Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
John Healey Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, and with thanks to you for allowing me to do so at this late hour, I wish to make a statement to update the House on today’s US operation and yesterday’s coalition of the willing summit in Paris.
Today the US conducted a military operation to intercept the motor vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic on its way to Russia. The UK, at the request of the US, supported this operation as part of global efforts to crack down on sanctions-busting and shadow shipping activity. The Bella 1 was falsely flagged and subject to US counter-Iran sanctions. The vessel refused to comply with the US’s exercise of its sanctions jurisdiction on 20 December, after which the US Coast Guard vessel Munro pursued the ship across the Atlantic. It is a sanctioned, stateless vessel that carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with both Iran and Russia.
Following a request from the US, I authorised the use of UK bases and the deployment of Royal Navy and RAF assets to support the operation, including airborne surveillance and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Tideforce. This was a US operation. No UK personnel took part in the boarding. I can update the House that the operation is ongoing, but the Bella 1 is now under the control of US forces, who demonstrated immense courage and professionalism in dangerous and deteriorating Atlantic sea conditions.
A stateless vessel may be lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state. The US’s enforcement action was based on counter-Iran sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from fuelling instability through the profits of illegal oil sales. The UK supported this action to achieve three objectives: first, to enforce counter-Iran sanctions; secondly, to tackle the global security threat posed by expanding shadowy maritime activity; and thirdly, to reinforce British homeland defence and security in this era of rising threats.
Let me expand. First, in 2024, the vessel was sanctioned by the US and subjected to a seizure warrant for illegally transporting Iranian oil. It has reflagged five times in the last five years and was falsely flying the Guyana ensign when it was intercepted by the US. Over a four-year period, reports suggest that the vessel moved some 7.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil, the proceeds of which are used to finance terrorism, threat and instability across the world.
The Iranian regime continue to export violence across the region through their proxies and partners including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias. They maintain support for Russia by supplying Putin with weapons for his brutal invasion of Ukraine, including the Shahed drones and missiles that target and kill Ukrainian civilians. It is telling that the vessel, in an attempt to evade the seizure warrant, changed its name and tried to adopt the Russian flag.
Secondly, the UK also supported this military operation to counter the expanding global security threat. The vessel is part of an increasing web of shadow shipping that fuels and funds instability across the world, that undermines global trade and that threatens our national security. We know that Russia operates a vast shadow fleet of its own to bankroll its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Last year, it is estimated that Russia sold $100 billion-worth of sanctioned oil: money that is directly funding attacks against Ukrainian civilians, such as the onslaught during Christmas involving 600 Russian missiles and drones that killed at least three people.
We owe it to the Ukrainians to step up action on those shadow operations, and we are doing so. That is why we are deterring, we are disrupting and we are degrading the Russian shadow fleet as a priority for the Government. To date, we have imposed sanctions on 544 vessels. According to estimates, sanctions against the shadow fleet by the UK and our partners have forced 200 ships off the seas—almost half the Russia shadow fleet’s overall capacity—while Russia’s critical oil revenues are now down 27% compared to October 2024. That is their lowest since the start of its full-scale invasion.
Let me speak plainly: the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so.
Thirdly, this is not just about international security but about the threats to British national security. Iran presents a persistent danger not only to security in the middle east, but to us here in the UK. It poses a significant espionage threat, it sustains an aggressive cyber-attack campaign against us and, as our own Intelligence and Security Committee reported, since 2022 the Iranian regime has plotted at least 15 assassination or kidnap attempts on British soil.
More widely across Europe, we are seeing a pattern of flagrant maritime activity co-ordinated by Russia, so I applaud and welcome the fact that the Finnish authorities last week seized a Russian shadow vessel suspected of damaging a communications cable under the gulf of Finland. We have also exposed the Russian spy ship Yantar, operating in our waters and surveying our undersea cables. And, of course, by assisting our US allies in taking this ship off the seas, we are protecting the British people and our nation.
This is a stark reminder that our world is changing; it is less predictable and more dangerous. This operation and the shadow fleet show the global links between the security threats faced by the UK and its allies. The shadow fleet itself is vital to Putin’s ongoing illegal invasion and war in Ukraine, which brings me on to the second topic in this single statement.
Next month, we enter the fifth year of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, yet the Ukrainian people—military and civilian alike—still fight with huge courage and defiance. I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine, that Britain remains united for Ukraine. We know that if Putin prevails he will not stop at Ukraine, and we know that a secure Europe depends on a strong, sovereign Ukraine.
I am also proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. It started under the last Government and stepped up under this Government. Now we—the UK—lead the 50 nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside Germany, and secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year. We, with France, lead the coalition of the willing, undertaking detailed military planning to help secure peace for the long term when a deal is agreed. I say to this House: let us make 2026 not only the year when peace is possible, but the year when peace is achieved.
This Government are leading that push for peace; this Government are building a new deal for European security. That is why in Paris yesterday, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing, with 39 nations, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron and President Zelensky, signed a declaration of intent. As the Prime Minister said,
“The purpose of the coalition of the willing is to help deliver a peace that can last and to work with the US to guarantee Ukraine’s security for the long term. This work is now more advanced than ever.”
Yesterday’s declaration advances that work significantly. It confirms that the UK and France will “take a leading role”: first, in using military, economic and diplomatic instruments to ensure the conclusion of a peace agreement; secondly, in supporting the development of Ukraine’s defence capabilities; and thirdly, in commanding a multinational force for Ukraine that plans to deploy to Ukraine after a ceasefire has been agreed.
The MFU plans to deploy units from nations in the coalition of the willing to carry out defence and deterrence operations in the air, on land and at sea, and to conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces. The UK and France will also create military hubs to support that work across the country and build protected facilities within Ukraine for weapons and equipment. As the Prime Minister has said today, “If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”
Yesterday, at this largest meeting of the coalition of the willing, we agreed further significant steps, including the signing of a joint declaration. We will also participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. We will support the long-term provision of armaments for Ukraine’s defence, and we will continue to work with the US towards security guarantees to deter any further Russian aggression and to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. In Paris yesterday, US Special Envoy Witkoff described these commitments as being
“as strong as anyone has ever seen”.
I will travel very soon to Kyiv to continue these discussions with Ukrainian political and military leaders.
A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine, but we can only get a peace deal if Putin is ready to make compromises. Over the Christmas period, he showed that he was still not ready for peace, with hundreds of drones and missiles being fired into Ukraine and Russian attacks continuing on the frontline, so in 2026 we will continue with other nations to step up our military support still further. Our mission is to support the fight today, as well as to secure the peace tomorrow. In conclusion, our Government will always act in the interests of national security. We are committed to countering the threats posed by our adversaries, to standing by our closest allies, and to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing he provided to me and other parliamentarians on today’s operation. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, there should always be a statement to Parliament when UK troops are committed abroad, and we hope that the Secretary of State can provide a little more clarity than the Prime Minister was willing to provide earlier.
In recent days, we have seen extraordinary international developments, particularly in relation to Venezuela, but it remains the case that the single most important military action of recent years affecting our nation’s security is Putin’s illegal and wholly unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The ensuing war has led to terrible loss of life, and we all want peace, but it must be a lasting one on acceptable terms to Ukraine, and with credible security guarantees, so that any post-ceasefire settlement can endure. Having led the way in supporting Ukraine at the outset of the invasion, we will, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine. Specifically, it is entirely right to plan for a ceasefire. Just as we brought together an international coalition to provide weapons to Ukraine, we welcome the way the Government have worked with international partners to plan how a potential ceasefire will be supported militarily.
As to the detail of the plans, can the Secretary of State provide further information on the number of personnel involved? Earlier today, the Prime Minister did not give any specific details on troop numbers, yet The Times is reporting that the figure will be fewer than 7,500. What more can he tell us on that? Can he say more about the composition of the force that is to be deployed? Specifically, we note that British soldiers will be involved in logistics and training, but what proportion, if any, will be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? What air and naval assets does he plan to provide as part of the multinational force for Ukraine?
On rules of engagement, we note from the joint declaration of intent that our service personnel will be granted
“the use of force to fulfil the mission”
of the MFU, and will
“co-operate in accordance with international law”
and
“respect for human rights…as reflected in other international agreements whose participants are the Signatories.”
Can the Secretary of State confirm that this means that our soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment? Can he also state the exact mission of the MFU? The declaration of intent refers to “other contributing nations”, but does not name any countries from outside Ukraine other than Britain and France, so can he list those nations and tell the House what their primary contribution will be?
On the crucial matter of security guarantees, there appears to be no mention of any such guarantees in the declaration of intent. Can the Secretary of State tell us what explicit security guarantees the United States has agreed to, and will they involve US boots on the ground? Of course, this force would only be deployed in the event of a ceasefire being agreed with Russia, so what is his contingency plan in the event that the ceasefire is broken after the MFU has been deployed? Does this not point to the most important consideration: that this whole plan is based on the assumption that there is a genuine ceasefire? Having personally passionately backed Ukraine’s fight for freedom throughout, I would dearly love to believe that this peace is possible soon, but I fear that the occupant of the Kremlin is not interested in peace. Does the Secretary of State agree that in parallel with any preparation for the MFU, there must be no let-up whatsoever in the application of maximum economic pressure on Russia, along with all possible continued support for Ukraine?
Turning to other developments, we support today’s operation by the United States to seize the MV Bella 1 tanker in order to enforce sanctions on Iran. We also welcome the UK’s enabling role, undertaken by Royal Navy and RAF assets, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State on the objectives he set out, not least the objective of reinforcing our homeland security. I am pleased to hear that the operation has been successful, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to all personnel involved, and I join the Secretary of State in recognising the skill and bravery of the US forces who participated.
On the wider matter of Iran, I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with all those who in recent days have had the courage to defy that nation’s despotic and repressive regime. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State will not speculate on operational planning by us or our allies, can he reassure the House that his Department is conducting contingency planning in case of any further escalation of internal unrest in Iran?
On Greenland, we totally support Denmark’s sovereignty over that territory. While the United States remains our closest ally, it is surely not in the interest of the US or any of our allies for NATO’s shared commitments to be undermined to any degree. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition earlier, can the Secretary of State assure the House that he will be seeking an urgent meeting of all NATO members to provide mutual reassurance on the matter of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland?
Finally, is not the common thread in all this that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and we must therefore rapidly ramp up our defence spending and rearmament? When will the Secretary of State finally publish the defence investment plan?
John Healey
We are working flat out on the defence investment plan. We will complete it and publish it as soon as we can.
The sovereignty of Greenland is not at issue: it is clearly Denmark that has sovereignty. It is clear that Greenland and Denmark are a part of NATO. Greenland’s security is guaranteed by its membership, and by all 32 nations of NATO. Any decisions on the future of Greenland are a matter for the citizens of Greenland and for Denmark.
Let me turn to the shadow Minister’s more extensive questions and points about the declaration of intent yesterday and the situation in Ukraine. I welcome his commitment to and support for a lasting and just peace. He pledged his support for all efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, and I welcome his support for our work to do that. On the detailed questions, I will simply not go into detail on the nature of the activities in the deployment, the numbers of troops that are likely to be deployed to Ukraine or the commitments that other nations have made. As a former Defence Minister, he will understand that well. The finality of this will depend on the details of the peace deal. He quite rightly said that we will deploy only if there is a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Disclosing, let alone debating, those sort of details would only make Putin wiser.
On the deployment in future of any British forces, I am proud to say that whenever British forces deploy, including abroad, they meet the highest possible standards of international law and professionalism, and they will continue to do so.
On the number of nations committed to and involved in the planning of the coalition, as the Prime Minister has said, and as I said in my statement, yesterday’s meeting was 39 strong. It was the largest meeting of the coalition of the willing yet. Yesterday’s declaration of intent signifies not just an advance in our work towards the security guarantees and peace, but a gathering of momentum behind that.
Although the hon. Gentleman welcomes our support and pledges his own for efforts to bring peace, he questions aspects of this deployment and of this coalition of the willing, though his party leader has still not publicly backed the coalition of the willing, and has still not publicly said that she would support the multinational force for Ukraine. If and when she does, we will gladly see that as support for the security of Britain, the future of Ukraine and the strengthening of our work with allies.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Putin is not interested in peace. He is quite right to say that we will not, and should not, let up on intensifying the economic pressure. My statement dealt with the shadow fleet, which is part of that. We should not give up, or let up on increasing the pressure on Putin through the military aid and support that we provide to Ukraine. I can tell the House that I will co-chair the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, alongside the German Finance Minister. We will do that at NATO next month, and we will look to ensure the strongest possible pledges throughout 2026, so that we can step up support for Ukraine, both for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s work chairing the Defence Committee. He, I and the Prime Minister are entirely at one: the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland. It is under the sovereignty of Denmark, a nation that is a full-scale, valued member of the NATO alliance.
My hon. Friend is right to question me on UK deployment and our commitments. He will get the chance to question me directly; I look forward to appearing before his Committee later this month. As the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, the House will have the opportunity to debate the issues in detail if and when there is any commitment and decision to deploy troops, following on from what he made clear was a political statement—a declaration of intent that is significant in advancing our work to secure Ukrainians’ future, but nevertheless a political declaration. The House would then have the chance to debate in full Members’ concerns, the consequences of any future deployment to Ukraine, and the terms on which we would make that deployment.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary.
We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security.
Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume?
Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?
John Healey
I think my statement made it clear that I took the decision to allow US forces to base themselves in the UK after we made an assessment of the legal basis for and the purpose of the planned US operation. That was a responsible thing to do. The hon. Gentleman should have absolutely no concerns on that front.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Putin is funding his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why we are stepping up action on the shadow fleet, developing further military options and strengthening co-ordination with allies. In many ways, he is also right to say that the Ukrainians are fighting for the rest of Europe. They are fighting for the same values, and for the same hopes and aspirations to be a country free to determine its own future.
On the circumstances of any deployment, the Prime Minister has been clear—as have I in a number of updates to the House on coalition of the willing military planning—that the decision to deploy, and the military plans that are prepared, will come into action in the circumstances of a peace deal being agreed. That is one of the reasons that I stressed in my statement that we are working to support the securing of that agreement, as well as the long-term peace that we all hope will follow.
The hon. Gentleman urges me to support his argument on the imperative of increasing defence funding to 2.5% and beyond—I support it entirely. He will welcome the fact that this Government have made the difficult decision to switch funding directly out of overseas aid and into defence. We have done so because we recognise this new era of threat that we face—an era of hard power, strong alliances and strong diplomacy.
Finally, we are doing that at least three years before anyone expected us to do so. We have an ambition and a commitment to move beyond that to 3%, and we have made the solemn commitment, alongside all other 31 nations in the NATO alliance, that we will spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, and a total of 5% on general defence and national security by 2035. That is a sign of the strength and unity of the NATO alliance, and its ability to help make Britain more secure as well as stronger abroad.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, congratulating the brave men and women on the successful operation, and paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his clear leadership in the defence of Ukraine? My question is this: is there anything more we can do to ensure that Vladimir Putin is serious about peace?
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. One man stands behind the continuing war in Ukraine and continuing civilian deaths and attacks on domestic infrastructure, and that is Vladimir Putin. One man has talked of peace, but has yet to demonstrate that he is serious about doing what he says. To answer my right hon. Friend, important steps are keeping up the economic pressure on Putin, which is beginning to tell on his economy, on his oil revenues, and on his people. At the same time, we make clear that we will step up our collective military aid to Ukraine, as we are doing. Finally, we make clear, as this House has always said, that we will stand united for Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, and specifically on Ukraine may I commend him, the Prime Minister and the Government for their continued efforts? The whole House will be proud of how Britain has led on this from the very beginning. The future of Ukraine, and indeed the security of Europe, is an issue of vital UK national interest—a point that the right hon. Gentleman, and others, have made. I believe there are three prerequisites for a lasting peace in Ukraine: first, a western military presence there; secondly, credible and durable security guarantees; and thirdly, a well-armed and resourced Ukrainian military. In his work with allies in the weeks ahead, will the Secretary of State ensure that any ceasefire or peace agreement does not give Russia a veto in any of those three vital areas?
John Healey
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s echo of my pride in the way that the UK, under his Government and stepped up again under this Government, has led on Ukraine, and his echo of my pride in the way that Britain remains united behind Ukraine. He is right about his three conditions. They are part of ensuring what this House wants to see, which is not just peace but one that is lasting and secure.
The importance of the discussions and agreements, and in particular the comments from Special Envoy Witkoff yesterday about the US’s commitment to security guarantees that sit alongside and match European-led guarantees through the coalition of the willing, could not be more important. They will form the basis of the confidence that President Zelensky can have in going into the negotiations. We hope that they will add extra impetus to those negotiations, and in the end it will be a matter for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, and the deal that they strike with President Putin. In the meantime, we lend all the support we can to President Trump, who is doing what only President Trump can, which is potentially putting the pressure on Putin, bringing the parties together, and trying to broker the deal that will finally put an end to this terrible war.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the bravery of our service personnel, who will have to consequence-manage the result of such a military action. This ship was part of an expanding global security threat. It was used to fund the war in Ukraine and the nefarious activity that occurs here in the UK, such as the sub-threshold attacks and the payments received by Reform politicians such as Nathan Gill. We must wake up, because these attacks undermine our sovereignty and our way of life. It is asinine for the Opposition to use moments such as this to progress false arguments about the ECHR and rules of engagement for events that we are not at presently. Does the Secretary of State agree it is imperative that the Opposition stand up, show which side they are on and sack the shadow Attorney General?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks with great military insight and authority on the challenges of the deployment and the operation, which was conducted in some of the most extreme weather and seas that any military force can face. He is right to point out that this is a bad ship; it was sanctioned by the US in 2024, it has changed its flag five times in the last five years, and it turned off its transporter for almost two weeks on 17 December, so that no one could track its whereabouts. Last month, it was sailing with a false flag, before heading to Russia—it is very telling which country reportedly sent out a warship to try to escort it into a Russian port. No one should be in any doubt about the purpose of the US operation or the legal basis for doing so.
In relation to the question about the support for the deployment and the potential multinational force for Ukraine, I think the most serious equivocation has come from the leader of the Reform party. When he was asked about that today, he simply said, “Forget it.” Let me say to the two representatives from his party who are in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—
John Healey
He did.
Let me say that that is an insult to Ukrainians. It does not do justice to the sentiment of the British people, who recognise the fight of the Ukrainian people and want to see them prevail, and above all want to see a peace that will last.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this evening? I hope it is heard widely across the world, and I hope it is heard in Moscow and Washington. I hope it is heard particularly in Kyiv and across Ukraine, because I want the people of that country to understand that this House is totally united in support of their aims. I do not wish to see peace at any price; I wish to see Ukraine prevail. I hope that I speak for the whole House in that respect.
Given that context, I will ask my question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister earlier today about the numbers that had been committed. The Prime Minister said: “Let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that.” Figures are being briefed to the newspapers, but I do not know whether they are correct. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to brief us on the numbers that he is considering. I may wish them to be higher, and some other Members of the House may wish them to be lower, but I want this House to hear what his plans are.
John Healey
I really welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response, his question, the way in which he speaks for the House, and his urging that this statement—and, indeed, the declaration of intent signed in Paris yesterday—will be recognised around the world and particularly heard in Kyiv; I am sure that President Zelensky will ensure that. I will play my part in doing that shortly as I visit the country, and I will discuss the further work that needs to be done with Ukraine’s military and political leaders.
