of Ukrainian people and their identity, which Putin is so viciously seeking to erase. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those talented and courageous artists in recognising the value of the arts and culture in how societies come to terms with difficult conflicts and trauma, and encourage all hon. Members across the House to go and view that important work this week?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is to be applauded for having sponsored the exhibition. I am delighted that she could tell the House about it this afternoon. I pay tribute to her and to the artists for what they are doing and how they are conveying the experience of their countrymen and women to wider audiences.
I will go one better: because the debate started rather earlier than we might have expected, I will join my hon. Friend at the exhibition before it finishes at 5 o’clock this afternoon, and I encourage all other hon. Members from both sides of the House to do the same.
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that wider question, because I speak as Defence Secretary but also with pride about the warmth, the welcome and the solidarity of the British people. Four years ago, British people started to open their homes to Ukrainians, and Britain welcomed 170,000 Ukrainians into our own homes. Many are still with those same families. Community, charity, faith and trade union groups have all raised funds or collected supplies, and often driven those supplies out to Ukraine. Our defence industrial links, which several hon. Members from all sides have raised this afternoon, continue to deepen, and we will soon start to jointly produce, in the UK, the new Ukrainian Octopus interceptor drones.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
A number of Members have drawn attention to manufacturers in their constituencies. I pay tribute to Chess Dynamics in my constituency of Horsham, which designs and builds world-leading tracking devices—they are absolutely state of the art.
I too was in Ukraine last year and, in addition to our support, I was struck by the solidarity of the Ukrainian people and their commitment to the war—despite comments to the contrary. Does the Minister agree that, ironically, in trying to destroy Ukraine, Putin has achieved the building of a fantastic new national identity?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right, first, about the outstanding firm in his Horsham constituency and, secondly, about the impact of Putin on Ukraine. It has not built a new sense of national identity because that was strong before Putin’s invasion—as I said, Ukrainians have suffered and fought occupation by Russian forces for 12 years—but it has deeply strengthened that identity and the determination that Ukraine will remain a sovereign nation in future. Whatever briefings Putin gets in the Kremlin, he is being misled to think that he is winning. He is failing, and it is our job, with other allies, to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Part of that is the military aid that this country has been providing to Ukraine, but it is also action on other fronts. The Government have frozen nearly £30 billion of Russian assets in the UK and imposed over 3,000 sanctions on Russian individuals, organisations and ships, including a package of 300 new sanctions announced yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. We know that Russia’s vast shadow fleet bankrolls much of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and sanctions by the UK and our partners have already forced around 200 ships to anchor out of use. We have seen the impact on Russian oil reserves, which fell by a quarter last year, but we need to do more and shift up a gear, with our militaries playing a greater role. That work has begun.
The UK has already supported both the US and France in conducting maritime interceptions. At the Munich Security Conference, I chaired a meeting of the joint expeditionary force nations, with Defence Ministers brought together to discuss conducting further operations against shadow shipping vessels. Today, I confirm that the MOD is now leading a new joint operational taskforce to advance those plans.
After four years, weariness with the war would be understandable, but in Britain our solidarity endures. It is a solidarity grounded both in deep respect for Ukrainian courage and in clear recognition that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine. The British people understand that the cost of conflict always outweighs the price of preventing war. Four years ago, Putin’s invasion sent inflation into double digits; indeed, our energy prices are still 40% higher and our food prices are still 30% higher, as we all daily pay the price of this war.
The British people also know that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop in Ukraine. They see the Ukrainians fighting for the same values that past generations in Britain have fought for: the right of a free people to decide their own country’s future. Like the Father of the House, I am proud that Britain remains united for Ukraine, I am proud that President Zelensky calls us one of his very closest allies and I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine, started under the previous Government and stepped up further under ours.
