Ukraine Update

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Today, HMS Prince of Wales set sail from Portsmouth. I trust that the whole House will join me in wishing the entire carrier strike group a safe and successful global deployment. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the ongoing war in Ukraine. Today, Parliament returns from our Easter break, and during the past two weeks Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has continued, with drone strikes, missile attacks and fierce fighting on the frontline. On Palm Sunday, men, women and children in Sumy on their way to church were hit by Putin’s deadliest attack on Ukrainian civilians so far this year, killing 35 people, including young children, and injuring over 100 more. We are united in condemnation of this brutal attack and of Putin’s illegal actions.

At this critical moment for Ukraine and for European security, we have stepped up the Government’s efforts in support of Ukraine, and we will step up further to increase military support for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow. We cannot jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war, so 10 days ago in Brussels, the UK convened and I co-chaired the 27th meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, alongside my good friend the German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. Some 51 nations and partners from Europe, the Indo-Pacific and South America came together at NATO headquarters with Ukrainian President Zelensky, US Defence Secretary Hegseth and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. We came together to step up support for Ukraine in the fight. Together we pledged a record €21 billion of military support to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position and to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate.

This year, the UK is providing £4.5 billion in military support to Ukraine—more than ever before. In Brussels, I announced that £200 million of that support will be surged to the frontline, with supplies starting to reach Ukraine’s fighters within this month, including radar systems, anti-tank mines and hundreds of thousands of drones. I also announced £160 million to help repair and maintain essential battlefield vehicles and equipment. This support will strengthen Ukrainian troops in the close fight, and it will also strengthen our industrial links with Ukraine and boost UK businesses.

President Trump talks about peace through strength, and it is the commitments made through the Ukraine defence contact group that provide the strength to secure that peace. Despite President Putin’s promise of a 30-hour pause in fighting, I can confirm that Defence Intelligence has found

“no indication that a ceasefire on the frontline was observed over the Easter period”.

Some 10,000 missiles and drones have been fired into Ukraine this year alone, including from the Black sea. While Putin has said he declared an Easter truce, he broke it. While Putin says he wants peace, he has rejected a full ceasefire. While Putin says he wants to put an end to the fighting, he continues to play for time in the negotiations.

The Russian military continues to pressure Ukraine on a number of fronts. I can confirm that Russian military progress is slowing. Putin gained less territory in March than he did in February, and less territory in February than he did in January. Ukrainian towns that Russia has been targeting since before Christmas have still not been captured. Ukrainian troops have still not been ejected from Russian territory in Kursk.

Whatever ground Putin is taking comes at a huge human cost. More than 940,000 Russians are likely to have been killed or injured in the war so far, including 150,000 killed or injured this year alone. Last month the average daily casualty rate on the Russian side was 1,300, almost double the rate this time last year. At home, Putin faces crippling interest rates of 21%, while inflation is running at over 10% and the Russian Government are spending nearly 40% of their entire budget on his military campaign. It is, however, likely that in the days ahead Russia will keep up attacks on the Sumy oblast to help it to reclaim nearby contested areas of Kursk.

In the central Donetsk oblast, Russia is targeting urban strongholds such as Toretsk, Povrosk and Chasiv Yar, and in Kharkiv, Russia continues to make assaults towards the rail and logistics hub of Kupiansk. We expect more ground to be taken and more Russian missiles to be fired into Ukraine, which is why we must remain united for Ukraine—across the House, across the country, and across those nations standing alongside Ukraine. We must step up support for Ukraine and pressure on Putin, to force him to recognise that now is the time for peace and that continuing the war will prove to be much worse for Russia in the long run.

We believe that peace is possible, and we must be ready for when that peace comes, so as well as providing vital military aid, the UK Government continue the push for peace. The Foreign Secretary joined ceasefire discussions with the United States, France, Germany and Ukraine in Paris last week, and in Brussels 10 days ago, along with my good friend the French Defence Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, I convened and co-chaired the first Defence Ministers’ meeting of the coalition of the willing, with 30 countries coming together to build on the hard work of more than 200 military planners from Europe and beyond.

That operational planning must remain classified, but I can assure the House that the plans are real, substantial and well developed. Our reassurance force will have clear objectives for Ukraine: first, to secure safe skies; secondly, to secure safe seas; thirdly, to support peace on the land; and fourthly, to help the Ukrainian armed forces become their own strongest possible deterrent against future Russian attacks. In the days ahead this detailed planning will continue, domain by domain, and nations will continue to provide firm commitments for the coalition. Tomorrow I will meet Ukrainian Defence Minister Umerov and other allies as the Government bring together the United States, the United Kingdom, and European Ministers and national defence security advisers to discuss the next steps. That will include discussing what a ceasefire might look like, and how to secure peace in the long term.