On the question of detailed numbers, yesterday was a political declaration—a political statement. The detailed military planning that has been going on for months with the nations that are participating in, and contributing to, the coalition of the willing means that we are ready if and when a peace deal is signed. The deployment that will follow that will clearly depend on the circumstances and detail of that peace deal. I have certainly not been briefing the media at all, because any discussion of details of numbers and very detailed activities only makes Putin wiser and undermines the confidence that the Ukrainians can have in the guarantees we are developing, with them and for them.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to providing security guarantees for Ukraine, which are vital to the defence of Europe and to upholding peace on our continent. However, military resolve alone is not enough; deterrence requires financial guarantees that underpin our security commitments today and in the years ahead. Will the UK join other nations in seeking to establish a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank so that Britain can protect itself, stand firmly with Ukraine, and uphold our responsibility to defend peace in an increasingly dangerous world?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right that the long-term commitment we and other nations have made to Ukraine is not just about our military support or the deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine; it is about the financial support Ukraine will require for the long term. We are certainly interested in the proposals that she has been championing. Led by the Treasury, this Government have been in discussions with those who are developing such proposals, and we will continue to hold those discussions, because such proposals will potentially play a significant role in contributing the sort of financial investment that we must see in Ukraine for the long term.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The UK remains one of the chief facilitators of the export of Russian gas, with UK-owned or UK-insured vessels having enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas since the start of the war. Will the Secretary of State finally agree to ban the provision of all UK maritime services for the transport and insurance of Russian gas exports?
John Healey
Where there are grounds for us as a nation and a Government to take action, particularly where we can do so alongside close allies, we have done so. We have done so against individuals, organisations and vessels, and we have sanctioned 544 ships that are part of the Russian shadow fleet operation. Wherever there are grounds to do more, we will look at that, but I will not get into speculation on hypotheticals about future potential moves that we might make on economic sanctions.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and pay tribute to his leadership on this issue, as well as that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I also welcome the statement by the coalition of the willing on their commitments to deter further Russian aggression. Do those commitments extend to preventing the further forced deportation and militarisation of Ukrainian children, and if—as has been widely reported—we are 90% of the way towards a peace agreement, does that mean that Putin has agreed to hand back the more than 20,000 Ukrainian children he has stolen from that country?
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and emotion about this issue. I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine a number of times, and one of the most moving things I have done on any of my visits happened when I was there jointly with the then shadow Foreign Secretary. We met some of those children who had been abducted and kidnapped by the Russians and then rescued and brought back to Ukraine. The impact on them and their families was deeply moving. My hon. Friend is totally right to say that this issue must be at the forefront of our minds, and it is, as I know it is for Ukraine. We must ensure that this practice is prevented and that all Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russia are returned in the very earliest stages of any peace negotiations.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State coming to the House to update us on the commitment made by the Prime Minister last night, but I put on record my serious concerns about the commitment to put British troops on the ground. Over the past 30 years, we have not learned enough lessons on how to pull troops out of locations from some of the deployments that I have been on. We could be setting up UK forces for a long-term sustained conflict or peacekeeping operation over in Russia, where we do not have the resources to sustain it. We need to look at funding, troop deployments and increasing numbers in the armed forces. The outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Europe at NATO believes that a full-scale global conflict will come between one and three years after the cessation of fighting in Ukraine. If that is the case, as many others believe it to be, our troops will be right on the frontline, and we will go from peacekeeping to full-scale war because we have put ourselves in there.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman speaks with military experience, and he is one of the authoritative voices in this House, so I respect what he says. I just say respectfully to him that that is exactly why the Prime Minister has confirmed today that in the circumstances of any decision to deploy UK troops into Ukraine as part of the leadership and commanding of the multinational force for Ukraine, this House will have the chance to debate that and vote on it.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership and the signing of the declaration of intent, but the vicious attacks by Putin on Ukraine over Christmas suggest that peace is still a long way off. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the military aid and support we are providing to Ukraine? Can he reassure us that where there is depletion of stocks, that is being backfilled?
John Healey
Yes, I believe I can. This Government are proud of the fact that this year we have provided the highest ever level of spending on military aid directly to support Ukraine. We are also proud of the fact that we are capable of and are delivering some of the most important military equipment that Ukraine needs, such as air defence systems and missiles. I am proud also that we work especially closely with the Ukrainians to help them develop new systems, new missiles and new weapons to try to stay one step ahead of the Russians. We will continue to do that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today, but I want to press him a little on a vote in Parliament. In his statement—it is pretty much the same wording as the Prime Minister’s, as I would expect—he states that a decision on deployment will be brought to the House “for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment”. That is not the same as having a vote before the deployment. There are very good strategic and military reasons for not making public an immediate, surprise or secret deployment beforehand, but this is a public, planned deployment, as set out in the Paris agreement. It could not be more public than that. Will he commit to a vote in this House before the deployment, and not a debate in the House only? He will know that in 2013—he was in the House; I think he entered Parliament in 1997—the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron of somewhere in Oxfordshire —[Interruption.] Under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in beautiful Oxfordshire, there was a vote, which was lost by 13 votes. As a result, the UK did not deploy RAF support of the Americans into Syria. It is right that the Government get the balance right, and I support what they are doing, although we have to see the detail, but will he commit to a vote before deployment, and not just a debate?
John Healey
I have to admit that I am struggling to follow the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. I quoted in my statement the words spoken by the Prime Minister in House earlier today, but I am happy to repeat them: “I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.” I think that that is pretty clear, and could not be clearer.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and commend our incredible servicemen and women who have defended our interests here. I am increasingly worried, as are many other Members, about the shadow fleets and the way in which they are operating in the world. Given that there are two international ports in my constituency, I should like the Secretary of State to reassure my constituents by telling me how the United Kingdom will protect the workers, sailors and companies operating out of the Sheerness and Ridham docks at sea in future.
John Healey
My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to the professionalism of our UK forces. They played an important supporting role to back up what was essentially an entirely US operation today, but that is a demonstration of their professionalism and of the fact that we work together with the United States as the closest possible defence and security allies. That is something that this Government are committed to continuing to do, and something that our troops and our forces are proud to do.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and pay tribute to the role of the Royal Navy and RAF personnel in taking out this rogue tanker flying under the flag of a rogue nation. The Bella 1 was taken just a few hundred miles out into the Atlantic, which is too close for comfort for those of us who come from the Western Isles.
I understand that we hosted the USAF maritime patrol aircraft Poseidon out of Stornoway airport and two V-22 Ospreys out of Benbecula. Can the Secretary of State give us more details on the role of Scottish airports in this operation? Does he agree that, yes, we have a frontline in the Donbas, but that the frontline for us against Russia is our backyard: the wild North Atlantic?
John Healey
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for encouraging short questions and short answers.
My hon. Friend is right on both accounts: part of the British and European frontline is in the Donbas and part of the frontline for this nation, and for NATO, is the North Atlantic. I am proud that Scotland makes such a considerable contribution to the security of this country, and I am proud that part of the basing that was important for the US operation was indeed in Scotland.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I wholeheartedly endorse the resolve across this House to continue to help Ukraine to prevail against this aggression. By extension, I therefore commend the armed forces personnel who enabled and assisted the US in this very slick interdiction of a rogue vessel—a key element of the funding of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
There are other challenges in the High North as we speak. Our allies in the United States are apparently very concerned about the vulnerability of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our partners in the Joint Expeditionary Force nations about discussing with the Greenlandic peoples and the Government of Denmark how the JEF may deploy to Greenland, to allay those US fears?
John Healey
I am sure that the US and the US military will welcome the strong support from the Scottish nationalists for their operation, and the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman offers; I shall ensure that the US Secretary of War is aware of that.
On the question of Greenland, I have been in contact with the Danish Defence Minister. The Prime Minister was very clear in the joint declaration that he signed yesterday in Paris that Greenland is part of Denmark. Its sovereignty is not at stake, and it is defended by being part of NATO. Its security is guaranteed by all 32 member states, and any future for Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the citizens of Denmark.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to the highest level since the cold war, and the Teesside defence and innovation cluster stands ready to support the national interest. Will the Defence Secretary do everything possible to ensure that British steel is used across the defence industrial supply chain, so that national security is also economic security for Britain?
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s observation that national security is founded on economic security. Economic security is dependent on strong national security; as an MP from the proud steelmaking town of Rotherham, I am very conscious of the commitment that this Government have made and of the imperative to ensure that as much as possible of what we procure through defence and more widely within Government, uses, whenever we can, British-produced steel, which is among the finest in the world.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Defence Secretary refused to say when the defence investment plan will be published, and there is a tension between the statement about the immediacy of the growing threats and the lack of urgency on funding as other areas of Government are prioritised. Does he recognise that other nations are moving now on funding? Why are the Government so complacent on funding that they are prioritising other Departments over moving now on defence?
John Healey
I certainly do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We have made a commitment as a new Government to put an extra £5 billion into defence. We have made the commitment to 2.5% of GDP—three years before his own unfunded commitment at the election—and we will raise that further.
As for the work on the defence investment plan, we are dealing with a programme, which we inherited from his own Government, that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. We are working flat out to complete that defence investment plan, and I will publish it and report its details to the House as soon as I can.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I welcome this statement from the Defence Secretary and I also welcome the comments from across the House about how the Prime Minister has been conducting himself in leading the coalition of the willing. At this time, we need consensus across British politics on how we support Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that no British politician should ever be taking bribes from Russians, or advising Russian nationals on how to avoid sanctions in relation to money that should be used to support Ukrainian people?
John Healey
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The actions she speaks of bring discredit on that party—the party of Putin—and bring discredit on this country. I also welcome her comments on the importance of cross-party support and support throughout the United Kingdom for the actions we are taking to support Ukraine.
Richard Tice
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We congratulate all those involved in taking and boarding the rogue ship in the Atlantic. I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on securing from the US the strongest security guarantees and the strongest commitments. That is clearly good news.
On the leadership of the coalition of the willing, many will be questioning why 37 of the 39 countries have not committed to put boots on the ground. Can I just gently correct the Secretary of State? What my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said about putting boots and kit into Ukraine was that, to ensure we can do that on a long-term and durable basis, the Government need to increase their defence spending earlier and faster than currently planned.
John Healey
I am sure everyone in the House would like to hear from the Reform leader himself. If he would like to participate in a sitting in the House of Commons Chamber rather than in press conferences, let us hear from the leader himself.
Beyond that, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member is here, and I welcome his support for the actions that the Government are taking. He is completely right to point to the importance of the US statements in public. Special Envoy Witkoff has said that the security protocols being discussed, developed and agreed with the US, us and Ukraine are as strong as anyone has ever seen.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank him and the Prime Minister for their leadership on this issue. He rightly referred in his statement to the actions of the Finns last week in intercepting a rogue ship that was cutting, or suspected of cutting, cables. He also mentioned the operation of the Yantar, which has been spying on our cables. Given the activity of the Russians in the high north, does he agree with me that the deal with BAE Systems and Norway is important, not just because of the frigates that will be built, but because it is a sign of the co-operation between our two countries, and that our co-operation with NATO allies extends across the high north—with the exclusion, of course, of Russia?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know she is very proud of her constituents who are part of the workforce that will build those frigates. This is not just the biggest ever warship export deal; it will set a new standard of countries, Norway and the UK, who are prepared to be able to combine and integrate their forces. By doing so, we will be in a stronger position to help deter Russian aggression and reinforce the security of the high north in future years.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Defence Secretary said that one of the functions of the MFU would be to deter aggression, but we only have a deterrent if we have the willingness to engage kinetically backing it up. If this matter comes back to the House for a vote, will he be clear on the rules of engagement for the deployment of our troops? Will the status of forces agreement with Ukraine be explicit? Does he envisage the triggering of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to sustain the sorts of numbers that have been floated in the press today?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The rules of engagement will be a critical part of the security guarantees, and the sorts of points he raises today will, I am certain, be at the heart of any debate if we reach the point at which we have a peace deal and we are making a decision to deploy a multinational force.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
We do not want an endless war in Ukraine. The people of Ukraine, and indeed the people here in the UK, need to see steps towards peace in the world, not more chaos, division and war. Will the Defence Secretary confirm whether, if the United States were to seek to seize ships taking, for example, oil to Cuba, where the US has unilateral sanctions in place, this Government would aid it?
John Healey
I think my hon. Friend would not expect me to be able to, or to be prepared to, answer hypothetical questions. What I can say to her is that if the US, as our closest defence and security ally, asks for UK assistance, we will always be willing to respond. We will ensure that any support we do offer, whether it is support or a combined operation, will have a strong legal basis, as indeed this one today, which has been mounted so effectively and—early indications—successfully, has had.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State said in relation to Ukraine:
“we will continue to work with the United States towards security guarantees”.
I regret that President Trump has continued to undermine NATO this afternoon, writing:
“I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed them.”
That flies in the face of the experience post-9/11, when Brits and Danes fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan. How would the announcements from Paris yesterday differ if there was no prospect of a US backstop?
John Healey
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, things have moved beyond that point. Jared Kushner yesterday confirmed the readiness of the US to provide a backstop, and special envoy Witkoff said that the President “strongly stands” behind the security protocols that are being agreed. So I would first say to the hon. Gentleman: catch up. Secondly, he is right, of course, that the only time that article 5 has been triggered was when NATO responded to the US’s request following 9/11. We were proud to be a part of that and we are now proud to be a leading part of a 32-nation-strong NATO.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the decisive leadership of the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister in supporting Ukraine. When the Foreign Affairs Committee met the Ukrainian Government, it highlighted the necessity of a strong sanctions regime that is joined up internationally. The actions taken today show just that: a sanctions regime with teeth that is joined up to stop the loopholes Putin uses to keep funding his illegal war, so I welcome the action taken today.
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will continue to increase the stranglehold of sanctions and action to freeze and seize the assets? What will be done with those assets to enable them to be used to rebuild Ukraine—both now and in the future, when peace comes?
John Healey
I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will do everything we can, alongside other allies, to step up the economic pressure on Russia; that we will step up our activity and pressure and action in relation to the shadow fleet; and that, at the same time, we will step up, with allies, the military aid that we provide to Ukraine, so that Ukrainians can be in no doubt that we as a country, alongside others, will stand with them for as long as it takes, both in the fight and in the peace.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
In 1995, thousands of innocent men and boys were taken from a UN protectorate in Srebrenica and murdered. The main reason that that happened was because UN troops were unable to fire upon the Bosnian Serbs as they came along. May I therefore push the Secretary of State further on the rules of engagement? The rules must not say, “Do not fire until fired upon”, or there will be no deterrent. I know this has to be worked out, so I ask him to take that into serious consideration when the rules of engagement are being put together.
John Healey
We will indeed. To reinforce the right hon. Gentleman’s point, the purpose of the proposed and planned multinational force is to deter Russia, and the rules of engagement will be entirely consistent with supporting that purpose.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
We are clearly facing the most dangerous times in almost a century in this country and across our continent. Since 1945, our safety and security have been guaranteed by being part of the most powerful military alliance in the history of humankind and sacrosanct borders in Europe. Times are clearly changing. Can the Defence Secretary assure me and this House that we will fulfil the aims of the strategic defence review in full, and fully fund it to protect both ourselves and our continent?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that times are changing. He is also right that NATO, which has been outstanding in protecting us and preserving the peace for more than seven decades, is critical to that. NATO is not just the most successful defensive military alliance in history; as an alliance, it is stronger now, larger now and more united now. We are proud to play a leading role within it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given that the Americans were clearly perfectly capable of seizing the ship by themselves, I wonder why they were so keen to involve the UK. In a week in which Trump rode roughshod over international law on Monday and threatened a NATO ally on Tuesday, why is it on Wednesday that the UK was so keen to hang on Trump’s military coat-tails when it did not have the courage to call out and condemn his breaking of international law earlier in the week? If the UK is so very committed to enforcing sanctions, given the concerns in the report published last year by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation about the extremely high likelihood of UK financial services companies being complicit in supporting breaches of sanctions, can the Secretary of State assure the House, hand on heart, that the UK has done everything in its power to prevent the complicity of the UK financial services sector?
John Healey
If there is sound evidence of breaches of sanctions, we will look at that and we will act. In response to the hon. Lady’s first question, quite simply, the US asked for our UK military support because it wanted and needed our UK military support to conduct this operation. The legal basis for us doing so was sound and the purpose for this action and operation was strong. We were proud to support that action, which is part of bearing down on the sanctions-busting shadow fleet operations.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their leadership on defending Ukraine not just in wartime but in peacetime, which will really reassure the many Ukrainian families who have sought refuge in Milton Keynes and across the UK. I would like to ask the Secretary of State’s advice. It is clear that Russia is challenging not just Ukraine, but the UK. It is carrying out incursions into our airspace and our waters, using cyber-attacks to undermine us and using social media to undermine our democracy. What advice would the Secretary of State give the British public on creating vigilance against the Russian attacks we are seeing increasing, over and over, on the UK?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right; this rising Russian aggression is not just directed at the UK. At the same time as fighting a war in Ukraine, Putin is testing the boundaries of other NATO nations like the UK. The simple response to say to people is that we are in a new era of threat. This demands a new era for defence and it demands a stronger NATO, and that is exactly what we are working to deliver.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I welcome the action today, and I commend our armed forces on their action. Much of the discussion has focused on troops in the event of peace. I would like to take us one step further. The right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday the UK agreed that we will participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. Can he please clarify whether that means physical monitoring or remote intelligence? What if the terms of a ceasefire are unacceptable to Ukraine and to the UK? The agreement signed yesterday says that we “will” do so, but does it require us to accept, police and monitor any ceasefire, or would we be able to withdraw if the terms were not acceptable to either us or to our ally, Ukraine?
John Healey
I understand why the hon. Lady, who is very expert in these matters, asks those questions. She is getting rather ahead of the stage of the peace negotiations, and of the detail and technicalities of any potential ceasefire monitoring. The commitment was a political commitment that we would play a role. It is likely to be led by the US in the context of a peace deal. The important aspect is that what the Prime Minister was part of agreeing, signing and announcing yesterday significantly advances the work towards securing and putting in place security guarantees. By doing so, it also significantly advances the work towards peace.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The people of Rochdale are extremely proud of our long-standing Ukrainian community, which is made up of both those who fled Soviet terror in the 20th century and those who sought refuge from Putin’s crimes in the 21st century. Does the Secretary of State agree that what Putin fears most is western unity, and cross-party consensus and unity in Houses like this one in democracies across the west? Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that if Reform MPs vote against deployment of our brave British troops in Ukraine, it would be the biggest gift to Putin since Nathan Gill took that bribe from the Russians?
John Healey
I do agree. My hon. Friend speaks warmly and rightly of the strong pride that Rochdale has in its Ukrainian community. He is right to point out that Putin’s purpose is to divide and weaken NATO, and to set nations against each other and people within nations against each other. We in this House should all determine that we will not let that happen.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update. He is a serious and experienced politician, and I have no doubt that he always acts in the national interest. What concerns me is the gap between the coherence of NATO and its approach—the approach that he has set out that we will take if a peace agreement can be found in Ukraine—and the determination that we are seen to have to meet the new level of threat from Russia and elsewhere in the world with respect to our commitment on defence spending. I respect that he asserts that the Government are committed to 3% between 2029 and 2034, but with the greatest respect, there is a great difference in the timeframe between the start and end of that five-year window. In previous generations this country has had to make sacrifices to defend itself. I think that he needs to think about whether we should be making that case now, so that we can be ready for what may be ahead of us.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Government and Treasury Minister in his time. He will recognise that the commitment we have made and the plan we have now mark the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. He will also recognise that we are building a new deal for European security. It is an important part of NATO, but it goes beyond NATO, and we will continue to do that.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The unity of the House in opposing those states who would do us harm is a key foundation of our strong national security framework. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that when a senior leader in Reform accepts Russian bribes and when the shadow Attorney General is actively working to undermine a key policy in support of Ukraine, that damages public perception of the unity of purpose of the House and, in doing so, impacts our national security?