Let me end where I began, by paying tribute to the people of Ukraine. Four years ago, we all remember those expert commentators largely being in agreement: Kyiv would be captured, Zelensky would flee, the Ukrainian command would collapse and a pro-Russian regime would be installed while the world watched on. If this war has taught us anything, it is never to underestimate the will of the Ukrainian people. They remain outnumbered and outmatched in every domain, and yet they have recently retaken territory, they continue to strike deep into Russia and, in some parts of the frontline, over 25 Russians have been killed for every Ukrainian life lost.
After four years of this brutal Russian aggression, of unbreakable Ukrainian courage and of enduring solidarity with those who stand with them, this must be the year that peace is agreed. Our UK promise to Ukraine is this: we will keep up the pressure on Putin; we will stand by and support the Ukrainian armed forces; and when peace comes, we will help secure it and ensure that it lasts.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This is a critical time for Ukraine. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the war, the UK must continue to proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Four years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict—the innocent civilians, the families of brave servicemen and women, the Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, all those who have suffered life-changing injuries and those who have lost their homes.
At the start of this conflict, the then Conservative Government led by Boris Johnson, with cross-party support in this House, rallied the world behind Ukraine. We supplied weapons, provided humanitarian aid, championed their cause and opened our homes to those fleeing Putin’s brutality. We must never forget that this war was started by Vladimir Putin, supported by an axis of authoritarian states seeking to extinguish democracy on our continent. Russia’s increasing reliance on Iranian drones and weaponry underlines that this conflict is no longer confined to one border; it is part of a wider alignment of regimes determined to undermine the rules-based international order. We must remain united in defending shared values and the principle that aggressors should never succeed. It is crucial that there is a clear united front in support of Ukraine.
Recent Russian attacks including those on Kyiv, which last year also damaged a British Council building, underline why the UK and our allies must urgently deliver the military support that Ukraine needs. Putin still aims to subjugate Ukraine; the Euro-Atlantic alliance must ensure that he fears the consequences. Russia’s response to recent ceasefire proposals shows why the west must remain resolute. Britain and our allies must continue maximum pressure on the Kremlin while supporting Ukraine on the battlefield. As always, it is ultimately for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation to decide its own future. Any settlement must secure justice and lasting peace for its people. Territorial concessions would reward aggression. Putin has shown repeatedly that he is not serious about peace, and Britain must lead the way on sanctions and international pressure.
I am fortunate to have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I look forward to returning again soon. I am conscious that not just Front-Bench colleagues but many colleagues from across this House and the other place have travelled to Ukraine, and it is such a strong and clear symbol of our unwavering support. For me personally, each visit has left a deep and lasting impression. I remember standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea platform in 2021, reaffirming the UK’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, when I returned to Ukraine in 2023, it was a different country—a country living with the daily realities of war. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones, yet their resolve was, and still is, undiminished. That spirt—defiant, democratic and determined—must guide our response in this House.
One of the gravest crimes committed during this war is the abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children, which I know hon. Members from across the House take incredibly seriously. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and communities, transferred to Russia, or Russian-occupied territory, stripped of their identity, subjected to so-called re-education and, in many cases, illegally adopted. This is not an unintended consequence of war; it is a deliberate policy designed to erase Ukraine’s future. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants in response to these crimes, but words and warrants alone are not enough. In summing up, will the Minister set out what concrete steps the Government are taking, with allies and international partners, to secure the return of those children, and to ensure that those responsible are pursued without delay or hesitation?
John Healey
I am really impressed and pleased that the right hon. Lady has laid such stress on Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children and his attempt to brainwash them, about which there are strong sentiments from Members of all parties. Will she recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) is in Ukraine at the moment, and has just been presented with the Ukrainian Order of Merit for her work on exactly this concern?
Wendy Morton
If I am honest, I did not appreciate that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had just received that award and that recognition, but it is absolutely fitting. It demonstrates to the people who badmouth hon. Members and say that we do nothing that there are many good people in this place. She deserves that honour. I know many other hon. Members are very committed to Ukraine; a number of them are in Ukraine or on their way back. Some of them may even be heading to this Chamber—only time will tell. It is unusual for a shadow Minister to take an intervention from the Secretary of State, but I am pleased that he brought this important matter to our attention.