This war was never just about the fate of one nation. It is about not allowing national borders to be redrawn by force, and about preventing aggressors across the world from being emboldened to threaten the security of all nations. That is why the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. It is why UK leadership is playing a unique role, to put Ukraine in the strongest position on the battlefield and in negotiations, and to prepare the building blocks for a lasting peace that will safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty and deter Putin from future aggression. I hope that the House will join me in sending a signal to President Putin, and in saying to Ukraine, “We will stand with you in the fight and we will stand with you in the peace, whenever that may come.”

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s wishing a good and successful mission to the crew of HMS Prince of Wales as it sets sail on its latest trip?

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, both for advance sight of his statement and for the support that was provided by his Department for my recent visit to Ukraine; we provided the same support when we were in government. It was a privilege to pay tribute to the victims of this terrible war at the Wall of Memory in Kyiv, but it was also a powerful reminder of the stark contrast between the reality on the ground of continued casualties and the lies and propaganda from the Kremlin in respect of any so-called ceasefire.

It must be clear that to Putin a ceasefire is simply part of a game—one that he has no intention of pausing—and we must continue to stand with all our allies in being 100% clear about who the aggressor is in this war. Those who pay the price for Putin’s game are innocent civilians, such as those killed in the terrible strike on Sumy on Palm Sunday. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on reports that Russian forces used a cluster munition as part of the attack on civilians, and if so, does this not illustrate the extraordinary contrast between claims of a ceasefire and the reality of the Russians’ continued indiscriminate bombing? In the face of such aggression, we remain proud of the extraordinary role that the United Kingdom has played in backing Ukraine’s struggle under successive Governments, and I welcome the continued support announced by the Ukraine defence contact group.

I turn to the Secretary of State’s latest update on the coalition of the willing. Although we will always stand with the Government in supporting Ukraine, he knows that it would be a major shift to go from the indirect provision of munitions to boots on the ground. Therefore, as the Opposition, we are duty bound to probe what remain several unanswered but very significant practical questions that any such deployment would raise.

A month ago, on 22 March, I wrote to the Secretary of State with a series of questions on the coalition of the willing, but I have yet to receive a reply. Given the importance of those questions, I will ask them now. First, what progress has he made on securing a US military backstop? Secondly, what would be the expected rules of engagement? Thirdly, how many nations have definitively committed to sending troops? Fourthly, will he consider derogating from the European convention on human rights for any deployment, given our military’s previous experience of vexatious lawsuits arising from overseas operations?

Of course, an extraordinary aspect of the coalition of the willing is that we are meant to be leading with France, while at the same time—behind our back—it is seeking to undermine our fishing rights in our sovereign waters over access to a European defence fund that will definitively include non-EU nations. When I pointed that out at oral questions last month, the Secretary of State asked me to “drop” the “Brexit rhetoric”, yet over the Easter recess it was he who blasted the EU’s foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas when she suggested that his plan for troops in Ukraine was unclear. What is clear? Almost alone, we stood by Ukraine from the very beginning of the war, helping it to avoid an early capitulation that would have been a disaster for the whole of Europe. We also offer our nuclear deterrent to European NATO 24/7—not to get better fishing rights, but to defend the freedom of European nations.

A country that does all that should not be excluded from a defence fund that will include non-EU states, and should not face punitive measures against its fishing fleet, when we are meant to be doing everything possible to strengthen European defence solidarity. The Secretary of State needs to understand that this is not about Brexit, Britain or France; it is about the security of the whole of Europe. Does he understand that, and can he confirm categorically that the Government will not offer any concessions on fishing rights in order to secure an EU defence pact?

Finally, I turn to procurement for our own armed forces. Both in Kyiv and with cross-party colleagues in Parliament this morning, I had the pleasure of meeting Ukrainian manufacturers of drones that have been highly effective on the frontline. Will the Secretary of State support such companies to partner with British companies and to set up operations in the UK, both to boost Ukraine and to give our military rapid access to proven capabilities? Given how much of this rests on the strategic defence review, will it be published this month?