John Healey
It does damage the unity of this House—it damages the unity of purpose. It also damages the status of Britain when we have a party leader who says that the politician and leader he most admires is Vladimir Putin.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Many of our constituents will be anxious about UK involvement in US operations given Trump’s vocal drive for American imperialism. Of course, Plaid Cymru is unequivocal that any action taken by the UK military must respect international law; that includes today’s events and all others. With oil further politicised following the US seizure of the Bella 1, with UK support, what steps will be taken to secure critical UK oil and port infrastructure at key sites such as Milford Haven and Holyhead given recent global developments in energy and shipping?
John Healey
If the right hon. Lady considers and reflects on the strategic defence review that we published in June, she will see that it set out a strong case not just for the rising threats but for action to step up defence of the homeland. That strategic defence review sets out the vision that we will pursue and the action that we will take over the next 10 years.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s statement this evening. I am proud that Suffolk is home to one of the largest air bases in the country. British military families have been in contact with me this afternoon as they are alarmed at the deterioration in the security situation. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to them?
John Healey
I say to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those who are serving in the military that that growing anxiety is quite widely shared. It underlines the recognition of the new threats that we face, and it argues for exactly the sort of commitments to defence funding, for the strategy that the Government have set out, and for the actions and decisions that we are now taking. I hope that his constituents will both support the Prime Minister’s declaration of intent in Paris yesterday—because of the importance of Ukraine to our long-term security—and support and recognise the professionalism of the US operation on the Bella 1 today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that if you will the ends, you must will the means? The end of the cold war has been mentioned a number of times. It is a fact that at the end of the cold war, we were spending 4.3% of GDP on defence—that was 3.5% under the old way of calculating it—and in the early years of the cold war we were spending in excess of 7%. Can the Secretary of State at least indicate to the House: what is the earliest year in which a Labour Government anticipate spending 3% of GDP on defence?
John Healey
Of course, at the end of the last Labour Government, we were spending 2.5% on defence: a level that the 14 successive Conservative years came nowhere near matching. We have a job to make up for that lost time and to make up for the hollowed-out forces that the previous Government left. The commitment that the Government have made alongside other NATO allies—to see a path to ensure that by 2035 we spend a full 5% of GDP on our security and core defence—is our guarantee for strong defence and deterrence in the future.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
For five years, against Russian aggression, Ukraine has been bravely defending not only its own border but the eastern flank of Europe. That means that security guarantees for Ukraine are also security guarantees for all of Europe. Given that, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the leader of Reform today suggesting that he would vote against those security guarantees?
John Healey
I do indeed. My hon. Friend is right: a secure Ukraine is at the heart of a secure Europe and at the heart of a secure UK. That will be a consideration for all Members of this House if we get to the stage when we have a peace deal and a decision to deploy and command the multinational force in Ukraine.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
President Trump is supposed to be working on a peace deal for Ukraine, but he has been so much more focused on invading Venezuela and making threats against Greenland. What assurance can the Secretary of State give to the House on the US’s continued commitment to getting a deal in Ukraine? What contingencies are in place to revisit the EU-led proposals should they be necessary?
John Healey
I have no doubt, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady has any doubt, about the determination of President Trump to help secure that peace deal in Ukraine. In fact, he has a role that only he can play in making that potentially possible. It is our job to lend every support that we can both to the Ukrainians and to the US in securing that peace deal.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Given that what is proposed today is a peacekeeping force, does the Secretary of State wonder, as I do, when the leader of Reform will cease his adulation of Putin, ensure that there are no further traitors among his ranks, support the peace process in Ukraine and stand up for British interests?
John Healey
Just to be clear to my hon. Friend, the primary purpose of the multinational force for Ukraine is not peacekeeping; it is there to reassure Ukraine and help it to regenerate and rebuild the strength of its military for itself. In the end, Ukrainian forces are their own country’s best deterrence and defence against potential future Russian aggression.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Given Russia’s stated refusal to accept any deployment of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, is there a danger that the agreement will make Russia less likely to accept a settlement and that it will instead step up its military campaign? If that is the case, will the Secretary of State say whether there was any agreement among the western allies about how we can massively increase the pressure on Russia—perhaps through further sanctions and their strong enforcement, as we have seen in the last 24 hours?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on hypothetical what ifs. What I can say is that security guarantees that are being agreed at this point are an essential element of any potentially successful peace negotiations. If they reach agreement, those negotiations will test what, at the moment, Putin says is his approach to Ukraine and its future.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and leadership. As the Member for Portsmouth North, the home of the Royal Navy, I pay tribute to all our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that continued strong UK leadership from our Prime Minister and commitment and consensus across the whole of this House with our allies is vital to enforcing sanctions on Russia and to strengthening security and achieving peace in Ukraine, and in doing so, ensuring security in my port city and in Britain too?
John Healey
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the statement and the wise words that she has set out for the House. She speaks with great authority and great strength for her home city, and I think the House will have welcomed her words.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I start by recognising the US service personnel from my constituency, who played a part in the co-ordination of the interdiction operation to seize the MV Bella 1 via the joint intelligence analytics centre, Europe at RAF Molesworth, which is part of the US-European command.
I am slightly worried that this might be a moot point, but turning to the coalition of the willing, the presence of boots on the ground in Ukraine was a red line for Putin, and potentially it might be a stick that he beats us with in order to push back on any peace deal. If we workshop that idea, with a force of 7,500, as is being reported in the press, we clearly cannot realistically maintain a deterrence force posture, which underlines the paucity of our anti-access and area-denial options. That would also explain the commitment to military hubs, and I would appreciate clarification as to what exactly they are. With Ajax off games for the foreseeable—maybe for years—and no viable recce-strike capability, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the urgency to bring forward the next iteration of Project Asgard from quarter 2 to quarter 1, given its urgent requirement as a force multiplier on the eastern flank defensive line?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point to the importance of Project Asgard. It is breaking new ground. It is demonstrating new technologies and new military techniques. It is Britain at the forefront of creative military innovation and technology, and we are determined to accelerate it. On the wider question of the peace negotiations and red lines, the nature of any negotiations is always that declared initial positions are tested. If a successful process of peace negotiations is secured, we want to be ready, and we are ensuring that we are ready, to play a role in securing that peace for the long term through the multinational force for Ukraine.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite Reform UK banning the showing of support for Ukraine in my county of Northamptonshire, my constituents and those across the whole of the UK should be proud of the extraordinary skill of our British men and women who are involved in this operation?
John Healey
I share my hon. Friend’s dismay at the decision of his Reform-led council. I am proud that our Ministry of Defence building flies the Ukrainian flag.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State has explained that he does not want to be drawn on the questions from the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and others on troop numbers or the exact nature of the force that is being conceptualised and put together, but it is more than reasonable for Members of this House to want to ensure that the correct amounts of financial resources are being put in, so has the decision made yesterday changed his assumptions and plans regarding investment, procurement and spending over the next year?
John Healey
The political declaration that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky and President Macron will sit alongside, and is developed from, the detailed work on the military planning for the coalition of the willing and the deployment of the multinational force for Ukraine, and it is an important part of the contribution that the UK will make in the future to the security of the UK and the security of Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not need chuntering from the Back Benches, and I can determine whether the House has or has not been misled.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s observations. I think this is a test for the leader of Reform: are the interests that he declares closer to those of President Putin or closer to those of the British people?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is really reaffirming to see the whole House express its unwavering support for Ukraine, and we hope our Ukrainian friends take heart from it. We have discussed this evening the heartbreaking situation of over 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia. Is it the Government’s position that, for this act alone, President Putin should be hauled in front of the International Criminal Court?
John Healey
Our focus at this point is to ensure that we give maximum support and step that up, alongside allies, to keep Ukraine in the fight, and that if there is a peace deal we are ready from day one to play our part in helping to lead efforts to secure that peace for the long term. That peace must involve the full return of all those abducted children. It must also involve the pursuit of justice.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the generosity of his answers at this late hour. I express my sincere gratitude to the British forces men and women who have helped seize this tanker—part of the Russian shadow fleet being used to fuel Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. I also thank this Labour Government for their record investment in our defence. Concerning the Russian shadow fleet specifically, can my right hon. Friend assure me that no stone will be left unturned in protecting our critical undersea infrastructure, which is at regular threat from the Russian shadow fleet? If it were terminally interrupted, that would cause absolute chaos here in the UK.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is gently chiding me for overlong answers, and I take that point. He is entirely right about how our way of life, the operation of our economy and the way we live are dependent on undersea infrastructure. That is why we are stepping up our vigilance, surveillance and defence of that.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State will know that the NATO Secretary-General said in September that we must “prevent spreading” NATO forces “too thinly”. Could he provide some reassurance to the House on the implications of this potential deployment for the Joint Expeditionary Force and our leadership of that in Estonia?
John Healey
I hope the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman asks for can be provided by the fact that SACEUR has been at the heart of the discussions and developments, close to the military planning for the deployment of the multinational force for Ukraine, and an important figure in the discussions of security guarantees.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for the leadership they have shown both at home and internationally on this issue. I pay tribute to 3 Rifles from Edinburgh South West, which deployed to Finland late last year and trained right up to the border with Russia with their brothers and sisters from the Finnish army. Westminster might feel cold in some places today; it was -28°C when they were in Finland—absolutely incredible. I do not doubt, though, that the same troops are thinking about what this statement today means for them. I know from past deployments that their families will also be thinking about what it means for them. Will the Secretary of State commit to any plan coming to this House for a vote also including consideration of support for families, and that if troops are deployed from Scotland, that will include input from Forces Children Scotland?
John Healey
We are going out of our way as a Government to ensure that our British forces and their families can feel that we are a Government on their side and that we take seriously and want to hear their voices. It is one of the reasons that we have already legislated for a new Armed Forces Commissioner, which will be the independent challenge to Government and Ministers and the independent voice for those forces and their families.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We are all encouraged by him and what he has said, and encouraged by his and this Government’s leadership. That gives us heart, so I thank him for that.
Russian fighter planes are contravening fellow NATO countries’ skies, cables under the sea are being interfered with and damaged by Russian forces, and there has been interference with Royal Navy ships, but on the sea and in the air, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will not be messed with. It is time that Russia got a bloody nose, and today it got just that—not before time. This is a fraught international matter, and maritime laws are not my forte. However, something I am certain of is that Russia is no ally of ours. Its words never, ever meet its actions, and the sanctions need to be strengthened. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions have taken place with the US and NATO on a way forward that sends a clear message to Russia that the time of pushing boundaries is over, and that today is a clear expression that we will stand firm against aggression within the confines of international law?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s congratulations on the operation. I hope that he will see that this is part of the UK working to support our closest defence ally and the US taking action to ensure that sanctions regimes that are designed to bear down on countries like Iran and Russia for illegal shipping activity will be stepped up and enforced, which will help to put economic pressure on those nations to change their ways.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I, too, commend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and determined resolve in defence of Ukraine. Beyond that, Ukraine has no truer friend than this country. Putin knows that too, which is why he would never tolerate a democracy such as ours, nor have a debate and questioning such as we have had here this evening. Because of that, he will do everything to undermine this country. What can not only my right hon. Friend’s Department, but the Government as a whole, do to ensure that we as a country have the resilience to take whatever Russia may throw at us?
John Healey
If my hon. Friend refers back to the strategic defence review that we published in June last year, he will see the identification and explanation of the sort of increasing threats and risks that we face, as well as the recommendations that we have accepted and will implement in full, including for how we deal with the need for greater resilience and the need for stronger homeland defence.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the strong diplomatic and military leadership that he set out in his statement, it is, wherever possible, the unity of this House, and indeed unity in the country at large, that really counts in sending a clear and strong message to our friends and foe alike that this country believes in the international rules-based system, international law, standing up to bullies and valuing our alliances?
John Healey
I do indeed, and my hon. Friend is right. This new era of threat also demands hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy, but all that is based on a domestic political unity of values and unity of intent. I am proud of the way that the UK sets the standard for that.
John Healey
I can indeed. In recent months, I have been making sure that Defence has been putting in the investment to ensure that, at the point of peace, we are ready to move and to deploy and, above all, with the safety of our forces in mind, that they are properly equipped and protected to do the job.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I left home in Newcastle-under-Lyme on Monday to travel down to Parliament, the weather was already very bad after heavy snow on Sunday night. However, for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the situation at home has got worse, thanks to both the weather and the complete and utter failure of Staffordshire county council to grit our roads and keep those who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme safe.
I have had reports of empty grit bins on Sterndale Drive in Westbury Park and on Plymouth Grove, of our town centre being an ice rink, of the A34 from Newcastle to Talke not being fit for purpose and of the roads through Chesterton, Audley and Madeley being cut off, just like roads in Wolstanton. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me of the best way to raise this issue in the House? [Interruption.] This is serious. How can I get Staffordshire county council and its leadership to do what my constituents pay for and want: to do their job and grit our roads, and to do so now?
Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2025
John Healey Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I have today laid before Parliament the 14th armed forces annual covenant report, delivering the statutory duty of the Secretary of State for Defence under the Armed Forces Act 2006.
Since 2011, the armed forces covenant has been a promise by the nation that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families along with the bereaved, should be treated fairly. Its founding principles recognise the unique obligations and sacrifices made by the armed forces community, and that special provision should be given to those who have given the most. The annual report is the primary tool by which the Government is held to account in delivery of the covenant.
The 2025 report covers October 2024 to September 2025 and showcases the extraordinary work that has been achieved throughout the UK in support of our armed forces community. Contributors to the report include several departments from across the Ministry of Defence, alongside wider Government, the devolved Governments and third sector organisations.
Our first of its kind strategic defence review, published in June 2025, introduced 62 recommendations that have been fully accepted, driving significant reforms in structure, accountability, and support for armed forces personnel. Further notable achievements this past year include the largest pay rise in over 20 years, a 35% increase for new recruits, and the reacquisition of more than 36,000 service homes to enhance affordability and quality. Further measures have strengthened fairness and accountability, such as a new tri-service complaints process and the creation of a violence against women and girls taskforce, while the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 will provide independent oversight and a stronger voice for personnel and their families.
We have reinforced our enduring duty of care to the wider armed forces community, military personnel, veterans and their families including the bereaved. The Prime Minister announced our plans for the extension of the armed forces covenant legal duty. This stronger legislation will ensure all Government Departments, and devolved Governments, will be legally required to consider the needs of the armed forces community when making policy or decisions, giving them a meaningful voice and delivering on this Government’s pledge to strengthen support for our armed forces communities.
The past year has been one of delivery and renewal: securing pay, housing, welfare, oversight and long-term investment in our people and capabilities. The work continues, but the direction is clear. Our armed forces and their families make extraordinary sacrifices. In return, they deserve respect, support, and fair treatment.
This report demonstrates our unwavering commitment to that principle and our determination to build a Defence community that is valued, protected, and empowered.
Attachments to the statement can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-16/HCWS1181/
[HCWS1181]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Mr Speaker, the House does indeed join in your sentiments towards all those who are suffering as a result of the attack at Bondi Beach. I know the whole House will also join me in offering condolences to the family and comrades of Lance Corporal George Hooley, who died in a tragic accident last week in Ukraine. He served our nation in distant and dangerous lands, and he did so with honour, courage and distinction. He was a natural, gifted leader who lost his life in the cause of freedom and peace.
Our historic defence investment comes with a fundamentally new approach. The defence dividend is already boosting British industry, British jobs and British communities. We have launched a £770 million defence industrial strategy to drive innovation, create British jobs and boost British skills. Today, we are announcing the defence technical excellence colleges competition, which has gone live, backed by £50 million. It will help us build the skills needed to tackle the threat posed by Russia and other adversaries.
Dame Nia Griffith
When Jodrell Bank celebrated its 80th anniversary, we heard lots about its contribution to science and its 150,000 visitors per year, so does the Secretary of State share my excitement about the job opportunities that may result from repurposing Cawdor barracks in Pembrokeshire as a deep space advanced radar capability? Will he meet me to discuss job opportunities for manufacturers in my constituency resulting from that project, from the project for a new development site for the Windracers drone, and from other defence projects?
John Healey
I do indeed recognise my hon. Friend’s excitement, as she puts it, about the opportunities created by the deep space advanced radar capability, the new drone developments and projects that we will bring to Wales. As we make defence an engine for growth, we are also putting the UK at the leading edge of innovation in NATO. I can announce today that in its first year, UK Defence Innovation will invest over £140 million in new drone and counter-drone systems to protect the UK homeland and allies in the face of increasing Russian drone incursions. That is backing British small and medium-sized enterprises, British micro-SMEs and British universities.
Andrew Ranger
As the Secretary of State outlined, the new defence growth deals announced earlier this year promise exciting opportunities, particularly for young people entering high-skill engineering and new apprenticeship roles. North Wales already hosts world-class defence firms, such as Teledyne Qioptiq; what benefits, especially for economic growth and opportunity, can my Wrexham constituency and north Wales more widely expect as those deals are rolled out?
John Healey
We are working with the Welsh Government, Welsh industry, companies like those that my hon. Friend mentioned, and Welsh academics and universities to work out the dimensions of a Wales defence growth deal. It will be one of five growth deals backed by £250 million in this Parliament. New drone technology autonomy will be the focus of this new defence growth deal.
Gareth Snell
When the previous Government slashed defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years, it left the defence of our nation hollowed out and underfunded. Now, Stoke-on-Trent and our world-leading ceramics sector, which makes vital components for aircraft, submarines and ships, stand ready to help rebuild the defence of our nation. Can the Minister set out how the Government’s largest sustained increase in defence spending will benefit companies and create jobs in my Stoke-on-Trent constituency?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: not only is this the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—spending committed by this Government—and not only are we delivering 2.5% of GDP for defence three years earlier than anyone expected, but this Government also said that we would direct more of our British defence investment directly to British-based businesses, and we are. In the last year, 86% of defence investment has gone to British-based businesses, which is 6% more in real terms than in the preceding year, under the last Government; in other words, it is an above-inflation increase.
Kevin Bonavia
As the Secretary of State knows from visiting my constituency, Stevenage hosts a thriving defence and space sector, with more than a quarter of satellites in space built in our town. Next month, Airbus Defence and Space will open Launchpad, a new facility in Stevenage giving small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups space to work and develop technologies. Can the Secretary of State confirm that our innovative primes and SMEs will receive proper attention when the defence industrial plan is implemented?
John Healey
I can indeed. My hon. Friend is right: his constituency hosts not only some important big UK defence primes, but many very small innovative firms. That is why, as a new Government, we said that we would set a new target for the proportion of defence investment going directly to British SMEs. We set up a new SME growth centre to help them deal with Government, which has previously been too difficult.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his efforts so far, but our efforts are still puny compared with those made when there was last a major threat, in the 1930s. In 1933, we spent just 2.2% of GDP on defence. Remember George Lansbury, the leader of the Labour party, who wanted to abolish the RAF altogether? By 1938, we were spending a massive 7%. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a whole new gearing-up of our efforts? He could start by recommissioning the RAF bases that were open in the 1930s, but have now been closed, such as RAF Scampton.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the recent record—the 14 years of hollowing out and underfunding of Britain’s armed forces that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned. I am proud of this Government’s investment of an extra £5 billion in defence in the first year, and our commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and alongside 31 NATO allies, we have signed up to spending 5% by 2035 on core defence and security, including national security.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Most of our allies and our industrial competitors have a system of offsetting to support their domestic defence capability, economy and jobs, and traditionally this country has had global by default. When will we see the detail in the defence industrial strategy that states that the Government intend to bring forward a programme of offsetting to match our competitors?
John Healey
I am interested to hear that observation from the right hon. Gentleman, who of course was a Defence Minister for several of the 14 years during which his Government never moved to introduce any sort of offsetting policy. We are consulting on that now. We think offsetting has an important role to play in Britain’s future and the future of British industry. The consultation closes in the new year, and we aim to make announcements soon thereafter.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The world is rearming and rebuilding the defence industrial base at a rapid pace, and it is fair to say that the UK is starting to fall behind some of our NATO allies. Does the Secretary of State believe that the spending planned for 2027 to 2030 and onwards meets our needs and prepares us for war, should it arise?