Starting under the last Conservative Government, the UK’s support has been world-leading. It has given £3 billion per year in military aid since 2024, £12 billion in total, including humanitarian assistance, and advanced weapons, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 tanks. Operation Interflex has trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil. We hosted the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference, raising over $60 billion towards reconstruction. The 100-year partnership, negotiations on which commenced under the Conservative Government, demonstrates our shared commitment to enduring co-operation on trade, security, education, science and culture.
We know that sanctions work. We also know that Russia’s economy is under severe strain. That pressure must continue, including targeted pressure on refineries in China, Turkey and India that are buying Russian oil. Mobilising frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine’s war effort is crucial. The £2.26 billion UK loan from immobilised Russian assets is welcome, but more must be done, and needs to be done immediately. What further progress has been made on unlocking additional Russian assets, and why has more decisive action not yet been taken? The UK should lead on innovative, legal solutions with our allies and the City of London, to make more resources available to Ukraine right now.
Like us, the United States has been deeply invested in this conflict. American security is tied to Ukraine’s survival, and US military support has been indispensable. How are the Government ensuring close co-ordination with the US and other NATO allies on military aid, sanctions, and strategic support?
Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the debate, and I thank Ministers for making time for it. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I wanted to respond to it together rather than delegating the task to others, in order to underline the importance that we attach to the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine. This has also given us the opportunity to draw some lessons, as my right hon. Friend did earlier, from our visit to Ukraine last week. Like my right hon. Friend, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his help in facilitating that visit. We would be grateful if the Deputy Foreign Secretary passed on our thanks.
While my right hon. Friend and I were in Irpin, we met three Ukrainian teenagers. We talked about their families and friends, about possible careers and about their hopes for the future—but these young people had been through something so horrific that it belongs in the 1940s. After Putin’s full-scale invasion began, they were kidnapped and sent to camps in Crimea and Russia. Every morning they had to sing the Russian national anthem, and they were sent into isolation if they did not do as they were told. One, a diabetic, was refused insulin and became very sick. Those who were running the Russian camps told those Ukrainian children, “No one cares about you”, “Your families are dead”, and “Ukraine no longer exists”. I want to praise the work of the Ukrainian charity Save Ukraine, which is doing vital work to rescue the stolen children, reunite them with their families and help the survivors to deal with their trauma.
Despite those young people being told “Ukraine no longer exists”, more than 800 days on from Putin’s full-scale invasion it is still standing, and civilian and military alike are still fighting with huge courage. We toured a factory and spoke to the wives, mothers and fathers who had fled from the east to Kyiv in the face of Putin’s invasion, and are now working together to support the Ukrainian war effort. While their loved ones are on the frontline, everyone in Ukraine is fighting to defeat Putin.
The shadow Foreign Secretary and I had one simple message to convey during our visit: the UK continues to be united for Ukraine. If there is a change of Government after the election this year, there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes. We told the Ukrainian Defence Minister, President Zelensky’s chief of staff and the parliamentarians whom we met that this was our Labour guarantee to Ukraine. That is why we have fully backed the Government’s increased military aid to Ukraine, for this year and the years ahead.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary said that in his speech the shadow Foreign Secretary had shown the unity of the House. He was right, and all the speeches tonight have shown the unity of this House. In fact, this House has shown a unity behind Ukraine that goes beyond the debates in this Chamber. As UK parliamentarians, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), and the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), have all been involved in gathering aid and driving it to Ukraine over the past couple of years. Other Members have taken in Ukrainian families. Like tens of thousands of big-hearted Britons, we have offered, through the Homes for Ukraine programme, shelter, refuge and a life in this country to over 140,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s invasion.
I turn now to the contributions to the debate. Characteristically, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) made a deeply reflective speech with a wide sweep that recognised that, as he said, this war is part of a global conflict. He quoted Secretary of State Blinken, who, as he rightly said, was in Kyiv on the second day that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I were there, which was 15 May. The hon. Member quoted Blinken as saying that
“Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war”.