[John Healey]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has been to Ukraine recently, and I am glad we were able to facilitate that visit. I am proud of the number of Members of this House who are regularly going to Ukraine. It has a big impact on the Ukrainian population, who do not necessarily hear our debates in the UK. When they see British parliamentarians of all parties and you, Mr Speaker—as the Speaker of this House—in Ukraine, they know that this country stands united and stands with them.

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to contrast Putin’s claims of a ceasefire with the reality of continued brutal attacks, including on the civilian population of Ukraine. He asked about a potential negotiated peace in which we, alongside 30 other nations in the coalition of the willing, consider how best we can help secure a lasting peace, which is what President Trump has promised to deliver. He will have heard the Prime Minister say that we are fully committed to putting British troops on the ground if necessary, and we would do that because the security of the UK starts in Ukraine. He asked about the US, and both I and the Prime Minister have been clear in our discussions with the US that, post a negotiated ceasefire and peace, Ukraine will need long-term security assurances and that there is a role for the US to play in those.

On the ECHR, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone, it is long-standing practice of successive Governments that UK deployments at home and abroad will always comply with international law. That is what sets us apart from nations such as Putin’s Russia. I will not be drawn into what any of the operational deployments may look like, because the only person who benefits from that is President Putin.

The hon. Gentleman raised two other things with me. On the EU High Representative, Kaja Kallas, and the question of a European Union-UK defence agreement and access to the EU programmes that it is stepping up and putting in place, he quite rightly says that we have a part to play and a contribution to make. Kaja Kallas herself has said:

“I think the UK is a very important defence and security partner. It’s the most logical defence and security partner that we have, and it’s a beneficial relationship for both sides.”

That is why she and we are committed to negotiating a defence and security agreement.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the significance of drones in the current battle. It is now the fact that more casualties on both sides are caused by drones than by artillery. On the UK-Ukrainian link, we have helped manufacture, in this country and in Ukraine, and supply over 14,000 drones since the last election in July. This is central to the Ukrainian defence strategy, and it is central to the future of our own forces—

[James Cartlidge]

And the SDR?

[John Healey]

The SDR, as we have said many times, is close to completion. It is being finalised, and it will be published in the spring.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Although it was saddening to hear about the continued colossal death and destruction in Ukraine, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Indeed, I welcome his leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, which by pledging a record €21 billion, has demonstrated that the 51 allies are firmly committed to helping our Ukrainian friends in their hour of need. He mentioned the many shorter ceasefires that were agreed and then broken, and the question we need to ask ourselves is: when President Putin says he wants a ceasefire, is that actually the case? However, if a much-needed ceasefire is agreed, how confident is the Secretary of State of convening and then keeping the coalition of the willing together?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for the job he does in chairing the Defence Committee. One of the trickiest tasks in the work undertaken by our military planners is that it is not clear in what circumstances any forces may be required to be deployed, and it is not clear that the details of the negotiated peace deal we all want to see will be in place. He asked me a straight question, and when the deal is done, the peace is negotiated and the ceasefire is in place, I believe it will actually be easier, not harder, to hold together and enlarge the number of nations willing to be a part of the coalition of the willing. In the meeting I chaired at NATO headquarters 10 days ago—the first ever meeting of the Defence Ministers of the coalition of the willing—the 30 nations around the table, all participating in the detailed operational military planning that is continuing, were not just from Europe but beyond.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the £200 million of support to the frontline in Ukraine. Over Easter, Putin proved that he had no interest in securing peace. Within hours of declaring a supposed Easter truce, Putin unleashed a fresh wave of drone and artillery attacks across many parts of the frontline. Meanwhile, President Trump has shown once again his utter indifference towards the Ukrainian people’s struggle. After boasting that he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office, he now threatens to withdraw US support for mediating talks altogether. It is no wonder his efforts have failed, given his warped approach of applying pressure to Kyiv while offering the hand of friendship to the Kremlin.

We cannot rely on President Trump if we want to secure a just peace in Ukraine, one that respects Ukraine’s right to self-determination and proves that aggression towards neighbours does not pay. That is why the UK needs to go further and faster, together with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, to support Ukraine and increase the pressure on Putin. Will the Defence Secretary update the House on what steps have been taken to seize the £25 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets across the UK and deploy them to Ukraine? Will he also update the House on whether the Government plan to expand the UK’s designation of vessels that are part of Russia’s shadow fleet and subject to sanctions, helping to further reduce Putin’s ability to fund his war through exported oil revenues?