John Healey
I do indeed. The hon. Gentleman knows as much about defence as anyone else in this House, and I pay tribute to him for his work on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation. The commitment this Government made in our first year to increasing defence spending by the largest sustained amounts since the end of the cold war is an historic move. Our commitment, alongside NATO allies, to increase to 5% of GDP what we put towards national security is part of strengthening the NATO deterrent and NATO defence; and our strategic defence review allows us to map out a way of making our forces more ready to fight and better able to deter.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
We were told that the defence investment plan would be available before the Christmas recess. What day this week will it be announced?
John Healey
We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. Even though the hon. Gentleman is a new Member of this House, he will appreciate, from serving on the Defence Committee, the scale of the decisions that we need to make. He will also appreciate the scale of the problems that we face, including those to do with a programme of the last Government’s that over-committed, and was underfunded and unsuited to meeting the threats that we will face in the future.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On behalf of the Opposition, I join you in expressing our total condemnation of the horrific Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Mr Speaker. We must stand united in this House against antisemitism in all its forms. May I also offer our condolences to all affected both at Bondi and at Brown University, and to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley? We echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments about his service to our country.
I echo the question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). It is a very simple and specific question. Will the defence investment plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday: yes or no?
John Healey
The answer is simple, and it is the same one I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the defence investment plan. The shadow Secretary of State of all people—having been responsible for deep problems, and programmes beset by deep-running failures, such as Ajax—will appreciate the scale of the challenges we face.
James Cartlidge
Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that he does not know his diary for the rest of the week? He could ask one of the other Ministers on the Front Bench, or one of the special advisers or officials. Surely he knows whether later this week—on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday—he will be giving the most important defence statement of the year. It is extraordinary that he does not.
To remind the House, in June the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that the defence investment plan would be
“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 63.]
It is already late—just like the strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and the housing strategy. Does that not illustrate perfectly why the Defence Committee said that when it comes to war readiness, Labour is moving at a “glacial pace”?
John Healey
The House will know to take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman. When he was in government, his munitions strategy was often promised and never published. His drone strategy had more pictures than pages—and no funding. His Government’s defence funding plan was published as an election gimmick just weeks before the election and was never delivered in 14 years. We are working flat out between now and the end of the year to finalise the work on the defence investment plan.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that now, at a time of war, is precisely the moment for the UK to work with our European allies, even as Putin tries to divide us? If so, can he confirm that the UK rejected access to the €150 billion EU SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence fund, at a proposed cost of about £2 billion, which is the same amount that the previous Government paid for access to the Horizon fund? Can he set out whether that is the correct figure, and explain whether his Department has estimated how much investment and industrial benefit could have flowed to the UK defence sector through our participation, boosting both our growth and our security, and that of our closest neighbours?
John Healey
We signed the European Union security and defence partnership in May. We committed ourselves to negotiating with the European Union for access to the SAFE funding arrangements. From the start, we recognised that there would need to be a financial contribution from the UK, but we also said from the start that SAFE needed to be good value for money for British taxpayers and British industry. It did not meet those tests. We were unable to reach a deal with the European Union, but we will continue to back Great British defence industrial firms as they sell into Europe, and we will strike bilateral deals that allow us to do a great deal more beyond the SAFE programme in the years to come.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This summer, the UK joined all other 31 NATO nations in agreeing the new NATO benchmark of 5% spending on national security by 2035. That followed this Government’s announcement of the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but it is curious to see what is and is not in the Red Book from the Budget we just had. Page 88 shows in intricate detail just how big the welfare budget will get as a result of the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, but there is no such analysis anywhere in the Red Book of defence spending. Will he set out clearly at the Dispatch Box when the UK will hit the domestic 3% target, and when we will ultimately get to that 5% target? In which financial year will that be?
John Healey
We have committed to the target of 5% by 2035, like all 31 other allies. This Government have already put in an extra £5 billion in the first year and will hit 2.6% by 2027—three years earlier than anyone expected. We have an ambition for 3% in the next Parliament. The rising profile of defence investment over the next decade puts an end to 14 years of the British armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded under Tory Governments.
Peter Fortune
It was troubling to hear—unless I misheard the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith)—that the Secretary of State can talk with exactitude about the future of welfare spending, but not of defence spending. I remind him that the last time a Government spent 3% on defence was in 1996, and it was a Conservative Government. He is eloquent, but I would like him to be exact. When specifically—in which financial year—can we expect to hit 3% on defence spending?
John Healey
If the hon. Member wants to trade records, his Government had 14 years to raise defence spending; it falls to this Government to raise it back to 2.5%—the level it was at in 2010, when Labour was last in government—and we will hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I record my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for the work they are doing to improve our defence capabilities and leadership in NATO and Europe, as well as on the defence industrial base. We have heard from Conservative Members, who of course are responsible for the massive underspending on defence. However, we have to move on from that. Given the threats that we face, today and in the coming months, from Russia and other adversaries, it is clear that we need to accelerate our spending on defence as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to ensure that we get more resources into defence, so that we can maintain our leadership position in Europe, and so that our armed forces are fit to deal with the threats that we face?
John Healey
We are doing exactly what my hon. Friend urges me to do. He, like me, will be proud of the fact that the Labour Government have produced a strategic defence review—a landmark shift in defence to make us more warfighting-ready—a defence industrial strategy that will make defence an engine for growth in this country, and a housing strategy that puts an end to the worst ever Tory privatisation and pumps £9 billion into a generational renewal of our forces’ military housing, which has already started. This Labour Government are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Allies rightly agreed that up to 1.5% of GDP would go towards civil preparedness and resilience measures, but public support for our current commitments—let alone for mobilisation in a crisis—does not meet Government assumptions. Will my right hon. Friend say how he plans to address that, so that we fully meet our article 3 obligations?
John Healey
I will. My hon. Friend, who serves on the Defence Committee and did in the previous Parliament, will remember that total spending on defence in the last year of the last Government was just under £54 billion. She will know that this year and next year, it is set to be over £65 billion. She will see the increase in defence spending, she will recognise the importance of making that commitment, and she will recognise the value of the strategic defence review in setting the vision for transforming our forces, so that they are more ready to warfight, and better able to deter.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
During 2025, the Labour Government have been delivering for defence and for Britain, with the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, the largest level of military support for Ukraine, the largest pay increase for forces personnel in 20 years, the largest investment in forces housing for 50 years, the largest ever British warship deal, and the largest typhoon deal for a generation. We have the strategic defence review to move us to warfighting readiness; the defence industrial strategy to drive defence as an engine for growth across the UK; new defence agreements with the EU, Norway and France; new investment in technology, with Atlantic Bastion, cyber and electromagnetic command and drones; and over 1,000 major new contracts signed. In 2026, we will deliver further. Today, on the eve of Parliament’s Christmas recess, and on behalf of the House, I wish every member of our armed forces—especially those whose service will mean they are separate from their loved ones—a peaceful and safe Christmas.
Mr Speaker
I call Antonia Bance. [Interruption.] Sorry, I call Julian Smith. The answer was that long, I had forgotten about him.
Sir Julian Smith
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about our armed forces having a fantastic Christmas, wherever they are. The strategic defence review talked about the need for a “national conversation” on defence. What steps are the Government taking to support that national conversation, particularly so that our constituents and the population are faced with the trade-offs needed to increase spending on our armed forces?
John Healey
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speech that the Chief of the Defence Staff will make tonight, in which he will argue that the price of peace is rising. He will set out exactly how this requires a response from the whole of society, not just a strengthening of our armed forces.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In May, the Secretary of State said from the Government Dispatch Box that the UK-EU defence pact “opens the door” to the €150 billion EU defence fund. From this Dispatch Box in June, I warned that what the Secretary of State was actually doing was surrendering our precious sovereign fishing grounds without getting a penny in return. Who was right?
John Healey
We were talking about the strategic defence partnership agreement. We wanted to follow that up with an agreement on Security Action for Europe, but that proved impossible to negotiate in a way that was good value for the British defence industry and the British taxpayer. That will not stop us from promoting the cause of the British defence industry and doing the record defence export deals that we have done over the past year—an extra £10 billion through the biggest ever warship deal with Norway, and £8 billion through the biggest Typhoon deal in a generation. We will do more alongside the European Union, which is a valued partner; in particular, we will do more on Ukraine, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
John Healey
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In June, the strategic defence review recommended that Britain consider becoming part of NATO’s dual-capable aircraft nuclear mission, and within weeks that is exactly what we committed to do. We will now go ahead and purchase the F-35As so that Britain can play a full part in NATO’s DCA nuclear mission, reinforcing European defence and our nuclear deterrence.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the strategic defence review pointed out that we must do more to take seriously our homeland defence, and we are. It pointed out that we needed to do more on our integrated air and missile defence for the UK. We are, and we will.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
John Healey
Because we have in place restrictions on export licences for any components where there is a risk that they could be used for the breaching of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry said that we would have the defence investment plan in the autumn. The Secretary of State has now told us that they are working flat-out to get it to us by the end of the year. When I was in the Army, we had a saying that two minutes early is three minutes late. Can we just make sure that this lackadaisical approach to punctuality has not spread to the military? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the King’s birthday parade will indeed take place at 11 am on 13 June?
John Healey
I can indeed. A wish a happy Christmas to the hon. Gentleman and the whole House.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The recent Typhoon deal is welcome news in my constituency of Blackpool South, an area in the country where we see high levels of deprivation, but also high demand for jobs and apprentices. Can the Minister outline what more can be done? Could there be a domestic order? What other deals are we looking at internationally to create more of the jobs and apprenticeships that we need on the Fylde coast?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year I welcomed the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill receiving Royal Assent. Currently there is no such equivalent for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Will the Minister confirm the plan to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner for the RFA in the Armed Forces Bill next year, as set out in my ten-minute rule Bill? Can he report on progress with the RFA pay negotiations and collective bargaining agreement?
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, and I would like to meet her to look at the issue seriously. She is quite right that this country has never had someone like the armed forces commissioner, who will be a new independent voice, enshrined in statute, reporting directly to Parliament and not to Ministers. This will be an important way of giving voice to those in our armed forces who serve, and the families who support them.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Army Training Regiment Winchester, which puts about 20% of new recruits through basic training, is due to be shut next July, but the replacement facility at Pirbright is not due to open until 2030 at the earliest, although apparently that might be delayed. We have corresponded on this briefly, but would the Minister be willing to meet me and perhaps facilitate a meeting with the commanding officers of Winchester and Pirbright, to ensure that they have the support they need to increase troop numbers and not lose the capacity to train 20% of them?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Given the recent further estimates putting the total cost of the war in Ukraine to the European economy at north of $1 billion a year, while the total allied commitment to Ukraine remains at about $100 billion a year, does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot but afford to go further in our support for our Ukrainian allies?
John Healey
I do indeed. That is why I am convening, and will co-chair tomorrow, the latest meeting of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine defence contact group. We will be looking to step up the support that we are able to give Ukraine now to keep it in the fight, alongside the work that we are doing in the coalition of the willing, so that we are ready to help secure the peace in the event of an agreement.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital in my constituency is home to a world-class veterans centre that provides not only excellent orthopaedic care but wraparound support to help veterans to continue their lives in civilian society. Will the Minister come to North Shropshire and meet the people who run the centre, so that she can see for herself how effective this model is?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, and the development of our wider defence capabilities in the United Kingdom, rests heavily on the town of Barrow, next to my own constituency, in my district of Westmorland and Furness. Does the Secretary of State recognise that investment into the town from the council is crucial to maintaining our peace and security, and will he have a word with his colleagues in the Cabinet? The local council is set to have a 13% cut to its budget, which will put at risk much of the investment in the town of Barrow that is meant to underpin the defence of our realm.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Since the general election, Barrow has seen more than 1,000 extra jobs in the shipyard alone. It will have seen the long-term commitment that this Government have made to Team Barrow, which is the result of national and local government, and other agencies, working together. We are determined to make that a success.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
On Armed Forces Day, it is crucial to mark the bravery of our armed forces personnel and bring our communities together. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can better support Armed Forces Day 2026 events in places such as Falkirk?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment ultimately to spend 5% of GDP on defence—as we used to do in the cold war years of the 1980s—but not the target date of 2035. Do the Government really believe that there is no threat of attack from Russia on a NATO country for the next 10 years?
John Healey
Of course there are rising threats, which is why we have a rising defence budget over the next 10 years. The 2035 commitment that we have made is shared with all other 31 NATO nations.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The strategic defence review states that we need a 30% increase in cadet forces, from 140,000 to 180,000. However, I am informed that there is a severe shortage of adult instructors. What is the Minister going to do to address that problem?
Factories of the Future
John Healey Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
In the strategic defence review published in June, the MOD committed £1.5 billion of additional defence investment for energetics and munitions, including the always-on munitions pipeline. The Government are committed to building at least six new munitions and energetics factories this Parliament, creating at least 1,000 new jobs and driving defence as an engine for growth in every region and nation, supporting the Government’s decade of national renewal. Today, I can announce that the Ministry of Defence has identified at least 13 potential sites for new munitions and energetics factories, and I expect construction to begin on the first of the factories in the next year. The new factories will make munitions and military explosives to boost the UK’s warfighting readiness as the Government start to build the factories of the future.
I can also announce today that we have invited industry to submit proposals to meet the Government’s requirements for energetics production. The MOD’s requirements for energetics production will be published online today, and will set out the MOD’s plan to deliver a significant set of multi-year investments to support onshore production and generate growth in the UK. The document includes details of nine energetic materials which have been identified as key for the UK.
This follows a number of feasibility studies that MOD has funded for the new energetics factories to kick-start high-volume production at scale for the first time in nearly two decades. The engineering design work on the first of these factories has been commissioned with a view to start production for our own armed forces, and to enable our continued support to Ukraine. Potential sites include Grangemouth in Scotland, Teesside in north-east England, and Milford Haven in Wales. The factories will produce the components essential for bolstering the UK’s weapons arsenal including propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
The new munitions and energetics factories will deliver on the strategic defence review’s commitment to move to warfighting readiness and need to boost the UK’s firepower for the armed forces—and today is an important step forward. The first-of-its-kind strategic defence review was published in June, with the ambition to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The Government are delivering at pace on the recommendations in the review to keep the British people safe, with national security the foundation of the Government’s plan for change.
This Government are making defence an engine for growth, with a record increase in defence investment to protect the British people in a new era of threat while delivering a defence dividend—measured in good jobs, growing businesses, and new skills across the UK.
[HCWS1072]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I know the whole House is united in condemning the dreadful attacks on the LNER train from Doncaster to London over the weekend, and our thoughts are with the victims, their families and their friends. This is also the period in which we mark remembrance. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ceremony in opening the garden of remembrance for constituencies this morning. We will wear our poppies with pride, and we will remember them.
In September, we published our Government’s new defence industrial strategy, backed by nearly £800 million in funding. We are making defence an engine for driving economic growth. We are backing British jobs, backing British industry and backing British innovation.
Sarah Russell
I recently visited Avocet, an innovative manufacturing company based in Holmes Chapel in my constituency. It is looking to grow its business by diversifying into supplying components and materials for drone battery production. However, it has expressed to me the potential for improved support and guidance from the Government in order to break into and thrive in this competitive international market. What steps is the Department taking to support British manufacturing businesses such as Avocet? Does he agree that helping these organisations will unlock vital opportunities for economic growth?
John Healey
I do indeed, and my hon. Friend is right. Firms such as that in her constituency hold the future of our security and our economic growth. That is why we have set up UK Defence Innovation and ringfenced it with at least £400 million in the Budget this year, with fresh freedoms. We have also doubled to £4 billion the amount of money that we will invest in British drones and autonomy over this Parliament.
Gurinder Singh Josan
A key ingredient in strengthening the industrial base is the innovation that our companies bring to the table. A&M EDM Ltd in my constituency is a specialist engineering company working with aerospace, automotive, Formula 1 and other industries. When I visited recently, it was testing a drone engine that it had designed and built, with most parts being produced in house. What routes are available to companies such as A&M EDM Ltd to bring that innovation, specialist engineering capacity, and research and development ability to the defence industrial supply chain?
John Healey
UK Defence Innovation has been set up to transform defence’s innovation system. One of its priorities is to foster collaboration with small and medium-sized firms in fields beyond defence, just like A&M EDM Ltd in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have set out my determination to see Britain become the best place to start, grow and invest in new defence companies.
Antonia Bance
It is always good to follow another Member for the Black Country. I was recently very pleased to meet with Babcock International, which is based in Walsall, just over the M6 from my constituency, where it makes armoured cars. Can the Secretary of State comment on future opportunities for defence manufacturing in the Black Country and the wider west midlands?
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.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Ministry of Defence spent £1.2 billion with SMEs in 2024-25. Sadly, though, only 2.5% of that spending went to SMEs in Scotland, which report extreme difficulty in accessing those MOD contracts. This is an inevitable consequence of the MOD spending more in one region of England than it spends in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland put together. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an undesirable outcome, and what steps will he take to increase SME expenditure by the MOD in Scotland to at least Scotland’s per capita share, which is what it contributes to the cost of defence?
John Healey
The first useful step, of course, would be for the Scottish nationalist Government to lift their bar on any support for defence and associated firms. One of the biggest problems for SMEs in the defence field in Scotland is that they cannot get any support from their own Government, despite the big contribution that those SMEs make to jobs, opportunities and security, not just for Scotland and the UK.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As the Secretary of State said, the defence industrial strategy promises to boost British export success, British businesses and British jobs. As such, I am sure he is as excited as I am about the Aeralis bid to replace the Red Arrow Hawk aircraft, which would deliver around 600 skilled jobs at StandardAero in my constituency. Will he ensure that there is an early decision on the replacement of the Hawk aircraft, and that that decision fully reflects the opportunity that exists to create high-value jobs, drive exports, strengthen British sovereign capability, and enable the United Kingdom to design and build its own aircraft?
John Healey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Like her, I am very excited about the defence industrial strategy, and she is right to urge me to ensure we take an early decision about the replacement of the Hawk trainer. We will, because that is a long-overdue decision that should have been taken years ago by the previous Administration and the previous Defence Procurement Minister.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the appalling attack in Huntingdon over the weekend.
We all know that the Government cannot deliver a strong defence industrial base without seriously boosting defence spending, yet multiple media outlets have very recently reported that the Secretary of State’s Department is asking the armed forces to make cuts of £2.6 billion this financial year. Very simply, can he tell us what will be cut to find the money?
John Healey
Quite simply, we have boosted defence investment. We have done so by a record amount since the end of the cold war, and three years earlier than the Conservatives’ unfunded plans proposed. Since the election, we have signed over 1,000 major contracts, 84% of them with British firms. We have brought £1.7 billion of foreign direct investment into defence, and we have won major export deals that the Conservatives never managed. On Monday, the Prime Minister and I signed an £8 billion deal with Turkey to buy 20 British Typhoons, which will help secure 20,000 jobs in the wider supply chain for the years to come. I would like to hear Conservative Members welcome that.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We are making the most significant commitment and change to armed forces housing in 50 years. Within six months of the election, we acted to end the worst-ever Tory privatisation. We brought 36,000 military homes back into public ownership, and now we are making a £9 billion investment over the next decade to bring those homes up to scratch. At the same time, we are supercharging the building of new housing on surplus defence land. These plans are set out in our new defence housing strategy, which we published today, and a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.