In fact, the rest of what Blinken said is important. He said that Ukraine is conducting the war
“in defence of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity. And we will continue to back Ukraine with the equipment that it needs to succeed”.
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who speaks for the SNP from the Front Bench, added the SNP’s voice to the all-party consensus, although I was puzzled when he described himself as an impartial observer of the UK’s activities in Ukraine. However, he was dead right when he said that it is essential for western European security that Putin’s full-scale invasion fails. If he prevails, he will be tearing up the rules-based system. That is why it matters so much to us, as well as to the Ukrainians, that they win.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has so many innovative defence companies in his area that he speaks as someone with quite a lot of technical expertise. He described how, and with what kit, the Russians are stepping up their rate of successful fire on the frontline. He said that defence of Ukraine today is defence of the UK tomorrow, and I liked that argument. It is an argument that I consistently put in different terms in saying that the UK’s defence starts in Ukraine, and we need to do more on both sides of the House to convey a sense of importance and urgency to the British public so that we can help reinforce their continuing support for the war.
Characteristically, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) made an argument as well as a speech, which I always like to hear. He said that we think about this war in terms of values, sovereignty, territorial integrity and democracy, but that we think less than we should about making the long-term partnership with Ukraine valuable to the UK. That seems especially important, as a successful Ukraine will become, in partnership with the democratic west, central to wider European security and prosperity in the future.
The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) rightly urged, as I will in my remarks, more attention and effort on the diplomatic front to build what he called the “coalition of the willing”, and he pointed the attention of his own Government and the House towards countries in south-east Asia and the middle east that should be part of such a coalition. Like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, he also warned about the increasing co-operation between China and Russia.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) reinforced the argument that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made in his speech: we in the UK are still too often playing catch-up on sanctions, and on tackling the dirty money of Russian oligarchs in our country. She urged the Government to demonstrate more action and greater leadership in directing frozen Russian state assets towards the much-needed reconstruction help for Ukraine.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that he wanted to inject some realism into the debate, and he was right to say that we cannot just will what we want. He said that if what we want is a Ukrainian victory, we must will the resources. However, I say to him that the Ukrainians can cope with what he described as the mismatch with Russia, as long as we and other nations maintain our backing for them.
That point was picked up immediately by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, who said that the importance of our ramping up production lies in the fact that if we and other allies of Ukraine provide ammunition and weaponry, Europe and the US can, between us, easily counter the levels of increased Russian production. He showed a really extraordinary grasp of the history of Ukraine and of the reality of Ukrainian history, rather than the Russian revisionism that we sometimes hear. I pay tribute to him and the other officers of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine for their work.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Would it not also be sensible to emphasise that if we want this war to go on forever, we should allow Russia to stay in control of sovereign Ukrainian territory? If we want to have a clean and clear end to this conflict, the only way to do so is to expel Russia from illegally occupied territory.
John Healey
I will come to some of the military challenges faced by Ukraine in a moment, if I may; the hon. Gentleman made that point very powerfully in his speech earlier.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) echoed what we have declared as Labour’s intent: to try to take the politics out of the UK’s support for Ukraine in the run-up to the election. I trust that the Government will respond in the same way. Like the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that more diplomacy is required with countries that he described as having yet to declare their position, alongside the military aid that the UK is supplying.
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Kevan Jones) was the only one who reminded the House that the Ukrainians have not just been fighting Russia since February 2022; they were fighting it for over eight years before that, after proxy forces invaded parts of the Donbas and Russia seized Crimea. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I found most moving about both of the visits we have made to Ukraine is the wall of remembrance for fallen heroes, which has the photographs and details of all those who died before February 2022. Over 13,000 Ukrainians lost their lives through fighting the Russians on Ukrainian soil. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham also reminded us, in his role as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, that the Parliamentary Council at NATO had established relations with Ukraine way back in 1991. He asked what would happen if we failed in Ukraine. He was right to say that the Baltic countries and the former eastern bloc countries all know that they will be next.