We welcome the Government’s work to convene discussions on creating a reassurance force for Ukraine. The credibility of the UK’s commitment to such a force would be significantly enhanced by reversing the staggeringly irresponsible 10,000 troop cut to our Army which the Conservatives undertook while in government. Will the Defence Secretary commit to reversing those cuts today?

[John Healey]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome for the surge in UK support to Ukrainian troops on the frontline. It is important to support them at this point in their close fight. That is what we are determined to do, as well as preparing for the longer term peace that we hope will be secured.

On the peace negotiations, I would just say to her that it is President Trump who has created this opportunity for negotiations and for peace, and it really is too soon to call failure on those negotiations. Everything about the determination of some significant US figures and the work they are doing, the discussions we will help support and play a part of in London tomorrow, demonstrates that there is a broad coalition of nations that wants to see a peace in Ukraine, wants to see Putin negotiate seriously, and is willing to take the steps to help bring that about.

On the question of the pressures on Putin, whether we can make any further use of the seized Russian state assets is something we are looking closely at. It is not just a question or a judgment for the UK. It will be much more powerful if that is done with other allies, particularly through the G7. If we make any progress on that front, that is the way we will do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have just come back from Ukraine—I went with other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee—and can certainly confirm what we all know, which is that there is huge gratitude and affection for the United Kingdom in Ukraine. Whatever is happening on the western front, it is a war that affects the whole of the country. Even when we were in the capital, there were three air raids in one day.

There is a desire by Ukrainians to reciprocate and support us as best they can. By necessity, they have become experts in the use of drones and want to share with us their knowledge and skills on training and development and the production of this new weapon system. Will the Government be taking up that opportunity and working with the Ukrainians on this new weapon system?

[John Healey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the job that she is doing chairing the FAC, and for her commitment to Ukraine and her recent visit. I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. I am proud of the way it was led by the previous Government, supported by us in opposition. I am proud that the official Opposition now provide the necessary support for this Government to step up still further the support we can offer.

On drones, it is not just a question, as my right hon. Friend asks, of whether we will do it. We have been doing it, and for some time. I said earlier in response to the shadow Defence Secretary, since the election in July alone, we have gifted more than 14,000 drones to Ukraine. In some cases, those are drones we have made, designed and developed here, and in some cases we have done that jointly with Ukrainian companies. Sometimes, we are ensuring that they can design, develop and manufacture for themselves in Ukraine, because that is the most effective way for Ukraine to reinforce its own armed forces and industry, and it is the quickest way of getting into the hands of frontline troops the necessary equipment and assistance to fight off Putin’s invasion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What worries me is that President Putin has said he will not accept NATO troops on the ground. In the absence of NATO troops on the ground, could we not be back to a 1939 Sudetenland situation where the aggressor takes a slug of territory and then moves in several months later? Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is absolutely convinced—perhaps he can also convince President Trump—that in the absence of NATO troops on the ground, this is a worthless peace?

[John Healey]

No one is talking about NATO troops, Madam Deputy Speaker. The coalition of the willing is a coalition of nations—many but not all of which are NATO members—willing to come together to discuss the military options and plan in close liaison with NATO because there are potential implications for NATO.

President Trump is leading the negotiations. President Putin is not yet negotiating seriously, and is therefore not in a position to lay down terms like those he mentioned. Securing the ultimate objective that President Trump, President Zelensky and we all want to see—not just peace, but a lasting, durable peace—will require reassurance and security support for Ukraine while it develops the strength of its own deterrents to do that for itself in the longer term.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done to secure extra funding for defence and for Ukraine. It is clear that Putin does not want peace and that all he is interested in doing is gaining Ukrainian territory. We have to send a clear message to him that neither we nor our allies are taking a step backwards. The only way we can get a just settlement for Ukraine is for Ukraine to be as militarily powerful as possible to stop the Russians taking more territory. I welcome the efforts that have been made so far and the additional funding, but, as I have said before, we will have to increase defence spending further. The 3% will not be enough by the next election.

[John Healey]

Although there are many experts on defence and security on both sides of this House, my hon. Friend is one of the leading voices, having followed it most closely for a great deal of time. I hear what he says, and I am pleased that he welcomes our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027—three years earlier than anyone expected—and to raise that to 3% in the next Parliament. I know he will also welcome the fact that we are putting an extra £5 billion into defence spending this year as a marker of that intent.