Mr Rand
In the week of Remembrance Sunday, it is important to restate that supporting our armed forces and their families is something we should be committed to every day. Over the past decade, two thirds of armed forces service family accommodation was allowed to fall into such disrepair that it was deemed not fit for purpose by the Defence Committee. How will our consumer charter for armed forces families ensure that we do provide homes fit for heroes?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to recognise remembrance as a time when we recognise not just the service of those in the past, but those who serve today. We make demands on them that none of us would have to meet. We ask them to deploy at a week’s notice to the other side of the world, and we ask them to move with their families every few years around the UK. The very last thing they should worry about is whether their wives, husbands, partners or kids are living in cold, damp and leaky homes. We are ending what my hon. Friend says is the Tory scandal of unfit forces housing, and we are getting Britain building the homes that we need on surplus defence land—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Secretary of State will want to catch my eye for his own questions. He should not use up all his ammunition just yet.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I welcome the £9 billion investment in military housing, but can the Secretary of State reassure Members, those serving and their families that responsive repairs will not be put on hold in the hope of a new bathroom, kitchen or heating system?
John Healey
The introduction earlier this year of a new consumer standard has not just raised the required standard of those repairs, but the response when they are needed. Over the first year of this Government, we have seen the number of complaints about forces housing more than halve from the high under the previous Government. There will always be complaints; there will always be problems. We cannot fix these problems overnight, but I am determined that we will fix them. I am determined for this to be a nation where we say proudly that we provide homes fit for our heroes.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The UK is playing a leading role in stepping up support for Ukraine. This year we are spending the highest ever level on military aid to Ukraine through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which I chaired last month. In this year alone we have managed to get £50 billion-worth of pledges of support for Ukraine from the 50-nation-strong group. Tomorrow I will join Defence Ministers in the Joint Expeditionary Force coalition in Norway, where we will confirm a new partnership with Ukraine to strengthen our support further.
Andrew Cooper
I strongly welcome the Defence Secretary’s continued leadership on Ukraine. I visited Estonia in early September, just prior to the incident in which three MiG-31 Russian fighter jets entered Estonian airspace and stayed for 12 minutes, in a further dangerous escalation of tensions in the region. Even before that incident, the sense I got from the Estonian politicians I met was that they were very much on the frontline, and there was deep concern that, if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, they will be next. What assurances can the Defence Secretary give that contingency plans are in place to support our NATO allies in the face of continued Russian aggression?
John Healey
I commend my hon. Friend, and Members on both sides of the House who have visited Ukraine. That can give an important sense of support and confidence to those fighting in Ukraine. He is right; Putin’s incursions into NATO airspace are reckless and dangerous, and serve only to strengthen the unity of NATO. NATO responded swiftly to those incursions, and I recently extended the UK’s Typhoon contribution to that Eastern Sentry exercise until the end of the year. The UK remains the framework nation for the forward land forces in Estonia—we have almost 10,000 UK troops in Estonia. That strengthens NATO’s deterrence, which is something I will be discussing with JEF Defence Ministers this week in Norway.
Paul Davies
I welcome the commitments made by the coalition of the willing on further military support for the protection of Ukraine’s airspace. However, Ukraine continues to endure daily aerial attacks targeted at civil infrastructure, as Russia seeks to use the approaching winter as a tool of torment. Can the Minister clarify what specific air defence capabilities have been pledged to safeguard Ukraine’s skies and protect critical infrastructure?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right; Putin’s aerial bombardment of Ukraine is cynical, illegal and targeted at civilians. That is why we have stepped up our efforts to reinforce Ukraine’s air defences. This autumn we have delivered more than 200,000 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition and hundreds of air-to-air missiles. In September we announced a first-of-its-kind joint programme for the new interceptor drone, the Octopus, which will be produced in the UK and manufactured at scale. We aim to deliver thousands a month back into Ukraine to help defend its skies, defend its cities, and defend its energy infrastructure.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As we build up towards Remembrance Sunday, does the Secretary of State agree that it is appropriate for us to remember the circumstances in which two world wars began, when democracies were relatively weak in the face of armed autocracies? Therefore, does he agree that the help we give to Ukraine is the best possible guarantee that aggressors will not be emboldened to attack other countries as well?
John Healey
I do indeed. If big countries believe that they can redraw international boundaries by force and get away with it, then no democracy and no state is safe. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a secure, sovereign Ukraine is central to Europe’s security in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Reports in the newspapers indicate that 150,000 new Russian soldiers are being prepared for an onslaught in eastern Ukraine. I do not doubt for one second that the Secretary of State, the Labour Government and this Parliament are committed to doing something, but reports seem to indicate that other countries are slowing down on what they give. Has he been able to encourage other countries to ensure that they replicate what we give?
John Healey
The answer is yes, through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group—50 nations that have committed to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Together, we have secured £50 billion of pledges of military aid to Ukraine in this year alone, and I am proud of the way that the UK has stepped in, alongside Germany, to lead that group. It is part of what we are doing, with others, to step up support for Ukraine, which will be needed even more in the months to come.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Last week, I was in Turkey with the Prime Minister to sign Britain’s biggest fighter jet export deal in a generation. The £8 billion contract for 20 Typhoons is a win for European security, the British economy and 20,000 UK workers. It comes just weeks after we won the biggest ever warship deal—a £10 billion contract with Norway that will secure 4,000 jobs over the next decade. These deals demonstrate defence as an engine for growth. Today we go further and publish our defence housing strategy, in which we plan to upgrade 40,000 forces family homes and build 100,000 new homes for military and civilians alike. This plan is backed by a £9 billion investment over this decade—more than double what was in the Tory plans. This is a Government delivering for defence and for Britain.
Phil Brickell
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Turkey deal last week? A year on from his signing of the Trinity House agreement with his German counterpart, can he outline what progress has been made on implementing that deal, in particular to boost industrial collaboration and drive greater investment into integrated air and missile defence?
John Healey
Indeed, we are a year on from the Trinity House agreement, and our co-operation over the next year will only deepen further. Within weeks, we will have German P-8s flying out of Lossiemouth. We have a new cyber programme to conduct joint activities. We have accelerated work on a new 2,000 km deep precision strike missile, and a new £200 million bridging deal to support the British Army. I have to say that this agreement is more important now than when we signed it a year ago.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In the Secretary of State’s strategic defence review statement to Parliament on 2 June, he said that the defence investment plan would be
“completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]
Will he keep that promise?
John Healey
The SDR quite rightly said that further decisions on investment plans were central to delivering the SDR. We are doing that work thoroughly at the moment so that we will no longer have what the hon. Member’s Government left: a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to meet the threats that face us.
James Cartlidge
The Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am afraid the worry is that it is yet another delayed defence Command Paper. That prompts the obvious question: what exactly are the Government delivering for defence except delayed defence Command Papers? Is not this the truth: they are putting the British Army back in the dock, they are surrendering Diego Garcia for £35 billion, and all the while—they have not denied this today—they are cutting £2.6 billion from the frontline this year? Don’t the men and women of our armed forces deserve better?
John Healey
The hon. Member’s figures are wrong, and his characterisation and description are wrong. We have put £5 billion extra into the defence budget in this, our first year, and we are raising defence investment with the highest increase since the cold war. But the public expect us to manage better the budgets that we have got, so we are managing those budgets, which he failed to do. Alongside the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan, we are already acting and have let over 1,000 major contracts, 84% of them to British firms. Today, we are putting £9 billion into defence housing for the future.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
John Healey
No one word can sum up a country as significant and as complex as China, but our experience tells us that China is certainly an economic threat, as well as an opportunity in many areas.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Research shows that women in the Army are up to seven times more likely than men to suffer musculoskeletal injuries, and 10 times more likely to experience hip and pelvic fractures. Given these stark disparities, can the Minister tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that women veterans receive appropriate gender-specific healthcare and rehabilitation support as they transition into civilian life?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that the troops are there to monitor the ceasefire. A small handful of British forces personnel have been deployed to the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre at the request of the US, and it is the US that is leading that work.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Recent reports show that Babcock is having to recruit hundreds of overseas welders because of a skills shortage in Scotland. This is the direct result of decades of under-investment in further education and skills in Scotland. Can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to ensure that my constituents can access the apprenticeships and skills that defence jobs depend on?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right: the continuation of the Scottish nationalist Government in Scotland is a threat to our security and to future prosperity and jobs in that country.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Given the multitude of security threats that we face, especially in the grey zone of cyber-attacks, it is abundantly clear that we need to accelerate investment in defence, but the Government are just not able to move fast enough. Our German friends, renowned for their fiscal prudence, have relaxed their fiscal rules just for their Defence Department. In the run-up to the Budget, what discussions has my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary had with the Chancellor on relaxing fiscal rules for the Ministry of Defence in order to meet the moment?
John Healey
We have the increase in the budget this year; we have the increase in the budget over the Parliament. Our job now is to ensure that we can deliver value for money for that increased investment, and use that increased investment to drive economic growth across the UK. It is thanks to that increased investment that we have been able to announce and launch our defence housing strategy today.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Now that the Secretary of State has warmed up a bit by calling the SNP a threat to our national security, will he have another go and say whether China is a threat to our national security?
John Healey
I have nothing to add to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who asked the same question. What a waste of a question.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Government’s Op Valour pilot programme and the Minister’s commitment to improving support for our veterans. However, I am disappointed that Portsmouth—home to the Royal Navy and one of the largest veteran communities—is not part of the programme. Can the Minister reassure me that councils like Portsmouth city council will be encouraged and supported to join Op Valour and look after the veterans who live in our city?
Mr Speaker
When I bring you in on a topical, it is meant to be short and punchy, not a “War and Peace” question!
John Healey
I have to say that my hon. Friend is wrong on this. Over 400,000 jobs are supported—directly and indirectly—by defence, and almost 70% of the defence investment we make in this country is outside London and the south-east, right across the UK.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
People’s experiences of medical discharge from the armed forces vary significantly, and too often it fails those who need the support most. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the discharge process, including improving consistency across units?
NATO: Eastern Sentry
John Healey Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On 10 September, Polish air space was recklessly violated by a number of Russian uncrewed aerial systems, in the most significant violation of NATO airspace by Russia since the start of Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Poland requested consultations at NATO under article 4 of the Washington treaty. The UK, alongside our allies, stands in full solidarity with Poland and denounces Russia’s reckless behaviour.
In response, I announced after the E5 defence ministerial meeting in London last week that I had asked our UK armed forces to look at options to bolster NATO’s air defence over Poland.
On 12 September, the NATO Secretary-General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe announced NATO was launching Eastern Sentry to bolster NATO’s posture further along its eastern flank.
Within days, the United Kingdom will deploy RAF Typhoon fighter jets to support NATO’s response to Eastern Sentry, reinforcing the alliance’s air defences on its eastern flank, and supported by RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Operating from the UK, RAF Typhoons will conduct air defence missions over Poland, operating alongside allied forces, from Denmark, France, and Germany, to ensure the security of allied territory and deter further aggression. This activity will involve hundreds of UK personnel and I am, as always, grateful for the hard work and dedication of our armed forces for their work 24/7 to keep the UK and our allies safe.
The UK’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. UK armed forces play a vital role in NATO’s defence, from the permanent British Army presence in Estonia as part of NATO’s Forward Land Forces to the RAF’s rotational air policing missions in eastern Europe. Over the past 18 months, RAF Typhoons have been deployed to Poland and Romania to protect NATO airspace. This deployment underscores the UK’s commitment to NATO and the security of Europe. The Government remain resolute in their duty to protect the UK and our NATO allies.
[HCWS931]
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am sure that the House will want to offer its sympathies to His Majesty and the royal family on the passing of the Duchess of Kent.
The world is more dangerous and less predictable that ever, and as a result we need a strong British defence industry that is capable of innovating ahead of our adversaries. Our defence industrial strategy, launched later today, will meet that challenge. It will create jobs, grow skills, and drive innovation. It will make defence an engine for growth in every region and nation of the UK, and it will put Britain at the leading edge of innovation within NATO.
Dr Gardner
The growing advanced ceramics industry in north Staffordshire is a key creator of the unique advanced ceramic materials that are required for His Majesty’s fighting capability, including unique armour materials for defence, ultra high-speed munitions, and the detection and security of our communications. There is a time-based opportunity to create a sovereign capability for the development and supply of ceramic matrix composites that our UK defence forces need, and so enhance the resilience of our defence supply chain. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the creation of that sovereign capability, and visit my constituency to see for himself the range of companies and skills on offer?
John Healey
I know that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend. She recognises the truth at the heart of the need for a strong British defence industry that is resilient and capable of supporting the businesses, jobs and innovation that we need to develop here in Britain. Gone will be the days when we let contracts in the defence field without worrying where the jobs, businesses, and long-term investment will go.
Katrina Murray
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Stewart-Buchanan Gauges, a proud employee-owned business in my constituency that supplies high-quality gauges and valves to clients in more than 50 countries. It even provides gauges for the SpaceX shuttle, and it exemplifies the world-class small and medium-sized enterprises that drive our economy and support the defence sector. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that firms such as Stewart-Buchanan Gauges are included in defence innovation initiatives and remain integral to UK supply chains?
John Healey
I take my hat off to the firm in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is exactly those sorts of businesses that are the backbone of a strong British defence industry. Small or medium-sized companies, often with the potential to grow, have not in the past seen support from Government. That is why we have set up an SME support centre that is dedicated to making it easier to access Government contracts, and why we will ringfence £400 million of direct defence investment that will go to SMEs. That will grow in each successive year.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
That is the story of my life—I am always the reserve, but I am always happy to step in. [Laughter.]
Boxer, Challenger 3 and now the gun barrel facility are going to be based in my constituency—well, I hope the latter will be in my constituency, but certainly in Shropshire. Will the Secretary of State put on the record his thanks for all the work of the men and women —the new engineers, the 100 new employees—taken on for the Boxer programme since March by Rheinmetall Defence and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land? Shropshire is a defence hub, and I ask the new ministerial team—some of them are here for me to welcome them today—whether the Government will continue to invest in Shropshire, recognising the link between local universities and colleges, and the defence supply chain.
John Healey
Far from being the reserve, the right hon. Gentleman is first up for the Opposition this afternoon, and I welcome that and the investment in Shropshire. I reassure him that the Government will continue to support that. I pay tribute, as he encouraged me to do, to the workforce in his area. When the defence industrial strategy is published, the House will see how we are looking to define not just the British industry, but investors, entrepreneurs and the workforce as an essential part of strengthening British industry and innovation, and the future for British jobs.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Following the recent news that Norway will purchase Type 26 frigates, the speculation in the media before the weekend was that the Danish navy might also be about to place a significant order for the Type 31. Will the Secretary of State soon be able to give the UK additional good news?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is the biggest British warship deal ever, and it is Norway’s biggest ever defence contract. When the Prime Minister of Norway announced the detail, he said, “We asked ourselves two questions: who is our best strategic partner, and who builds the best warships?” The answer to both was Britain. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope—we will work to ensure this—that that leads to other export contracts that will bring jobs and a future to British industry.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At the Hague summit in June, all 32 NATO nations agreed to step up and increase spending on national security to 5% by 2035. I am proud that this Labour Government played a leading part in the discussions that led to that historic agreement.
Mr Mohindra
Tomorrow we will vote on a Bill that shamefully gives up the sovereignty of our military base in Diego Garcia. Given the commitment to spend more on defence, will the Secretary of State confirm if the money spent on Chagos will be included in our declared NATO spend?
John Healey
The investment in Diego Garcia is a great investment in the defence and intelligence partnership with the United States. Together, we do things from Diego Garcia that cannot be done elsewhere; we do things together that we do not do with other nations. The deal is worth less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. How is it that the Conservatives have got themselves on the wrong side of this argument about national security, when we stand alongside the US as our closest allies?
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Britain’s commitment to the 5% NATO target clearly sends a strong signal of our resolve, but that pledge must command public confidence that the money will be spent wisely. Can the Secretary of State provide more detail on how he is working with the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others to ensure that every additional pound of public investment in defence delivers value for money for the taxpayer?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. This is about not just how much the Government spend, but how well they spend. Mr Speaker, you will remember that under the previous Government, the Public Accounts Committee branded our defence procurement system as “broken”. We are reforming procurement, and that will be part of the statement this afternoon on the defence industrial strategy by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). At the heart of this, we made a commitment to the British people at the last election that we would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and we are doing that three years early. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and for Britain.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Defence Secretary says that the Chagos giveaway will amount to no more than 0.2% of our defence budget. Does that not suggest the cost of the Chagos giveaway will in fact come out of the defence budget?
John Healey
On the contrary, both the Foreign Secretary and I have been consistent that, taken across the range, the cost of the settlement with Mauritius for Diego Garcia is split between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. For defence, our commitment is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. That is a good investment for this country, and it gives us a sovereign right to operate that base with the Americans for the next 99 years.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the leadership displayed by the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary and our commitment to the historic 5% pledge. What steps will NATO take to further strengthen our response to growing Russian aggression?
John Healey
The response of NATO has produced results exactly to the contrary of those President Putin would have wanted when he invaded Ukraine three-and-a-half years ago. NATO is now bigger; it is 32 nations strong. The commitment that all 32 nations made in the June summit to increase national security spending to 5% by 2035 is a strong deterrent message to Putin, Russia and other adversaries, and it will make NATO bigger and stronger in order to deter in the years ahead.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their promotions. I also send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle); it was always a pleasure to work with her.
On defence spending, can the Secretary of State confirm what percentage of GDP will be used to set the cost envelope for the defence investment plan?
John Healey
When we settle our defence investment plan and produce our annual report and accounts, the data that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be set out clearly and in the customary way to this House.
James Cartlidge
Interestingly, the answer is not 3.5%, it is not 3%, and it is not even 2.6%—those are the figures we declare to NATO; they are not from the Ministry of Defence budget. As the then armed forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, confirmed to me last week in a written answer, the amount we will spend on the defence investment plan comes entirely from the MOD’s departmental budget. Therefore, the actual figure for funding our future defence equipment is just 2.2% by 2027, with no funded plans to go any higher. Given the threats we face, is 2.2% enough?
John Healey
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the defence investment plan will be funded from the defence budget. That is exactly what will happen. It will be funded and supported by the record increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—by the £5 billion extra in this year’s Budget—with an aim to spend 3% of GDP on defence during the next Parliament. These are commitments that the previous Conservative Government had 14 years to make, but never made. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government have accepted all 62 recommendations of the strategic defence review. Implementation of the review’s recommendations is already well under way.
Alex Brewer
With RAF Odiham celebrating its centenary this year, I am proud of the many close military ties that we have in my constituency of North East Hampshire. One of the recommendations of the strategic defence review is to improve accommodation, where we are letting our military personnel down. Given that there is widespread agreement with the Liberal Democrats on this issue, including in the other place, will the Secretary of State support bringing all military housing in line with the decent homes standard in today’s Renters’ Rights Bill vote?
John Healey
In the last year, we have taken huge steps to start to make good on decades of substandard housing for military personnel and their families. We have brought 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can plan exactly the sort of upgrade that the hon. Lady talks about.
On the rest of the SDR, we have announced the purchase of 12 F-35A aircraft, which will join the dual capable aircraft mission of NATO; we have launched our new £70 million campaign on cadets; and we have stood up the cyber and specialist operations command. Today, we are publishing the defence industrial strategy to make defence an engine for growth. This Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The strategic defence review rightly highlighted the need for a whole-of-society approach to defence, including expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030. A key part of that has to include supporting more adult volunteers to give their time to the cadets. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that more adult volunteers are able to support our fantastic cadets?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Cadet forces cannot exist without the adult volunteers who support them, and they are central to our ability to increase the number of cadet forces across this country by 30% by 2030, which will give so many young people opportunities in the future.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We totally condemn Russia’s air attack on Ukraine over the weekend. It is the worst since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine began, hitting a Government building for the first time. Putin is escalating his attacks, and we must step up and speed up our support for Ukraine. Last week, I announced that over £1 billion of profits from frozen Russian assets has been put into military aid for Ukraine. Tomorrow, I will host and co-chair from London the 30th Ukraine Defence Contact Group, when 50 nations will together confirm increased military aid for Ukraine.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Over the weekend, a drone attack was launched targeting a number of regions, including Kyiv and Odesa, which I had the privilege of visiting earlier this year. It is reported to be the biggest drone strike since Putin’s illegal invasion began. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that more must be done to secure a ceasefire?