Finally, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us about the pattern of military aggression from Russia, not just in Ukraine but in Georgia. It is exactly what the UN charter is designed to prevent: big nations redrawing international boundaries by force. It is exactly why it is so important that Putin does not prevail. When we were in Kyiv last week, the message of those we met was consistent. They described the conflict in Ukraine as being at a critical moment, with new offensives around Kharkiv and new attacks along the length of the frontline. That is an easy thing to say, but the length of the frontline for the Ukrainians is 800 miles. That is as far as London to Aberdeen and back. The scale of the challenge they face is huge.
It is tough for Ukraine at the moment, and it is set to get tougher still in the months ahead. Its most urgent and complex challenge is to stabilise the front in the coming weeks and prevent what are local tactical gains by Russia from becoming a wider operational success. Stabilising the front depends on the prompt delivery from the west of air defence, artillery and long-range strike systems. Also, it depends not just on the western allies; it depends on the Ukrainians to construct effective defensive fortifications, to boost their own military manpower, to maintain the quality advantage that they have in training their forces and also to restore morale.
Alongside this, the Ukrainians have also scored significant successes with their own offensive operations, and we must not lose sight of that, particularly outside the land war. These have involved long-range strikes with indigenously produced weapons systems, partisan warfare in parts of Russia and the occupied territories, special forces operations and maritime operations. These are no longer symbolic; they are increasingly substantial in their effect. They have destroyed one third of the Russian Black sea fleet. Notwithstanding Putin walking away from the Black sea grain initiative, they have opened up freedom of navigation in the western side of the Black sea and Ukraine is now exporting more grain than it did under the initiative when Putin gave it the go-ahead. It is also exporting many other goods. For the large majority of Ukrainians, it is quite clear that the stakes are nothing less than the survival of the state and the nation. People in Kyiv told us, “Even if the west stops supporting us, we will not give up fighting.”
This has also become a war about the survival of Russia as a state and the survival of its elites. Too often, the western view has been that this is somehow a war of choice for Russia, but that has underplayed how Russia has once again become a country whose primary vocation is war. In that vein, Putin has now moved his industry on to a wartime footing. He is now spending a total of 40% of his Government’s budget on defence. This war is not only military; it is also diplomatic and economic, and Putin will not make peace if he thinks he can win on the battlefield. He will not stop at Ukraine if he succeeds there.
Our recent military aid packages from the UK and allies have been really warmly welcomed and received in Kyiv, but more is needed. Deliveries of air defence, ammunition and long-range missiles need to be speeded up, and further diplomatic and economic action must be taken to isolate Putin further. We have to be able to show him that things will get worse for Russia, not better.
That is why we are asking Ministers and allies to take three immediate steps. First, deliveries of military support need to speed up and reach the frontline. As NATO’s Secretary-General Stoltenberg has said, any country that can send more should send more. Training for Ukrainian troops should also be expanded.
Secondly, UK diplomacy should be accelerated leading up to the G7, with the NATO 75th anniversary, the European Political Community meeting and Ukraine’s peace summit all taking place in the next few weeks. The purpose will be to strengthen support for Ukraine, seize frozen Russian state assets and close sanction loopholes. All those must be the outcomes of successful summits over the next few weeks.
Jim Shannon
I mentioned the necessity of helping civilians with humanitarian aid. If we help the civilians, we also encourage the soldiers at the front. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe we need to focus on that, too?
John Healey
Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a sound point.
Thirdly, as many speakers have said, we must boost industrial production. The £2 billion for stockpiles, to re-equip Ukraine and replenish our own forces, was allocated in the spring Budget of 2023. By the end of last year, only a third of that sum had been committed and none of it had been spent. I have now been waiting four months for an update on the progress on committing and spending that £2 billion. It must be fast-tracked and it must be used for stockpiles. It cannot be used to fill gaps in the defence budget, which was the National Audit Office’s concern. We have to reboot our industrial strategy, grow our defence base at home and further collaborate with Ukraine and our allies.