There was nothing in the discussions of the 51 nations and partners at the UDCG in Brussels, which I chaired with the Germans, or of the 30 nations in the coalition of the willing, which I chaired the previous day in Brussels, to suggest that the strength of the nations that stand with Ukraine is diminishing—far from it. We are stepping up and will step up further. We will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes in the fight, and we will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes in the peace.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I think the House had risen for Easter recess when President Zelensky announced that 155 Chinese troops had been deployed in support of Russian forces in Ukraine. I invite the Secretary of State to tell us how this major crossing of the Rubicon will change his Government’s approach to China, and how it might inform his discussions with his American counterpart.

[John Healey]

In the same way that President Putin is increasingly relying both on North Korean troops to fight his battles and on Iranian missiles to hit Ukraine, what this demonstrates is his underlying weakness, not his strength. Part of the very strong message that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave when he recently visited his counterparts in China is that we see the importance of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific as a matter not just for those nations in that region, and that the discussion on the future of Taiwan is necessarily one to be conducted by peaceful negotiation rather than by threats and conflict. There was also a very strong concern that the matter of stability, security and peace continuing in the Indo-Pacific is something of which we want China to be very well aware.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this topic, and not just in the UK but in Europe. My question relates to tactics. Over the weekend, I spoke on LinkedIn with a British sniper who was formerly in the Army but is now fighting for the Ukrainians on the frontline. He told me about the tactical changes that he has had to make to how he operates, but those changes are not reflected in our own sniper training in the Army, the Royal Marines and the British forces. Therefore, if we are talking about a coalition of the willing and UK troops potentially being involved in defence, when will we update the training syllabus for our own forces to reflect the tactics currently in use in Ukraine?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks on this from a position of great experience and authority. He points to something that hits at the heart of the strategic defence review, which is close to being finalised. Hardwired into the terms of reference in July, when the Prime Minister commissioned the review, is the fact that we need to learn the lessons from Ukraine, not in order to fight in Ukraine, but in order to recognise that the nature of warfare is changing—the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned the importance of drones—which means that the combination of forces needs to be more integrated. They need to be driven much more by technology, and that will have implications not just for equipment, but for training. I know that my hon. Friend will look forward to the publication of the SDR and that he will be on the case, including for the Defence Committee, to ensure that it is fully implemented. I welcome his contribution to those debates.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Coupled with the decision of the leader of the free world to describe Ukraine as the aggressor in this war is the news today that America may be considering no longer supplying the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to NATO. Is the Defence Secretary looking forward as much as the rest of us are to hearing what President Trump has to say, if he comes to this Parliament in September, about how it is that the system that kept the peace in Europe for 50 years after the second world war is no longer applicable for the future?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman and I will both look forward to the President’s visit to this country when it is staged. I know that he is so experienced in this area, but I caution him against chasing these most recent comments, or regarding them as somehow profound. I would say that the US, led by President Trump—and this has been reinforced by Defence Secretary Hegseth—has rightly challenged Europe to step up on defence spending, on European security and on Ukraine.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

indicated assent.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. But Europe and other nations stepping up does not mean that the US is stepping away. When our Prime Minister was in the White House with President Trump, they had—in public and on camera—a detailed discussion about NATO, in which President Trump reaffirmed his total commitment to article 5 of the NATO treaty.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. It is clear that Russia’s aggression undermines our security right here at home in the UK. Does he agree that the outcome of this war matters deeply to every one of our constituents across the country?

[John Healey]

In the high politics of international peace negotiations, and in the brutal drama and killing of the battlefield, it is often easy to overlook the fact that our ability as a Government, and our ability as a nation, to offer Ukraine such support depends on the well of support of the British people. My hon. Friend is right that this battle for the future of Ukraine and the huge courage that Ukrainian men and women—military and civilian alike—are showing in resisting Putin’s invasion matters to us in the UK. It matters not just because the defence of the UK and Europe starts in Ukraine; it also matters to the British people who opened their homes to refugee Ukrainians over three years ago when Putin invaded. It matters to people in this country because they recognise that the Ukrainians are fighting for what we also hold dear: the right to elect their own Government and to determine their own future as a country, and to do that without the menace of a big power and a dictator like Putin over their shoulder.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Defence Secretary has acknowledged MPs from across the House who have visited Ukraine. I wanted to briefly share my experience. When I visited a Ukrainian hospital, I met a man who was suffering from a chemical weapons attack, and doctors were struggling to treat him because they did not know what chemical weapons had been used. Can the Secretary of State please confirm what monitoring the MOD does of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Ukraine, and how is the UK raising that with international partners?