John Healey
I agree with my hon. Friend, and she is right that it was the biggest drone attack in the past three and a half years since Putin’s illegal invasion. These air attacks are directed at civilian areas with civilian targets. I saw for myself this week the damage that brings when I stood outside the bombed-out building of the British Council in Kyiv, and I saw the determination of men and women—military and civilians alike—in their defiance to keep fighting in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm how this country and our allies will support Ukraine to defend its airspace from Russian aggression? For example, will we lend it our Typhoons or will we participate in the cross-national F-16 fighter programme, despite the fact that we do not have F-16s?
John Healey
We have worked closely with Ukraine to develop new weapons systems to supply the air defence missiles it requires. While-ever Ukraine is fighting Putin’s invasion, we will stand alongside it and we will provide whatever military aid we can. Beyond that, for when we can reach a negotiated peace, we have been leading work to prepare a multinational force willing to stand with Ukraine in the peace and to secure that peace for the long term so that Russia never again invades that country.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). She served as a Minister in both this and the previous Labour Government with great commitment, and we thank her for her service. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Last week I travelled to Norway to sign the biggest British warship deal ever—a £10 billion contract that will secure 4,000 jobs for the next two decades. Last week I also visited Kyiv, during my fifth visit to Ukraine, where I met Defence Minister Shmyhal, visited a drone factory and chaired a meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 30 Defence Ministers. The message to Moscow from one and all was of defiance and determination: the Ukrainians will keep fighting Russian aggression, and the coalition will step up support for Ukraine and preparations for a peace in Ukraine. Tomorrow from London I will co-chair the meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, attended by around 50 nations. This week I will also host the meeting of the E5 Defence Ministers here in London.
Graham Stuart
When I meet veterans across Beverley and Holderness, particularly at Withernsea or Beverley veterans breakfast clubs, the No. 1 issue they raise with me is homelessness among veterans—an issue that the Minister for Veterans and People will recognise. They ask what more we can do, and I share that question with the Secretary of State: what more can we do to ensure that those who have put their lives on the line to serve our country do not find themselves homeless in their later days?
John Healey
I share with the right hon. Gentleman, and, I think, every Member of this House, the pleasure and honour of attending such breakfast clubs with veterans in my constituency. He is right about the range of concerns that veterans raise, which includes the pressures of homelessness. Recognising the forces’ service in local authority housing priorities is our first step, and the £50 million going into the Op VALOUR system to increase support for veterans will also play a part.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
John Healey
We are always ready to take further steps on imposing economic sanctions, and to close any loopholes in those sanctions. We have a record, under both the last Government and this Government, of being at the forefront of imposing these sorts of economic measures on Putin’s regime.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Young people in my constituency are crying out for decent, well-paid jobs, especially in the defence sector, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the Typhoon order that is desperately needed, not only for our country, but for jobs across Blackpool and Lancashire?
John Healey
I will indeed, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged, I hope, by the visit I paid to Turkey, and the initial agreement that I have signed with Turkey for a big new order of Typhoons, which will be built in Lancashire.
Geelong Treaty: Contingent Liability
John Healey Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am today laying a departmental minute before Parliament describing a contingent liability that His Majesty's Government will take on relating to the United Kingdom’s participation in the AUKUS security partnership with the United States of America and Australia. His Majesty's Government will hold this liability following entry into force of the Geelong treaty between the UK and Australia, which I have recently signed along with the Australian Deputy Prime Minister.
As set out in the strategic defence review, AUKUS is an enhanced security partnership that will strengthen security in the Indo-pacific and Euro-Atlantic, along with growing the UK economy. The first major initiative of AUKUS is our historic decision to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. The treaty builds on the strong foundation of trilateral co-operation between Australia, the UK and the United States, advancing the shared objectives of the AUKUS partnership. It will enable the development of SSN-AUKUS and resilient trilateral supply chains.
As part of the co-ordinated approach to our respective SSN-AUKUS build programmes, Australia and the UK have decided to provide an appropriate indemnity to each other related to the supply of material, equipment, information and services transferred or to be transferred on a Government-to-Government basis in connection with SSN-AUKUS.
This contingent liability will not be incurred until entry into force of the treaty, which has also been laid before Parliament today. In accordance with usual practice for contingent liabilities, it will therefore not be incurred until at least 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed from the date on which the departmental minute is laid before Parliament.
[HCWS895]
Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about Ukraine.
Before I begin, I inform the House that yesterday we secured a £10 billion contract to supply Norway with at least five Type 26 frigates. This is the biggest British warship deal in our history. It strengthens NATO and our northern flank, and supports 4,000 British jobs and 400 British businesses for years to come. It shows that this Government are making defence an engine for growth across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Turning to Ukraine, a few days ago Ukrainians around the world came together to mark a special day: 34 years of their country’s independence—34 years as a proud and sovereign nation. Ukrainians, civilians and those from the military alike, continue to fight for that freedom with huge courage, three-and-a-half years on from the start of Putin’s brutal, full-scale invasion. A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine: its freedom is our freedom and its values our are values. That is why the UK stands with Ukraine, and why this House stands united for Ukraine. When Ukraine marks its next independence day, we all hope to see Ukrainians celebrate in a time of peace, not in a time of war.
Over the summer, the UK, with our allies, has been working hard to make that hope a reality. The Prime Minister hosted President Zelensky in London, chaired various coalition of the willing meetings with President Macron and joined European leaders with President Zelensky to meet President Trump in Washington DC. I have spoken with Defence Ministers across the coalition about stepping up military support and securing a peace after any deal. Our military leaders have met multiple times to strengthen international contributions to the coalition, also known now as the “multinational force Ukraine.”
We welcome President Trump’s dedication to bringing this terrible war to an end, and we strongly welcome his commitment to make security guarantees “very secure,” as he says, with the Europeans. At every stage, President Zelensky continues his support for a full, unconditional ceasefire and for talks on a lasting peace, yet Putin’s response has been to launch some of the largest attacks on Ukraine since the start of the war. During last week’s onslaught on Kyiv, at least 23 people were killed, four of whom were children, including a two-year-old. An attack on the British Council was an outrage: a Russian missile, fired into a civilian area, as part of an illegal war, damaged a British Government building, injuring a civilian worker.
It now appears that Putin is refusing a meeting with President Trump and President Zelensky, so while Ukraine wants peace, Putin wages war. President Trump is right: we must continue pushing for peace, as well as increasing pressure on Putin to come to the table. So we support measures to disrupt Russian oil revenues, and we welcome President Trump’s comments that he is weighing very serious economic sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary will have more to say on similar UK action very soon.
On the battlefield, intense fighting continues along the frontline. While Russian military activity has reduced in the Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts, as Russian ground forces relocate elements of those forces, over the past two weeks, they have advanced in the northern Donetsk region. Pokrovsk remains Russia’s focus and its forces are using a variety of methods to infiltrate Ukrainian positions, but Putin continues to make only minor territorial gains, at a huge cost.
The most recent assessment by UK defence intelligence estimates that at the current pace since January, it would take Russia another 4.4 years to seize the Donbas, at a cost of almost 2 million more Russian casualties. Despite that, the increasing escalation of Russia’s devastating drone strikes is a serious concern. In July, Russia launched approximately 6,200 one-way attack drones into Ukraine, another monthly record. In one night alone, over this weekend, Russia launched nearly 540 drones and 45 missiles.
The UK Government are stepping up our efforts for Ukraine. Our priorities are simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow. To support the fight today, we are providing £4.5 billion in military aid for Ukraine this year—the highest ever level. At the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, with over 50 nations and partners, in July, I launched a “50-day drive” to accelerate the assistance that we are giving. Fifty days on, the UK has delivered to Ukraine nearly 5 million rounds of munitions, around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, 2,500 uncrewed platforms, 30 vehicles and engineering equipment, and 200 electronic warfare and air defence systems.
We will not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war. Next week, I will co-chair the 30th UDCG meeting with Germany’s Minister Pistorius, alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and 50 other allies and partners. I will host an E5 Defence Ministers summit in London next week, where we will be joined by the Ukrainian Defence Minister, and where together we will step up still further our support for Ukraine.
To secure the peace tomorrow, the UK continues, with the French, to lead the coalition of the willing. Some 200 military planners from more than 30 nations have helped design plans in the event of a ceasefire: plans to secure the skies and seas, and to train Ukrainian forces to defend their nation. This week, I will host Defence Ministers from across the coalition, with French Minister Lecornu, to further cement contributions to that coalition. For the armed forces, I am reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment. Peace is possible, and we will be ready. The Prime Minister and I will ensure that the House is fully informed of developments in the proper way.
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the driving figures of the coalition of the willing, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin? Today is his last day as the UK Chief of the Defence Staff. Tony has had a distinguished 35-year military career in the armed forces, serving in operations right across the globe. He is widely respected and a true friend of the Ukrainian people, as President Zelensky himself said last week. I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in thanking Tony for his outstanding service and wish every success to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Rich Knighton.
Let me end by saying that while President Putin likes to project strength, he is now weaker than ever. Since Putin launched his illegal invasion, he has not achieved any of his strategic aims. He has lost more than 10,000 tanks and armoured vehicles, and his Black sea fleet has been humiliated. He is forced to rely on states such as Iran for drones, North Korea for frontline troops and China for technology and components. He is using 40% of his total Government spending on the war, with interest rates now running at 18% and inflation at 9%. Moreover, Putin now faces a bigger NATO—32 nations strong, with an agreement to raise national spending on security to 5% by 2035—and a Ukraine that is more determined than ever to control its own future. A secure Europe needs a strong, sovereign Ukraine, and we in the UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I join him in paying tribute to the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who, as he says, has given such impactful leadership and support for Ukraine. I also send my best wishes to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. It was a privilege to work with both of them at the MOD.
Let me turn to Ukraine. It is being widely reported that in his speech to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit today, Vladimir Putin said that the understandings reached at his meeting with President Trump in Alaska were opening the way to peace in Ukraine. How utterly cynical. What followed the summit in Alaska was not peace, but the brutal bombing of innocent civilians across Ukraine. In particular, just days ago, Putin unleashed the second-largest aerial attack of the whole war, killing at least 23 people, including four children, as the Secretary of State just confirmed.
Bomb damage included the British Council in Kyiv. We join the Government in utterly condemning the attack on the British Council and pay tribute to all its staff, who are playing their part in our national endeavour to support Ukraine. We pass on our best wishes to the member of staff who was injured in the attack. We note that the chief executive of the British Council, Scott McDonald, promised to continue operations wherever possible. Can the Secretary of State outline to what degree that has been achieved and what support the Government have provided to assist?
If Putin really wants to open the way to peace in Ukraine, as he said, he should recognise that the blame for this war lies squarely with his territorial ambitions, and that all the civilian and military bloodshed that continues is wholly the result of his unprovoked and illegal invasion. The reality is that Putin does not accept that basic fact. In his speech today at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit, Putin is widely quoted as blaming others for the war, in particular his long-standing refrain that the war was caused by
“the West’s constant attempts to draw Ukraine into NATO.”
Without ambiguity, we and all our allies must see that the war in Ukraine is a question of a free and sovereign democracy invaded without provocation by a bullying dictator. That is why, when we were in office, it was right to provide such strong support to Ukraine from the outset of the invasion—indeed, even before it commenced —and why in opposition we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in continuing that policy. That is why we need to keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline.
The Euro-Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constraint Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin from getting his hands on military equipment, so I am glad that the Foreign Secretary will have more to say on sanctions very soon, as the Secretary of State for Defence said. Can he confirm whether the timeline is directly linked to US action? Would the UK go ahead with those plans for tougher sanctions if the US for some reason did not?
On any potential end to the fighting, we all desperately want to see peace in Ukraine, but we are clear that it must be a lasting, sustainable peace. That is why security guarantees are so important. The Secretary of State referred to President Trump’s commitment to make security guarantees “very secure” with the Europeans. What further detail is he able to share on the likely shape of any such US security guarantees?
The Secretary of State states that the coalition of the willing would
“secure the skies and seas”.
That seems to miss out the land force element. Does that mean that the Army would be sent to Ukraine only in a training role? He also said that he is
“reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment”.
Does he expect that funding to come from the Treasury reserve or the existing MOD budget? On reviewing readiness, what is the timescale of the review? Is it yet at the stage where urgent operational requirements are being considered?
Finally, I strongly welcome the news that Norway has selected the Type 26, which is made in Scotland, for its future fleet. That is a huge deal that will support thousands of jobs, but it has been many years in the making, with significant input and progress under the previous Government. In December 2023, I had the pleasure of visiting the Norwegian MOD in Oslo, and I assure the House that the Type 26 was very much at the top of the agenda. To remind hon. Members, that was in the same week we announced that Britain and Norway would lead the maritime coalition supporting Ukraine’s navy, underlining the strength of our naval alliance and our joint commitment to Ukraine.
It is clear that a key reason for Norway’s decision is that it faces the same Russian threat that we do from Russian submarines and wants the best possible capability to respond, maximising interoperability with the Royal Navy. However, that Russian threat arises entirely from Putin’s pursuit of aggression, rather than peace. Until that situation changes in reality rather than in rhetoric, we must continue to be robust in doing everything possible to support Ukraine.
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of the success in securing the Norway deal. Groundwork was certainly done under the last Government, and he led a lot of that as the Defence Procurement Minister, but I have to say that we had a great deal more to do when we took over in July last year. Frankly, we had to reboot the campaign, which we did, and I am grateful that we have secured it, as it has huge military, economic and strategic importance.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s continuing support for the action we are taking to support Ukraine. He is absolutely right to call out Putin’s remarks at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation council, and the pressure is now on Putin to prove that he wants peace and to do what he says he wants. While he has sat down to discuss peace with President Trump in Alaska, he has of course been turning up his attacks in Ukraine. He launched this war, and he can stop it tomorrow if he chooses.
The hon. Gentleman asks about sanctions and encourages us to take further steps. He will know that we have already introduced more than 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships. We have sanctioned 289 vessels as part of the Russian shadow fleet, and very soon the Foreign Secretary will announce further UK steps.
On the security guarantees, the commitments we have secured already from many of those involved in the discussion are substantial. The discussions continue, and we look for contributions to be further confirmed. Much of the shape of any deployment of a coalition of the willing will depend on the terms of any peace agreement. At this stage, I certainly do not want to offer any more public details on that, because it would only reinforce Putin’s hand and make him and the Russians wiser.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I wholeheartedly welcome the historic frigate exports deal with Norway, and join him in paying tribute to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Radakin for his distinguished decades-long service to our country.
Recent Russian attacks across 14 different regions of Ukraine are not actions of peace. Words and actions must align, and it is abundantly clear that both from President Putin present a threat to us all. With such drastic escalation of Putin’s violence running concurrently with peace negotiations, along with Putin’s false reframing of his invasion as some sort of reaction to a Western-backed coup, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shed further light on what levers he has pulled to help enable a peaceful outcome?
John Healey
It is a truism that peace is secured through strength, and our task in countries such as the UK that strongly support Ukraine is to put it in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That means stepping up military support for Ukraine now, which we are doing, and will do further at next week’s UDCG meeting that I will co-chair. It also means stepping up economic pressure on Putin, which the House will have a chance to hear more about —the Foreign Secretary will announce further measures soon—and stepping up our preparations for securing any peace for the long term if Trump can help lead negotiations that will lead to a ceasefire and a peace agreement. That is the way that we support Ukraine now, and it is how we can help reinforce the steps towards the possibility of peace tomorrow.
I say to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that I will ensure tomorrow that Admiral Radakin is aware of the kind comments from both sides of the House. I know that he will appreciate them.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps.
I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine?
We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Lady’s strong focus on the need for further economic pressure on Putin and on Russia. She will recognise that the UK is out ahead of many other countries in the number of vessels we have sanctioned as part of the Russian shadow fleet. We are always ready to take further steps in that regard, and I hope she will see very soon from the Foreign Secretary the UK’s determination to go further still on economic pressure and on sanctions. She invites me to offer an update on progress on the use of seized assets; I am unable to do that, but she will know that this is not just a matter of whether it will be effective as a UK decision. The detailed work that is still being discussed with other key allies continues. We recognise the potential for using those assets seized from Russia to help rebuild and support Ukraine—that is something we are working on.
The hon. Lady urges us to lead European allies. It is not unreasonable to say that that is exactly what we are doing, not just through the UK providing our highest ever level of military aid this year, but in the way in which we have now stepped in to lead the UDCG. I will chair its 30th meeting alongside Minister Pistorius next week. We have also stepped in by leading the coalition of the willing with the French—more than 50 nations are part of the discussions about planning for Ukraine’s long-term future, and I will host the Defence Ministers alongside Minister Lecornu this week to discuss that further.
However, there is one other point that I would make to the hon. Lady and to this House. It is often seen as the European coalition of the willing or the European UDCG, but these are coalitions of nations that go well beyond Europe. I was in Japan last week, and Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan has joined the discussions for the coalition of the willing. Some of the most stalwart supporters of Ukraine in terms of military aid since the start of the Russian invasion have been allies of ours—steadfast supporters of Ukraine from other parts of the world, from Australia to Japan and from New Zealand to Korea. That signals to Putin not just that Europe stands steadfast with Ukraine in challenging and confronting his aggression, but that we and many other countries see this as a security matter in the Euro-Atlantic that is indivisible from security in the Indo-Pacific.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the update and for his continuing leadership on this issue. We have all been so moved by the extraordinary bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression, and in my constituency we know how important it is to stand by our friends in Ukraine. In my constituency, I have also had the privilege of being able to visit our armed forces and our industry and to see how much they have been inspired by our Ukrainian colleagues and their innovation on the battlefield. Will the Secretary of State give a bit of an update on the important lessons that the Ministry of Defence has learned from Ukrainians’ innovation on the battlefield?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the courage of the Ukrainians is an inspiration to us all, including our own forces, as is their ability to fight and innovate in combat. We tried to capture that in the strategic defence review, which we published in June. It points the way to the sort of radical transformation that we will require in our own armed forces and defence system. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the hallmarks of that very soon when we publish the defence industrial strategy.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
A few weeks ago I returned from Ukraine with some others who had been delivering trucks and medical aid to the Ukrainians for use on the frontline. I have made a number of such trips alongside other Members whom I can see across the Floor, united, as the Government are united, with the Opposition and the other parties. However, having watched the brutality stepped up by President Putin in recent weeks, and following the Alaskan conference in Anchorage, I must say that I am fundamentally still very disappointed. Yes, the Government are right that they are bringing together a coalition of the willing, but the least willing of all at the moment seems to be the White House, and my concern is that without the White House’s commitment to showing Putin that his actions have consequences, this will continue to drag on. The United States is the one country that can really impress upon him that if the Russians carry on with these attacks, they will be sanctioned dramatically and the weapons that the Ukrainians desperately need will flow to them like water. I wonder whether the Government could say to the President, behind closed doors, “It is time to follow your words with actions and not keep on prevaricating.”