We are proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine, and the Ukrainians have told us how important that bipartisan support is to them. The President’s chief of staff told us, “The UK elections are the only ones we are not worried about this year.” On military support for Ukraine and reinforcing NATO allies, the Government have had and will continue to have Labour’s fullest support.
I conclude by returning to where I started. The charity Save Ukraine told us that well over 20,000 Ukrainian children remain stolen and in Russian hands or on Russian territory, but it is determined to bring every single one of them home to their families and home to their country. Across this House, our determination must be just as strong to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes for it to win.
Situation in the Red Sea
John Healey Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Today the House was set to debate the full sweep of defence and international affairs until the change of business yesterday, which gave this debate its focus on the Red sea. I know that Members on all sides will welcome the opportunity to debate and to question the Government on the UK’s presence and the tensions in this part of the middle east, and I look forward to the contributions from all sides to the debate. Nevertheless, I hope Ministers will ensure that we get the opportunity soon to debate the broader aspects of defence, especially on Ukraine, as the Defence Secretary indicated in his remarks he is keen to do.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
In the old days—I have been here a long time—we had debates in Government time on defence, as we do this afternoon, but in recent times we have not done so and the debates have been down to the Backbench Business Committee. I very much welcome the Committee, which is a great organisation, but none the less we ought to have defence debates in Government time on a Tuesday or Wednesday, set by the Government. I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that that happens in future.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has great experience and he is right to say that Government time signals the importance that the Government give to the business they bring to this House. While the Backbench Business Committee does an important and useful job, it is Government time that matters. Since the Defence Secretary has been in post, we have not had that general debate on defence, and we should. We have not had a debate on Ukraine for four months, and we should, certainly ahead of the bloody two-year anniversary next month of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
We have also not had a debate since 7 October on Israel and Palestine, which is extraordinary. There is an irony that, had we gone ahead with the original debate on international relations, that could have been a subject for debate, but we are restricted by this debate. It is clear why the situation in the Red sea is a priority, but that is probably also a priority, which the Government might wish to take up, and which I have raised previously with the Leader of the House.
John Healey
At the risk of sounding a bit like the shadow Leader of the House responding to a business question, my hon. Friend is right. He is very experienced and I am sure he will find a way, as the Prime Minister did yesterday in his statement about the Red sea action, to talk more widely about Israel and Palestine without testing Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience too far.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about Ukraine. It is important, in the context of everything that is happening globally, that we take the opportunity once again to say that we stand in Ukraine, particularly in the light of the changing political landscape in North America. All of us here, and our allies in Europe, have a responsibility to send a message that we will do everything necessary to support that country, which must prevail against Putin’s aggression.
John Healey
I, for one, appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership of his party when Putin invaded Ukraine. Like us, he has demonstrated that the UK has been and remains totally united behind Ukraine and in confronting Russian aggression. I say to the Defence Secretary that one of the important things that the Government do by organising a debate in the House is signal the importance that all sides of the House give to the support to Ukraine. It is also a chance to explain to the British public why this matters so much, and why defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. It is essential to our interests that Ukraine prevails, not Putin.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One way in which one can stretch the terms of the debate a little further than its precise wording without infringing any rules is to remark upon the fact that in the Red sea, British naval assets are particularly important. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there should be no question, now or in the near or medium future, of our losing our amphibious assault ships, which are so necessary for the combined operations that one must engage in when taking on piratical opponents?
John Healey
One other way of stretching the limits of a tightly drawn debate is experienced interventions of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated. One advantage of debates such as this is that we hear from the Government not just at the start of the debate, but at the end, so we can look forward to the Minister picking up and responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s question when he winds up.