[John Healey]

We would abhor any use of chemical weapons. I am not aware of those reports, but I will check them out and write to the hon. Gentleman. He rightly points to the very sharpest end of this Ukrainian fight, which is those injured servicemen and women in Ukrainian hospitals. I am pleased to say that, from almost the first month, the UK Government were putting in place UK military medical support for the Ukrainian system. We stepped that up recently, three months ago, when I announced an increase in support and funding for it. It is an important part of the contribution we can make to keeping Ukraine in this fight.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the comments from my right hon. Friend about the need to spend more of our defence funds on buying weapons made in this country. It is a really helpful comment. The other day I was at BAE Systems, which is building a new factory in my constituency to produce artillery weapons, some of which I hope will go to Ukraine. Can my right hon. Friend commit that we will supply those weapons to Ukraine while-ever Ukraine wants them, and we will treat with a degree of scepticism and complete contempt the comments by Putin, trying to manufacture some sort of fake peace to suit his own ends?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend mentions a company in his constituency. I do not know whether he is also referring to Sheffield Forgemasters in his constituency, which is a proud industrial firm in Sheffield, in south Yorkshire, that will be making British steel to supply to a new Rheinmetall artillery barrel factory. It is a new investment in this country, directly as a result of the Trinity House agreement struck in October between the UK and Germany, and it will create 400 jobs in Britain. It will mean that we are able to produce gun barrels in this country for the first time in over 10 years. It is a good example of investment, just like the £1.6 billion that I announced a couple of months ago for new short-range air defence missiles for Ukraine. We will see over 5,000 of those produced in Northern Ireland, creating an extra 200 jobs in Thales in Belfast. It is a good example of where we can support Ukraine, strengthen our own national security and boost economic growth at the same time.

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

“Reassurance force” sounds like a euphemism for escalation that would expose our boys and girls to very significant risk, yet on 3 March the Prime Minister said to me, from the Dispatch Box, that we would not be deploying troops to Ukraine without a US backstop and without a US security guarantee. He was right, wasn’t he?

[John Healey]

I have already said this afternoon that the Prime Minister has made it clear to President Trump, as I have done to Secretary Hegseth in the US, that we support absolutely their bid to secure a negotiated peace and we expect there to be a role for the US in helping to secure that peace for the long term. What we are leading alongside the French is a determined effort—a coalition of the willing—that demonstrates that European nations like us and the French, with the capability to lead such a deployment, are willing to step up and do more. But, as I have said, Europe and nations like the UK stepping up does not necessarily mean the US stepping away.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The strength of unity these past few weeks in the Ukraine defence contact group and the coalition of the willing has sent an important signal at a critical time for Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is critical that we and allies express our unwavering support for Ukraine’s right to exist, its freedom and its national sovereignty?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might help me with some of my speechwriting, as he put it succinctly and much more sharply than I have done this afternoon. This is what is at stake as the Ukrainians fight for their future, fight for their country and fight for their freedom. It is down to us to provide them with the support that they need both in the fight and in the efforts to negotiate a longer-term peace.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. There is much in it by way of a helpful update, but the key element of it for all of us should be on the final page, where he says that we must not allow

“borders to be redrawn by force”.

That enjoys unanimous support.

I have a question on the £4.5 billion. How much of that is rolled over from previous commitments, and will the Secretary of State update the House on how much of it is consumed in this financial year? How much of it is in cash support and how much of it is in matériel?

When it comes to potential air policing in Ukraine, that will be on top of air policing in the south Atlantic, quick reaction alert from Coningsby and Lossiemouth, and air policing in the Baltic and the eastern Mediterranean. Would it not be unconscionable to try to do that without a substantial new order of Tranche 4 Typhoons?

[John Healey]

The hon. Member asks about the £4.5 billion. That is the scale of military support to Ukraine this year. It is more than this country has committed at any time before. That is a combination of £3 billion this year, plus £1.5 billion from the proceeds of the seized assets that we are also deploying. We are doing this according to a joint plan that we have developed with Ukraine for 2025 so that we look to supply what it needs most.

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

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was quite right to say that the announcement by President Putin of a pause in fighting over the Easter weekend was a false promise. We have seen many false promises from Putin, and his aggression against not just Ukraine but the whole of Europe is really concerning. While we were on recess, he had to scramble RAF Typhoons to the Baltic to intercept an Ilyushin Il-20M spy aircraft. What more will he do to protect NATO air and maritime space from the aggression of Putin and Russia?