John Healey
I appreciate the argument that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is important to recognise that President Trump’s role is essential and central in any opportunity to bring the two sides together. President Tump is playing a role that only he can play, and he has made it clear that the range of further steps, if they become necessary, at his disposal and for his decision include stepping up economic pressure on President Putin. We are ready to respond alongside that, and we are also ready to take our own decisions on economic pressure on President Putin and on Russia. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Defence Committee Chair, that has got to be part of trying to ensure that the pressure on Putin and the support for Ukraine brings the two sides more rapidly to the negotiating table so that we can get the peace that we all want secured.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My West Dunbartonshire constituents know the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in this fight. Does the Minister agree that investments such as the £250 million to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde and the landmark £10 billion deal with Norway—both of which secure thousands of jobs for people on the Clyde, many of whom live in my West Dunbartonshire constituency—all help to show our strength and deter future Russian aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a lesson from Ukraine that we have to take seriously: when a country is faced with conflict or is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. Part of the significance of the frigate deal with Norway is that this will reinforce our British shipbuilding, our British innovation and our British technology base across the UK and especially in Scotland for many years to come.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?
John Healey
The Government’s position is that we are discussing the nature of security guarantees and the contribution that we can help lead through the coalition of the willing, alongside any American support, and together that is part of the configuration of making Ukraine strong and creating the circumstances in which serious negotiations, and we hope a peace agreement, can be reached.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for getting this Norwegian deal over the line. I feel a singular sense of pride about it, because my constituency of Glasgow South West and Govan will become the epicentre of Type 26 construction. Will he undertake to work with me to ensure that my constituents feel the full benefits of this investment? In that vein, will he urge the SNP Government to finally collaborate with us and to dispense with their ideological block on the defence sector, so that together, for want of a better word, we can be stronger for Scotland?
John Healey
First, may I say to my hon. Friend that all of us in the House appreciate the contribution that his constituents, as part of that Govan workforce, make to building the outstanding British ships? The Norwegian Prime Minister had a telling way of explaining the decision on Sunday, when he said that they had weighed two questions:
“Who is our most strategic partner? And who has delivered the best frigates?... The answer to both is the United Kingdom.”
It is also telling that the nationalist-led Scottish Government are yet to welcome this contract and this success.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
First, I commend the Defence Secretary and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for their commitment to a just peace in Ukraine. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that the most reluctant member of this coalition of the willing appears to be President Trump. Does the Defence Secretary agree that it is particularly disappointing that he is unable to give an update on seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets? There is slow progress on that, but it is perhaps our strongest potential lever in exerting pressure on Russia to deliver a just peace.
John Healey
I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The declaration that the President of the United States has made about making the European-led arrangements for security guarantees, in his words, “very secure” is important and significant. Those discussions continue. The shape of any potential and possible deployment to support and secure a long-term peace will depend hugely on the nature of the peace agreement itself. It is for those reasons that it is not possible to set out in public at this stage the details, but we continue those discussions on the nature of the support that can be given to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and a peace agreement, and on the sort of pressure that may be required to make sure that those serious negotiations can take place.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I want to share with the House the deepest solidarity from the Ukraine Appeal and the Sunflower Ukrainian supplementary school in my constituency of Milton Keynes about the recent attacks in Kyiv and on the British Council. The British Council’s vital cultural initiatives have supported peace and created community cohesion around the world. It is in that spirit that the Ukraine Appeal has created an exhibition, “Faces of Ukrainian Dream”, by the children who go to its Sunflower school. That exhibition will be touring Milton Keynes, including Bletchley Park. Will the Defence Secretary join me in expressing our solidarity to the Ukrainian families in Milton Keynes and across the UK, and those still in Ukraine? Slava Ukraini.
John Healey
I will indeed express that solidarity, and not just with those Ukrainian families and children; I also pay tribute to the people of Milton Keynes who have opened their homes to house the families of those Ukrainian children. It is often the children and the families who will feel the threat and the grief most fiercely, and the fact that they have expressed such strong solidarity with those British Council workers in the face of that attack is something that we all appreciate, and I would be grateful on behalf of the House if my hon. Friend passed that on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share my disgust at the sight of the killer in the Kremlin having a red carpet rolled out for him that might as well have been stained with the blood of all those who have died in a conflict that is down entirely to him, and to him alone. However, when we talk about meaningful security guarantees, it is perhaps worth remembering that the only reason why, when Germany was divided at the end of the second world war, that was a stable division was that both sides knew that anyone crossing a line would be initiating an international conflict. Surely any security guarantee that does not automatically guarantee the involvement of other states in the defence of Ukraine will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
John Healey
The purpose of the “coalition of the willing” force that we are leading the work to plan for is about actively securing the Ukrainian skies, actively making the Ukrainian seas safe, and providing a presence that will help to reassure, as well as helping to build up the Ukrainians to deter and defend for themselves. It starts from the first premise that in the circumstances of a peace agreement, for the medium and the long term, the strongest defence and the strongest deterrence is the nature and strength of the Ukraine armed forces themselves. That is our purpose, and that would be part of our mission.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend and his whole team for the incredible efforts that they are making on this issue. Over the weekend, Russia launched yet more devastating airstrikes on Kyiv, killing 23 people including a two-year-old child. July was the deadliest month of the conflict since its early stages, with more than 280 civilians killed and more than 1,300 injured. Russia has once again shown its blatant disregard for human life, targeting, abducting, indoctrinating and even weaponising children. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that Ukraine has the means to defend itself from these heinous crimes?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning that she is doing, and not just on Ukraine generally but, in particular, to draw attention to the systematic programme that we have seen from Putin and his troops in abducting Ukrainian children and trying to indoctrinate them into the Russian way of life. I have had discussions with Secretary Umerov, when he was Defence Minister and now when he is Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council. He is leading the negotiations on behalf of President Zelensky, and some of the early discussions potentially with the Russian side are about prisoner of war swaps and about the return of those Ukrainian children.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I welcome the Norwegian investment in Glasgow’s shipyards. The Norwegians understand the importance of European security. The Norwegians understand the importance of territorial integrity. The Norwegians understand the importance of the high north. I pay credit to those at RM Condor, in my constituency, for their work in that particular area. They know that Donetsk is Ukrainian, that Luhansk is Ukrainian, and that Crimea is Ukrainian.
The United States ambassador to NATO said recently that no “chunks” that had not been “earned on the battlefield” should be given over to Russia. When the Secretary of State meets his US counterpart in a couple of weeks, will he make it clear that no chunks of Ukraine are earned by aggressors on the battlefield, and that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is testament regardless of our political allegiance here?
John Healey
The Ukrainians are fighting for their territorial integrity. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting, and it is for the Ukrainians to decide when to stop fighting and the terms on which they do so. Our job in the UK, and my job as Defence Secretary, is to ensure that we give them the maximum support possible in the fight, and we will give the maximum support possible as they go into the negotiations. Let me add that the hon. Gentleman’s declaration—and I hope he can speak on behalf of his party—that he fully supports that biggest ever British warship export deal is welcome in the House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to start by paying tribute to Andriy Parubiy, the former Ukrainian Speaker, who was brutally assassinated in his home city of Lviv. He played a key role in the Maidan protests, which freed Ukraine of Russian interference.
I really thank my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of the British Council attack in Kyiv. A man was injured, and we need to remember that the British Council is not just any body; it is an arm’s length body of the FCDO. It takes British culture and values, and English language teaching, around the world. In the same attack, the EU delegation building was also attacked. We have heard tonight from Bulgaria that Ursula von der Leyen’s plane was jammed by Russia and had difficulty landing—it had to use paper maps to land.
I am afraid to say that we are hearing more and more on the streets that this war is a matter for Ukraine and Russia, but I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if Ukraine falls, it will not end there. This is a war for all of us, and Ukraine is fighting for all of us. I would like my right hon. Friend to reassure me that we are making it very clear that we know that Putin’s aggression will not stop at Ukraine if Ukraine fails, that the Ukrainians are fighting for all of us, and that we will give them all the support they need to ensure that we are all free in Europe.
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks plainly and strongly. I recognise the work that he has done on Ukraine, just as President Zelensky did last month when he awarded my hon. Friend the Ukrainian Order of Merit for his support.
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the recent assassination of Andriy Parubiy, which is a reminder of the brutality of the invasion. Andriy was not just a leader in the Maidan uprising; he was an ex-Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament. In many ways, his assassination brings home just how serious this war is for us in this House.
Finally, my hon. Friend makes the point that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why the British public, the British House of Commons and the British Government remain so steadfast in our support for Ukraine.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is 17 days since President Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin—during which time, as the Secretary of State said, Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine with drones and missiles. I thank him for his remarks about Andriy Parubiy, the former Speaker of the Rada. I knew him well and admired him hugely. The last time I met him was when we entertained him in this House as a visiting Speaker. It is a mark of Putin’s hatred of democracy that he regarded the Speaker of a democratic Parliament as an appropriate target.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, at the present time, Putin shows no interest in a ceasefire? Will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever he can to persuade President Trump that the only way that Putin can be made to consider a ceasefire is by stepping up the pressure on Russia through extra sanctions, and by giving ever more support to Ukraine?
John Healey
I think the whole House appreciates the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Andriy Parubiy and the relationship that he had with him. On the question of pressure on Putin to come to the negotiating table, that is a matter for the nations that stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to play our role. It is also a matter that is recognised by the US and the US President. He wants Putin to come to the table. He wants Putin to start to act in the way that he says—interested in peace and ready to talk about peace—but at the moment, he is not yet showing signs of doing so.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
To secure peace in the long term for Ukraine we need to support its defence industrial base and therefore the financial sector that underpins it, but I am concerned that UK Export Finance red tape could be limiting UK-Ukraine defence partnerships. I also believe that we could launch new joint defence innovation funds. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider these ideas and work with me to discuss how we can support Ukraine’s defence financing system?
John Healey
The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that we are already working hard with Ukraine on some of these questions of joint ventures and joint industrial partnerships. Indeed, when President Zelensky visited Downing Street in June, our Prime Minister declared that this area of reinforcing our industrial connections and joint enterprise will help Ukraine in the fight now and help develop Ukrainian industry, but could also bring benefits to us and our armed forces in the future.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and all those involved on the Type 26 frigate deal, which is great news for all and for economic growth. I reiterate our continuing support for Ukraine, and also for this Government and the Secretary of State in working with other world leaders in trying to secure a ceasefire. I suppose we should not be surprised by Putin’s appalling continuation of the bombing of Ukraine. May I urge the Secretary of State to work with other world leaders to use the leverage, which I think we still have, of the $300 billion-worth of frozen central bank assets that could help in the negotiations with Putin?
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I note his view on the frozen Russian assets, and I welcome his declaration of support for Ukraine and his condemnation of Vladimir Putin. The all-party nature of the support for Ukraine in this House is very important, and it is particularly welcome that he is here and makes that clear for the Reform party.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Russia’s aggression directly threatens our security here at home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the push for peace matters not just for the Ukrainian people, but for the security of us all, and that we must invest in the defence industry in constituencies such as Wolverhampton North East to deter Russian aggression and stand in solidarity with Ukraine?
John Healey
I do, indeed. If for a moment this House considers a situation in which Putin prevails in Ukraine, it is not hard to see how that makes Europe less secure. A strong Ukraine is essential for a secure UK and a secure Europe in the future. My hon. Friend urges us to do more to reinforce the British defence industrial base. The record increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war that this Government are now committed to investing will be an important part of that, and I hope she will welcome the defence industrial strategy when we publish it shortly.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the red carpet treatment afforded to Putin, will the Secretary of State remind our principal ally that it is our co-signatory to the Budapest memorandum?
John Healey
The US is well aware that it is a co-signatory. Everyone involved in trying to support Ukraine through this war, and more importantly also considering the route to securing a long-term and just peace, is acutely aware of not repeating the mistakes of the Budapest memorandum.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine. Given recent reports that Starlink was disabled during a major Ukrainian counter-offensive, highlighting the dangers of relying on a single privately owned satellite system, will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking with their European allies to ensure that Ukraine has a resilient and sovereign communication system that cannot be switched off at the whim of one individual?
John Healey
Without going into the details in public, I can say to my hon. Friend that, across a range of capabilities where the Ukrainians are requiring our support and our military aid, we are looking to provide that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Ukraine needs a just peace. It also needs financial support to rebuild. The EU has said that it will allow frozen Russian assets to be used in higher risk investments to generate more money. What discussions has the Secretary of State had on supporting the EU’s latest effort to use Russia’s assets to provide vital funding for Ukraine?
John Healey
I have had none of those discussions myself, but the Government have had them with the European Union and with other allies that must be part of any effective plan to make use of the frozen Russian assets. The hon. Lady will be aware of the way we are already making use of the interest on those frozen assets, putting them to good use to make sure we can support Ukraine to continue its fight.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
A Ukrainian constituent who has just returned from a visit to Ukraine told me today:
“Russia is systematically destroying our border regions and key infrastructure: medical, educational, civil, governmental and business. The scale of the problem goes far beyond housing or temporary displacement—it is about the viability of life across large parts of Ukraine. This is part of a wider strategy aimed at rendering Ukraine’s borderlands uninhabitable. Any recovery strategy will require years of investment, security guarantees and sustained international support.”
In the light of that, I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which demonstrates that British support for Ukraine is unwavering. Can he confirm that we are using every tool at our disposal to ensure that the cynical Russian policy described by my constituent will ultimately be overcome?
John Healey
I can confirm that we are doing all we can. If my hon. Friend or his constituent identifies areas where we are not doing that, I would welcome his tackling me on doing so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The House should be grateful to the Secretary of State for giving this statement today, because it underlines how the Government are determined to keep this issue at the top of the British political agenda. He gave quite an optimistic assessment of how we, the Ukrainians and her allies, are doing in Ukraine, only inasmuch as Russia cannot win this war. The risk—something I hope he will emphasise to President Trump—is that the west is losing the peace, and that by losing the peace we are losing our own security. In the words of his own strategic defence review, we need to mobilise the British people to have a national conversation as to why we need to step up our efforts. Are we really giving Ukraine enough? I do not think we are.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has deep experience, so I take his views very seriously. I would just say to him that we are doing more this year than we have ever done before. We recognise that the UK on its own is limited and that we can play a really important role in stepping up the collective leadership, as we are doing through the UDCG and the coalition of the willing. In that way, Britain can play a co-ordinating role to contribute to the support that Ukraine needs. We do so with allies, and when we do so with allies, we make more of an impact.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Clyde is a wide river that straddles the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) and mine, so I join my colleague in welcoming the deal with Norway that was concluded at the weekend. Not only will it secure a bright future for the 100-plus apprentices at BAE Systems on the Clyde, it will secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde, including at the Scottish Government-owned Ferguson Marine, which is a subcontractor to BAE Systems. There are perhaps 10 billion reasons why the Scottish Government should welcome the deal. The Secretary of State mentioned the diminution of Putin’s strength. Does he agree that the deal will help to further that diminution, particularly in the high north?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This will not just set new standards within NATO of interoperability and interchangeability, with effectively a combined Norwegian-UK anti-submarine force; it means that more frigates—a total of 13 anti-submarine frigates between the two nations—will be available to reinforce the northern flank of NATO to provide the sort of deterrence required to keep the Russian threat in check.
My hon. Friend must be very proud of her Scotstoun yard. I hope that she will recognise, as I do, that this deal will secure the future of 4,000 jobs in the UK for many years, 2,000 of which are in Scotland.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin is a fine example of public service, so I humbly agree with the Defence Secretary about the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff. When the CDS appeared before the Defence Committee in June, he said of NATO that
“The crucial thing is whether we are deterring Russia and whether we can face down the threats of Russia”.
He answered his own rhetorical question that we are, “absolutely”.
Following the strike in Kyiv that damaged the British Council and the EU’s diplomatic mission last week, can the Defence Secretary set out how the UK and NATO are deterring further symbolic attacks like this one?
John Healey
Without wishing to speak for him, I suspect that one of the things Admiral Radakin will not miss in stepping down as CDS is appearing before the Defence Committee, although I am sure he will still contribute to public debate on these matters. The hon. Gentleman makes a general point about the attempt to step up our support for Ukraine. We will always try to respond to what Ukraine says it most needs. As we go into next week’s UDCG meeting, which I will be hosting with Minister Pistorius, that is exactly what we will try to do.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his leadership on this issue. As the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire builds, Russia too escalates its campaign of aerial attack on Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. In the liberated city of Kherson, Russian first-person drone operators are turning state killing into a grotesque spectacle that is publicly broadcast and has been christened a “human safari”.
The provision and conversion of Ukrainian Soviet-era missiles into the Gravehawk system represents both real material aid and an accomplishment of British military engineering. Crucially, it helps to reduce dependency on any single supply chain and technology for aerial defence. Will the Defence Secretary give the House an assurance that all steps are being taken to increase both the quantity and the diversity of air defence systems for Ukraine?
John Healey
We are doing what we can to increase the diversity and quantity of air defence systems. I am proud of what we have achieved with Gravehawk, which is a good example of two things: first, innovation, and secondly, a combination of Ukraine and UK minds working together. When we do that, we can respond rapidly and in a way that meets Ukraine’s needs, but that also points the way to a different future in the way we develop the systems that we need in our own forces for the future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I should declare an interest in that my eldest son today started work at Rosyth royal dockyard, a key part of British military infrastructure for more than 100 years. Over the summer, we saw Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney meet with Ukrainian military personnel at the Edinburgh military tattoo. Incredibly, were those brave men and women to be injured in the line of duty, NHS medical aid sent from Scotland could not be used to treat them because of a prohibition put in place by the Scottish Government, who continue to refuse to fund warfighting capability in Scotland. With defence reserved to this place, Secretary of State, how is it possible that the devolved Administration in Holyrood can damage British interests and security in this manner?
John Healey
The hon. Member poses those questions to me, but they are clearly not for me but for the Scottish nationalist Government to answer. I would love to see an end to the antagonism to investment in Scotland—investment which supports Scottish jobs in the wider defence industry and supports our UK security, in which Scotland plays such a vital part. It ought to be something that the Scottish Government embrace and support, rather than resist and oppose.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
People in my constituency know the importance of standing with Ukraine in its fight, and in a recent survey I did, 87% of them said that they support this Government’s continued iron-clad support for Ukraine, which after three-and-a-half years is an impressively high figure. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the push for peace in Ukraine matters not just for Ukrainians, whose country has been attacked for over a decade by Russian forces, but for our future security in Britain, and that we must therefore invest in the defence industry in regions such as the east midlands to deter future Russian aggression?
John Healey
The answer is yes, and I ask my hon. Friend pass on to his constituents my appreciation for their support. At a level of support for Ukraine of 87%, the constituents in Rushcliffe are an exemplification of the British spirit that recognises that Ukraine is fighting for the same sorts of freedoms that we value and for its own future in the way that we in this country have done in the past.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. I look forward very much to his statements in this Chamber, because he invariably brings us good news, and today he has done so again with the order of five frigates for Norway worth £10 billion. As a farmer, I am minded that while someone sows the seed, someone else garners the harvest, and the person who garners the harvest is the person who gets the plaudits, so congratulations to the Minister for that.
What discussion has the Secretary of State had with our American allies to ensure that the good of Ukraine is at the heart of any approach and that any minerals deal is secondary to our ensuring that the battle was not fought in vain and that lives were not lost in vain? Can he ensure that Putin and the Russian army will be held accountable for their war crimes and their reign of terror, and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue always to stand with Ukraine?
John Healey
I think this House appreciates the hon. Member’s declaration on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that they stand steadfast with Ukraine. The support that the UK Government—the previous Government and this Government—are giving to Ukraine to document in the most difficult circumstances of an ongoing war the evidence that will be required to bring the Russian forces and Russian leaders to account after the fighting is over is an important part of the contribution that we can make. Funding, resources, and expert and legal advice is part of the ongoing aid that we are providing to Ukraine for that purpose.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and reiteration that we will always support the people of Ukraine. Given Russia’s despicable attack against civilian targets in Kyiv, costing the lives of over 20 civilians including children and damaging a British Council building, it is quite clear that Vladimir Putin has very little interest in any legitimate peace process. Given that reports differ about how committed countries are to deploying troops in Ukraine to enforce any potential peace agreement, can the Secretary of State set out how the UK is working with our allies to convince them to back security guarantees and peace in Ukraine, and will he state that there is nothing that Vladimir Putin can do now to deter our support for Ukraine?