John Healey
What do I think? Well, it would be helpful to have access to the sort of classified information that the Defence Secretary has in order to make these decisions. It is his responsibility to do so, and it is our responsibility in this House to challenge and hold him to account when he makes those decisions—and, of course, if he fails to make decisions.
Perhaps I might return to the Red sea and the theme and focus of this debate. We now have around 2,500 military personnel in the middle east, and I begin by recognising their special service. Many were deployed at short notice—most were away from their families over Christmas—helping to supply essential aid for Palestinians in Gaza, working to reinforce regional security and reduce the risk of wider escalation, and, in cases such as those of the crew of HMS Diamond and the pilots of the Typhoons and air tankers, operating under great pressure and threat. They undertake their tasks with total professionalism. We thank them and are proud of them.
Bob Seely
At this juncture, I think it worth pointing out—the Secretary of State may want to refer to this—that Iranian proxies are regularly rocketing, or attempting to rocket, US bases in Iraq, some of which have a UK presence. It is only through good luck, and complex air defence, if I understand correctly, that there have not been considerable US casualties or potential UK casualties. That is a point that we need to bear in mind when we talk not only about Iranian proxies but about UK forces in the middle east.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has insights into the situation that are rare, even in this House, from his own experience and his particular interest. He is totally right. It is not just about the risks of Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq: the Iranian interests in Iraq, and the attacks on American bases and personnel—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some of those bases are shared with UK personnel—constitute one of the flashpoints and risks of wider escalation. Mercifully, none of those attacks has led to any deaths, but they have led to some injuries. Given that we have 2,500 UK personnel in the region, and given the heightened risk they may face, it would be good to hear what additional protections and measures the Defence Secretary is ensuring are put in place.
Our UK military presence in the Red sea protects international shipping and strengthens regional security. If anyone doubts that, consider what the consequences would be of no action being taken to deal with the Houthi attacks. That extremist force, backed by Iran and with a long record of brutal piracy in the region, could attack commercial ships at will and attack our Navy’s ships without consequence. They are targeting the ships of all nations, threatening the freedom of global trade and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why last month, 20 countries joined the Red sea maritime protection force, Operation Prosperity Guardian; it is why this month, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Houthis’ actions and demanding that their attacks stop; and it is why the UK and the US, with operational support from four other nations, have conducted joint strikes on Houthi missile sites, command centres and weapons stores.
We back the two UK-US joint air strikes carried out this month. We accept that they were targeted, necessary and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life, and we will judge any future UK military action on its merits. Ministers have said that the aim of these strikes is first to degrade Houthi capabilities, and secondly to deter their attacks. We accept that the attacks were justified, but we ask the Defence Secretary to confirm how they were also effective. We know that deterrence is a sliding scale, so we ask the Defence Secretary how the Government will guard against Britain being sucked deeper into the Yemeni conflict.
We also back the leading role that the Royal Navy plays in the continuing military defence of shipping from all nations against further Houthi missiles, drones and attack boats. However, the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world for nearly 80 years. What action are the Government taking to persuade other countries to join the maritime protection force? What are they doing to persuade those already involved to deploy more ships? What efforts are they making to encourage other nations with a big global trade interest to play a part in protecting freedom of navigation and using their influence to stop the Houthi attacks, and how long does the Defence Secretary expect Operation Prosperity Guardian to be needed?
The US aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been essential to the operations to date in the Red sea. Is the UK carrier ready to deploy to the Red sea if required? Has the Defence Secretary made the decision to not deploy HMS Queen Elizabeth, and if not, why not? A UK destroyer, HMS Diamond—to which the Defence Secretary has paid tribute—has also played a hugely important and impressive part in the maritime task force. She has been in the Red sea for nearly two months and will need to be rotated out. Do we have a second UK destroyer available to replace HMS Diamond in the Red sea, and if not, what will replace her? If that is to be HMS Richmond, when will she arrive in the Red sea, and how will that change the capabilities that we can contribute to Operation Prosperity Guardian?