[John Healey]

The simple answer is that we will do whatever is required as a UK contribution to the NATO alliance. I am proud of the leading role that the UK plays in NATO. I am also proud of the fact that NATO now is bigger, stronger and, with 32 nations, a better deterrent force than it was when Putin first launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. That demonstrates how Putin’s strategic aims in launching the invasion have come unstuck and so far he has failed to secure any of them. As my hon. Friend has said, Putin says he wants peace and an end to the fighting; now is the time, for the first time, for him to demonstrate that, to match his words with his actions and to negotiate seriously for that long-term, lasting peace.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for taking the first opportunity to make this important statement? I congratulate him on his work with the coalition of the willing. It will be important in that—building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge)—to understand the terms of engagement if that is to happen and peace is to be secured. We cannot permit woolly thinking, because that could allow another situation like Srebrenica to happen again. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he is working hard, that what any terms of engagement would be is on the agenda, and that people are crystal clear about what those terms could be to secure peace?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I can, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right: the potential terms of engagement are an important part of any planning, as are the terms of any peace process and settlement. That will set the framework for the potential role of any reassurance force. I can say to him and to the House that at the appropriate point, this House will have a full opportunity to discuss and debate those matters.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the commitment of the Government—both past and present—to Ukraine. Just like this House, citizens in Norwich stand with the people of Ukraine. As the Secretary of State knows, £2.5 billion was promised for Ukraine after the sale of Chelsea football club by Roman Abramovich. As far as I understand it, that money remains frozen in a UK bank account. Will the Secretary of State update us on any progress in unlocking that fund, which is much needed for the people of Ukraine?

[John Healey]

If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will double-check with my colleagues in the Department that leads on that and write to her with the latest position on the Abramovich billions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State always speaks softly but firmly; we thank him for that. He represents the views of the people. The news that Russia is seeking peace talks is certainly heartening, but how will the Secretary of State ensure that Russia understands that it is not, and never will be, peace at any price? The allies will continue to support Ukraine until a sustainable peace is achieved and will not force Ukraine to accept a deal that does not honour the sacrifice—of life, grief, the loss of education and hope of a future—that so many Ukrainians have made over so many years.

[John Healey]

If I may say so, that was a very moving contribution. Part of the power of this place is not just Ministers and Government accounting to Parliament, but Parliament finding its voice in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman said. He asks about my message to Putin. His own message and the message from this House this afternoon are strong and clear.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I recently led a roundtable of large defence manufacturers at BAE Systems’ base in Christchurch. They had one clear message, which is that they want to support Ukraine. Bournemouth stands too with Ukraine. I therefore particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment, announced today, of UK contracts worth £30 million for drones to support Ukraine. Will the Defence Secretary say how the UK will boost jobs and growth with defence spending to support Ukraine? Will he particularly say how Dorset defence manufacturers might be able to benefit too?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the message of support to Ukrainians from his constituents and businesses in Dorset. He is in a part of the country where some of the most innovative and creative companies in the defence and security fields are located. I am glad to hear of the company that has recently got the £30 million contract.

My hon. Friend might like to look at some of the detail of the Chancellor’s spring statement. Part of the confirmation that she and I made then was that, from this point, 10% of the defence budget will be allocated to developing, purchasing and supplying novel technologies for our own forces that the manufacturers that he cites from his constituency are involved in producing.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What planning is taking place among the allies to make up for the 40% of armaments that have hitherto been supplied by the United States to Ukraine, should it become necessary to do so?

[John Healey]