John Healey
There is indeed nothing that Putin can do to deter our support for Ukraine—our support while it fights, but also our preparation for the moment of peace that we hope will come. My hon. Friend invites me to set out how we are developing that. We have had multiple meetings of our military leaders and planners over the summer through the coalition of the willing. I will host this week a meeting of Defence Ministers from the coalition of the willing. It will be designed to make sure that we maintain our military plans and step up the commitments to contribute at the point at which we can get a peace agreement in place. There will be a role for countries like ours to support Ukraine, both in securing that peace for the long term and in regenerating their own armed forces to deter Russia in future.
Ukraine
John Healey Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
Today is day 1,239 since President Putin launched his full-scale invasion and it is more than a decade since the Ukrainians have known peace in their homeland. They have had homes destroyed, lands seized, children abducted and loved ones killed by Putin’s forces. Yet the Ukrainian people still fight with remarkable determination—military and civilian alike. Almost three and a half years on, I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine. Britain remains united for Ukraine, too. Polling shows that we retain the strongest public support for Ukraine of any European nation. Our solidarity is grounded in our deep respect for the Ukrainian people’s courage, and in recognition of the fact that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine—because we know that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop with Ukraine.
Let me begin by providing a battlefield update. Russia is maintaining pressure along the whole length of the frontline, with a special focus on Sumy in the north-east and Pokrovsk in the south-east, as well as in Kursk. Last month, Russian ground forces seized approximately 550 sq km of Ukrainian territory—an area greater than the size of Greater Manchester—yet they face continuing difficulties attempting to take fortified towns and cities, and they have not taken a significant town for months. Indeed, they have tried without success to seize Pokrovsk for nearly a year. What ground they do gain comes at great cost. Last month, the number of Russian troops killed and wounded surpassed more than 1 million. This year alone, Russia has sustained 240,000 casualties.
Despite those catastrophic Russian losses, Putin’s ruthless ambitions do not appear to be waning. Russia is escalating the high numbers of one-way attack drones launched at Ukraine: 1,900 in April, 4,000 in May, 5,000 in June and already 3,200 in July. On 9 July, a week ago today, the largest aerial strike of the war was recorded when Russia launched more than 700 attack drones in a single night.
Despite the onslaught, Ukrainians are taking the fight to Putin, striking military targets in Russia that his people see and know about. Spider Web was an operation of remarkable precision and extraordinary success that dealt a fierce blow to Putin. After one year of meticulous planning, it resulted in the damage of 41 long-range bombers—planes that threaten not only Ukraine but NATO.
We must now step up efforts to get further military support to the frontline. Last month, on the eve of the NATO summit, we welcomed President Zelensky to No. 10 Downing Street, where the Prime Minister signed a UK-Ukraine agreement to share advanced battlefield capabilities and technologies—a deal that means our defence industry can rapidly develop cutting-edge technologies from Ukraine, and step up production for Ukraine. At the NATO summit that followed, 32 nations came together to sign a new investment pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defence and national security by 2035. Those 32 nations reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine, with €40 billion pledged in security assistance for this year. It was a good summit for Ukraine, for Britain and for NATO; it was a bad summit for Putin.
On the basis of those commitments at NATO, President Trump signalled a significant shift this week on Ukraine: he announced NATO weapons transfers, and a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace. Together with the NATO Secretary-General, President Trump agreed to large-scale purchases by NATO allies of US military equipment, including Patriot missiles and other air defence systems and munitions, which he committed to getting
“quickly distributed to the battlefield”.
The UK backs the scheme, and we plan to play our full part. On Monday, we will discuss this further when I chair the next meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside my German counterpart, Minister Boris Pistorius. The contact group continues to be the forum through which more than 50 nations provide Ukraine with what it needs to fight back against Putin’s war machine. I am pleased that Monday’s meeting will be attended by US Secretary Hegseth; NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte; and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Grynkewich.
Britain is providing more than £4.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year—more than ever before. At the UDCG, I will provide the following updates. First, on the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, two thirds of the UK’s ERA total of £2.26 billion has now been disbursed, including £700 million on artillery shells, long- range rockets and air defence missiles—exactly what Ukraine needs most. Secondly, on drones, since March the UK has supplied nearly 50,000 drones to Ukraine. This helps us to meet our commitment to increasing tenfold our supply this year. Thirdly, on air defence, the UK and Germany have agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine. Fourthly, on the NATO comprehensive assistance package, the UK will donate a further £40 million, which Ukraine can use, through a range of programmes, on anything from de-mining to rehabilitating its wounded.
It is four months since President Zelensky responded to President Trump’s peace negotiations with Ukraine’s full commitment to an unconditional ceasefire. President Putin has shown no such interest in an end to the fighting, but peace in Ukraine is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes. Since March, the UK and France have led the coalition of the willing on planning new security arrangements to support Ukraine in any ceasefire. More than 200 military planners from 30 nations have worked intensively for weeks with Ukraine; that includes work on reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.
Last week, at the summit, President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer said that this initial phase of detailed military planning had concluded. I can confirm that the military command and control structures have been agreed for a future Multinational Force Ukraine. The force’s mission will be to strengthen Ukraine’s defences on the land, at sea and in the air, because the Ukrainian armed forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression. The force will include a three-star multinational command headquarters in Paris, rotating to London after the first 12 months. When the force deploys, there will be a co-ordination HQ in Kyiv, headed by a UK two-star military officer. It will regenerate land forces by providing logistics, armament and training experts. It will secure Ukraine’s skies by using aircraft to deliver a level of support similar to that used for NATO’s air policing mission, and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black sea taskforce with additional specialist teams.
When peace comes, we will be ready, and we will play our part in securing it for the long term. Next month, on 24 August, Ukrainians will gather to celebrate their independence day. For another year, the anniversary of Ukraine’s liberation will be marked under the pain of occupation. Whatever else commands the world’s attention, we must never lose sight of this war. We must never lose sight of Putin’s brutal, illegal invasion of that proud and sovereign nation, and we must never forget the price that Ukraine is paying in fighting for its own freedom and the security of all free nations, including ours. The UK will stand with the Ukrainian people today, tomorrow, the day after, and for as long it takes for Ukraine to prevail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
John Healey
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome for the update. I welcome the Opposition’s continued backing for the steps that we are taking to support Ukraine, just as we gave our backing to their Government when we were in opposition.
The shadow Secretary of State is right to point out that the massive scale of Russian casualties shows the contempt that President Putin has for the life of his own people, as well as for the life of those in Ukraine. He is also right to point out that Russian casualties far outnumber those in Ukraine.
On the coalition of the willing, 30 nations are involved in the planning. The military planning is now complete, and we will keep it refreshed until renewed ceasefire negotiations, which we hope to see soon. Under the plans, there will be a land force, and activity in the air and on the sea. I am pleased to hear the shadow Secretary of State back the aid that we are putting into Ukraine. He asks about the coalition of the willing, but I really cannot recall—and I have checked—him backing the coalition. Does his party support Britain’s leadership of the Multinational Force Ukraine?
Discussions on the Trump NATO plan will be developed on Monday at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, which I will co-chair will Boris Pistorius. If sanctions and economic measures play a part in the actions that the international community need to take to bring Putin to the negotiating table, we will of course use them. The shadow Secretary of State’s Government had a good record; we have gone a lot further in the past year. Since July, we have introduced over 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships across all the regimes, and as a nation we have now sanctioned over 289 vessels in the Russian shadow fleet.
On base security, I will update the House when the full base security review is complete. On DragonFire, the shadow Secretary of State is right to say that he was instrumental in the UK taking its first steps on that technology, but he left the programme largely unfunded. We are already accelerating it, and will put that technology into four of our naval vessels, not just the one that he planned to put it in.
On drones, the hon. Gentleman knows that what he keeps citing was a very specific answer to a very specific question. He knows that following the strategic defence review, we are doubling to more than £4 billion the amount of money in this Parliament that we will invest in autonomy and drones. He knows that we will establish a new drone centre of excellence. This will mean we can accelerate the use of uncrewed systems or drones in every service. The Army, for instance, will train thousands of operators. This summer, we will start rolling out 3,000 strike drones. That will be followed by more than 1,000 surveillance drones, and we will equip every section with drones for the future. That is what we mean in the strategic defence review when we talk about combining the power of new technology with the heavy metal of platforms like tanks, planes and ships to make Britain the most innovative armed forces in NATO.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
As the Member for Aldershot, I know how deeply people in my constituency understand the cost of conflict and the value of standing by our allies, so I welcome this statement and thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Does he agree that the outcome in Ukraine matters for not just European security but the UK’s standing as a reliable defence partner, and that for us to maintain this reputation, long-term investment in British capabilities and industries in constituencies like mine—where, incidentally, DragonFire was created—is essential to sustaining our support and deterring further aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right: the UK has been the most reliable ally for Ukraine since before the full-scale invasion almost three and a half years ago. She is also right to say that a test of this nation is whether we are willing to step up the leadership on Ukraine, as we have; whether we are ready to step up the leadership in NATO, as we have; and, underpinning all, whether we are ready to step up the level of defence investment in this country, which we have. The Prime Minister announced in February that this country would invest 2.5% of GDP in defence by 2027, alongside the £5 billion extra in defence this year—Labour’s first year in government. This is the largest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
John Healey
First, we stand ready to expand sanctions on the Russian shadow fleet. Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the coalition of the willing. The military planning is complete. With the prospect of a ceasefire, which we hope to see soon but cannot see immediately, the commitments and the details will be firmed up, and they will be reported appropriately to the House at that stage.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the use of frozen assets. She will know the complexity of this challenge and the interest and will of the Government to work on this, but she will also recognise that the majority of those assets are held outside the UK, so any action on this front must be taken with and alongside others. Therein lies the complexity of the discussions at present.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this statement and for expressing his, and indeed this House’s, unwavering commitment to the Ukrainian people against Putin’s illegal war. I welcome the 50,000 drones that the UK has sent to Ukraine and express my admiration for the Ukrainian people, who are fighting on behalf of all of us.
No one predicted the role of drones in this conflict and the astounding speed of the evolution of that technology in Ukraine, but also in Russia and China. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with our allies to ensure that we maintain or develop technological advantage in key defence capabilities and get it to the frontline?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is entirely right: for the first time in human conflict history, drones are killing far more and causing far more casualties than heavy artillery. She asks the challenging question that was at the heart of the strategic defence review that we published at the beginning of last month: in learning lessons from Ukraine, how do we recognise the way that the change in warfare is accelerated by the rapidly advancing technology? That is the reason we are making a £4 billion investment in this Parliament alone in the drone technology that she cites and the potential of autonomy to reinforce the warfighting readiness of our forces and therefore the deterrence that we can provide as a nation within NATO.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Operation Orbital is the UK training programme for the Ukrainian military. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that personal and personnel data is safe at the Ministry of Defence? He mentioned there being 15,000 drone attacks over the last four months, and he referenced meeting with Germans to look at counter-drone munitions and capabilities, but of course, Ukrainians are being attacked right now—today. What thought has been given to the use of the RAF’s Tucano aircraft, which I think are now out of service? I wonder where they are. Could they be redeployed? Could a variant of the Grob turboprop trainer perhaps be provided? These slow-flying aircraft could interdict Shahed drones, for example, and they are low-cost and low-maintenance.
John Healey
I am not familiar with the Tucano aircraft—if they are still in our inventory, they have not come across my desk—but I will certainly look into that and write to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the Orbital training programme, I am confident that the data relating to those personnel are secure. I am proud of that programme. It did not just follow Putin’s full-scale invasion in February three and a half years ago; it was in place after Russia first took Crimea and had proxy forces move into Donetsk and Luhansk. There was a UK-Canadian training programme supporting Ukrainians well before Putin’s invasion, and since then, we have trained more than 56,000 Ukrainian forces through the UK-led multinational training programme.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of Russia on 9 July, when it launched the largest aerial bombardment of the war to date, show that Ukrainian civilians and military are still in a fight for their lives and the future of their country, and that this House, our Government and our country must do everything possible to stand with them in that fight?
John Healey
I do, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House and the public. These Russian attacks are directed not just at Ukrainian frontline forces, but at Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian civilians and Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. That is a harsh reminder of Putin’s character. His brutal, illegal invasion is entirely contemptuous of the lives of his own people, and he is attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I fully support the work of the UK Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine.
Like so many voluntary groups across the United Kingdom, the Rotary club of Duns has been actively involved in supporting Ukraine during the war. It has delivered several pick-up trucks loaded with medical equipment and other essential supplies to Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Rotary club and the other voluntary groups that have been involved? What more support can the Government provide to UK voluntary groups that want to provide assistance to Ukraine?
John Healey
I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s local Rotary club and the other local groups that reflect the continuing public will to offer support where we can to Ukraine. If those groups, including his local Rotary club, are looking for specific support to get such supplies to Ukraine, I would encourage him to contact me with the details.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his comprehensive statement. As a trade envoy, I was with the UK Government’s mission to last week’s Ukraine recovery conference in Rome, where two of the top asks for civilian recovery were improved air defence and de-mining, so I was very pleased to hear those mentioned. His statement is about our support for Ukraine, but for the long-term security of our own country and the whole of Europe, what lessons are the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence industry learning from Ukraine’s innovation in defence?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is one of the most energetic and ceaseless supporters of Ukraine, and not just in this House. I know he has gone out with supplies to support civilians and comrades in Ukraine. I am glad that he was at the Ukraine recovery conference in Italy last week. If he is looking for the lessons that the UK Ministry of Defence is pulling from Ukraine, I will send him a personal copy of the strategic defence review.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
These plans for a so-called coalition of the willing are contingency plans. They are designed for a time when Putin agrees to a ceasefire in Ukraine, which, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, he shows no sign of doing. How does the prospect of Ukraine’s allies, such as the UK, deploying armed forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire incentivise the Kremlin to sue for peace?
John Healey
One of the signals that the coalition of the willing underlines to President Putin is that a large number of deeply committed democratic countries are willing to stand with Ukraine in its fight against his invasion, and are willing to stand alongside Ukraine in any peace to secure a long-lasting and just settlement. The single message that Putin should take is that Ukraine will keep fighting, that we will keep supporting it, and that the best way for him is now to accept that he needs to come to the negotiating table to talk and put an end to this fighting.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important update. It is clear that Russia’s growing aggression undermines our security at home. Does he agree that the outcome of the war in Ukraine matters deeply to every one of my constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, as much as it does across the whole country and, indeed, all of Europe? Can he update us any further on the measures he is taking to counter Russian aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend’s constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy share the sentiment across the UK of strong support for Ukraine, three and a half years into this war. [Interruption.] There is a recognition that this matter rises above party politics, and a recognition in general that the UK not only needs to say that we stand with Ukraine, but needs to demonstrate that through our actions. I hope her constituents will support the Government in what we are doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That is the fifth time I have heard a phone go off. Silence is golden.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that it was not my phone. My ringtone is “633 Squadron”, which is very distinctive.
It is tremendous that the planning for the coalition of the willing has been put together so quickly, but plans are paper tigers. We need flying tigers. If we are to secure a peace that is eventually secure, we will need air superiority over Ukraine. Can the Secretary of State give us a clue, perhaps not naming individual countries, of how many of the 30 members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to put combat aircraft into this plan?
John Healey
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not my phone either.
The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to the more than 200 military planners, from more than 30 nations, who have worked over the last four months on the detail of the military planning. It has not just been an exercise based and led in France and the UK; it has involved detailed reconnaissance in Ukraine, led by UK personnel.
These are serious military plans. They are designed for the circumstances of a ceasefire—circumstances that are not entirely clear now, but that we hope to see. They will be refined regularly between now and any point of peace. They are designed to make sure that, when we get that peace, we are ready to support it as a multinational force for Ukraine.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his update and for his leadership on this issue. In Russia and the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, Russian authorities have introduced military-patriotic training in schools and youth groups, exposing Ukrainian children to military propaganda urging enlistment in the Russian armed forces. There are also reports that Russia is recruiting Ukrainian teenagers and young adults to carry out espionage and sabotage within Ukraine.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine’s children have no place on the battlefield in this war? Can he say a little more about the work he is doing with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to hold to account those responsible for the militarisation and forced deportation of Ukraine’s children?
John Healey
I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend for her ceaseless work to draw public attention in the UK to the plight of abducted Ukrainian children and teenagers in Russia. Abducted Ukrainian children have no place on the Russian frontline, they have no place on the battlefield, and they have no place in Russia.
When the Foreign Secretary and I first went to Ukraine together, when we were still in opposition, we met a magnificent charity that was bringing abducted Ukrainian children back from Russia. We sat down with four young teenagers who had been subject to exactly the sort of treatment that my hon. Friend identifies. I will look to work with her and Foreign Office colleagues to reinforce any of the steps we can take in this country to draw greater attention to this brutal abuse of young people.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It has been three and a half years since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we all know that there has been huge loss of life, and incredible disruption and pain caused to many residents, not only in Ukraine but across the world. I saw that for myself when I met the Keighley Ukrainian association, which has gone above and beyond, not only raising funds for those in Ukraine but supporting many families in my constituency. The owners of Keighley Cougars are in Ukraine as we speak, delivering sports equipment to organisations involved in rugby league in Ukraine, who are unable to have the equipment they need as a result of the war.
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to those two organisations? We all know that a divided west only benefits Russia, so following the latest talks with NATO, will the Secretary of State also comment on what more the Government could be doing to ensure other nations are playing their part, both through military support and through funding and developing key defence capabilities to continue to support Ukraine?
John Healey
The UK is playing a leading part by co-chairing the Ukrainian defence contact group, as I will be on Monday. Through that forum, 50 nations co-ordinate support and respond to Ukraine’s battlefield support needs. Alongside the French, we are also leading by developing the coalition of the willing, planning for the future. I pay tribute to the members of the Keighley Cougars who are out in Ukraine delivering sports equipment—hats off to them. I see that as typical of the generosity of the people in Yorkshire.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Brave Ukrainians in my constituency of Rugby, who are a long way from their compatriots at home, tell me about the continuing suffering of civilians—I repeat: civilians—due to Russian aggression. Will the Defence Secretary join me in welcoming the new drive from President Trump and NATO to ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position both to defend itself and in any future negotiations?
John Healey
In reminding the House about the Ukrainian families who are in Rugby, my hon. Friend reminds us that this is a war—an invasion—that has forced many to flee their home. Many are still receiving shelter from UK families, and I pay tribute to those who are offering that shelter. We have been willing to back President Trump in his bid to secure a negotiated peace in Ukraine from the outset, and we look to this next stage as a hopeful sign. We will do whatever we can to reinforce his efforts to put pressure on President Putin now and to bring him to the negotiating table.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, may I take this opportunity to welcome Monday’s joint chairing of the Ukrainian Defence Contact Group by the Defence Secretary, alongside his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius? I also congratulate the Government on today’s landmark bilateral treaty between the UK and Germany, signed here in London, between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz, on mutual defence, security co-operation and industrial collaboration. The treaty demonstrates our determination to stand up to Putin’s continued acts of aggression, wherever they may take place, as well as the Government’s enduring commitment to Ukraine.
John Healey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s role in the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. The new coalition Government in Germany are making a massively welcome contribution to increased support to NATO and to European security. I welcome that greater contribution. I note that the Federal Ministry of Defence is still led, very ably, by a Social Democratic Party of Germany Minister, Boris Pistorius. I especially welcome that at the heart of the new friendship treaty, which Chancellor Merz and our Prime Minister will sign today, is the Trinity House agreement that Boris Pistorius and I struck back in October: a deep defence agreement, for the first time, between the UK and Germany. It means that we will do so much more together as two nations, but also as two nations within NATO.