We must cut the illegal flow of arms to the Houthi militia. The US intercepted a weapons shipment about two weeks ago, and the UK has successfully done similarly in the past. What is the UK’s capability and plan for doing so again now? Rather as the Defence Secretary indicated, military action on its own cannot solve the problems in the region, so what diplomatic action are the Government taking to pressure the Houthis to cease their attacks, to settle the civil war in Yemen, and to pressure Iran to stop supplying weapons and intelligence to the Houthis?
Like the Defence Secretary today and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I totally reject the Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking oil tankers and seizing ships for least five years, not just in the past 109 days since 7 October. These attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people. We want the Gaza fighting to stop, with a humanitarian truce now and then a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent citizens, get all remaining hostages out and get much more aid into Gaza. This is what we have been calling for in public, and what we have been working for in private. Our leader, our shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and our shadow International Development Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have all been out in the region in the last three months.
The humanitarian agonies of the Palestinians in Gaza are now extreme. Parents are starving, children are drinking dirty water and there are even reports of amputations being carried out without anaesthetic. More aid has to get to Palestinians now. Surely Britain can do more. There have been just four RAF aid flights and one Navy shipment in nearly four months. We got 100 tonnes of aid to Turkey in the first 10 days after the earthquake last year. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Armed Forces Minister has told me recently that the RAF and the Navy stand by ready to do more, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has not asked it to do so. What is going on? There should be a steady stream of aid from Britain. Our aid efforts must be accelerated.
For long-term peace, there has to be a political process, and one that has the capacity, conviction and commitment to turn the rhetoric around two states living side-by-side in peace into reality. Many across this House, like all in the Labour party present, will have found the Israeli Prime Minister’s recent rejection of the two-state settlement utterly unacceptable and wrong. Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is the only long-term hope for peace and stability, and for normalisation for both Israelis and Palestinians. If elected to form the Government, Labour will lead a new push for peace, working with international allies, in the confidence that, as the Prime Minister said to this House yesterday, we in this country and we in this House are
“united in support of a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 152.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Swire
My right hon. Friend will be aware of my earlier comment that trade with the EU has been adversely affected by the downturn in the EU economy. I think what it shows is the flexibility of the British economy, not least because we did not join the euro and because this Government have a more determined approach to driving exports globally, both with our existing partners and in emerging markets.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The British embassy in Washington part-sponsored a state-by-state study of jobs in the United States that are linked to exports and the potential gains from a comprehensive EU-US trade and investment deal. No such study has been carried out in relation to the United Kingdom. Will the Government commission a similar area-by-area analysis of British jobs, output and exports?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I shall certainly look into it, and I should be happy to discuss it with him in more detail. British trade with the United States remains incredibly important. I will not rehearse the statistics again, but we have been vulnerable to the rather changeable circumstances in the domestic UK economy of late.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Burt
The excellent thing about the inter-faith letter that I received on 14 May is that it was signed by a collection of leaders from virtually all the faiths represented in the United Kingdom, and they made exactly that point—that spiritual leaders can speak to spiritual leaders. I have no doubt at all that those in the United Kingdom continue to urge religious tolerance throughout the world and they made that particular point in their letter.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the implications of the recent violence in Turkey for stability in the region.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
10. What reports he has received on the Turkish authorities’ response to the recent demonstrations in Taksim square.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
We are following events in Turkey closely and the Foreign Secretary and I have spoken in the past few days to our Turkish counterparts. We very much hope that matters can be resolved peacefully. A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey is important for regional stability. Turkey remains an important foreign policy partner and NATO ally, and we shall continue to support its continuing reform agenda and encourage Turkey to respect its obligations as defined in the European convention on human rights.
John Healey
The Minister’s words were subdued. Is he not shocked to see this increasingly modern, secular and economically successful country arresting young people for using Twitter, blocking trade union demonstrations with riot police and now threatening to use the army on the streets against its own citizens? Will he and the Foreign Secretary now publicly urge the Turkish Government to respect people’s basic rights and freedoms of assembly and expression?