That was exactly the focus of the Ukraine defence contact group, and the purpose of pulling those 51 nations and partners together 10 days ago and securing the confirmation of a record €21 billion in extra military aid for Ukraine during the course of this year. That was supported by the US, with the presence of Defence Secretary Hegseth, who welcomed what he saw quite clearly as confirmation that European nations and others are stepping up to meet the challenge that he and President Trump have issued to us, quite rightly, and stepping up to meet the challenge that requires us to do more to keep Ukraine in the fight and strong for a potential peace that we all hope will be negotiated.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Keeping ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe means that we have to produce more fighting forces than Putin can, but traditionally this country has focused on producing exquisite and expensive platforms. Clearly that trade-off is changing, and we are seeing $1,000 drones in Ukraine destroying $9 million tanks. The production trade-off between expendable and exquisite platforms has to change across our allies and ourselves. Producing those drones takes months; it will take years even to upgrade our own Challenger tanks. Will the Secretary of State set out how that changing trade-off in production will be implemented and introduced in the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy to keep ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is spot on, and he provides the answer to his own question about how that necessary understanding from what we have seen in Ukraine, and in other conflict zones in the middle east recently, must involve a combination of the more traditional, sophisticated defence platforms that we have tended to procure, with much more rapidly updated, updatable and upgradable new technologies such as drones. That will be set out in the strategic defence review and captured in the defence industrial strategy, but I hope my hon. Friend will see the announcement that I referred to in the spring statement of a determination to earmark 10% of defence equipment spend from this year on for novel technologies such as the ones he cites.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I very much welcome the robust tone of the Secretary of State’s statement and his responses, but I am sure that deep inside he also regrets the fact that they are not reflected by many in the US Administration. Although across the House I am sure that we all appreciate the diplomatic challenges of dealing with President Trump and his Administration, it would be reassuring if the Secretary of State could confirm that at some level it has been conveyed that it is deeply unhelpful, and indeed disconcerting to the Ukrainian diaspora in this country, that President Trump does parrot Kremlin lines.

[John Healey]

President Trump has created this opportunity. He has created this opportunity of a ceasefire, which the Ukrainians, as a party of peace in this process, have declared they are ready to accept. He has created the opportunity for a negotiated lasting peace. Our job is to reinforce his efforts in doing so. We are doing just that. We are supporting the Ukrainians in those negotiations, and we are supporting the US and contributing to those negotiations where we can. The next stage of that will be in London tomorrow.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Our Prime Minister has convened the largest, strongest group of countries yet behind a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the UK has a unique leadership role in securing peace, and that this extends beyond the provision of military assets to galvanising all our allies on upholding shared values, helping our friends to stand up to bullies, believing in sovereignty and protecting the rules-based system? In the widest sense, the long-term defence of the UK is happening in Ukraine.

[John Healey]

I agree. The UK does indeed have a unique leadership role, as my hon. Friend says, alongside the French in the coalition of the willing. In my discussions and involvement with military planners, Defence Ministers and others on this matter, I have been struck by how other nations recognise the unique role and responsibility of the UK and the French—they welcome it. In each case, every nation has a contribution to make, and that is what we are trying to marshal through the military planning detail and the reinforcement of the coalition of the willing.

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

To what extent does the 39-member coalition accept that the United States is still the indispensable partner in any so-called peacekeeping operation? Unless a peacekeeping force in Ukraine is ready and prepared to fight and defeat the Russian armed forces, there is no point in it being there. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, it would be just a victim of another tragedy. On that point, to what extent would the primacy of NATO be recognised in any proposed EU-UK defence agreement? Again, we do not want inadvertently to send a message to the United States that NATO is over, we no longer need the Americans and we are going off on our own, because we will not be capable of doing that for decades.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right: NATO is the cornerstone of our European security. That is fundamental and the starting point for any future planning. The potential for the EU and the UK to strike some sort of defence and security pact or agreement is a recognition that the EU and the Commission also have a role to play, and indicates their recognition that the UK needs to be involved in those programmes, and industry procurements, and potentially—as the commissioner responsible for this has acknowledged—have access to the schemes and funding that may be available to underpin that.

On the US role, fundamentally what will secure Ukraine’s long-term future and a lasting peace is the strength of its own deterrent capacity—the strength of Ukraine, which it has shown in the past three years, to deter any future Russian attacks. That is one of the principal purposes of the planning for a reassurance force. However, as I and the Prime Minister have argued, and as we have said in the House, there is an indispensable role for the US in trying to foster and bring that negotiated peace, as well as in helping to secure it for the long term.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his ongoing leadership on this issue. I know that the people of Ukraine will be very pleased and hopeful, given the shared voice across this Chamber. Does he agree that the lesson from Ukraine is that the nature of warfare has changed, and can he confirm that the strategic defence review will incorporate those lessons into its findings?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. I have been making that argument for some time, before and since the last election. My hon. Friend, who has unique experience, makes the same argument. Ukraine tells us that the nature of warfare is changing. It is changing faster than ever, driven by technology. We have to adopt and incorporate those lessons for our future ability to equip our own armed forces so that they are fit to fight in the way that will be required to deter adversaries and keep us safe.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I congratulate the Defence Secretary on co-chairing the 27th meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group. While it was good to see the German Defence Minister also chairing, that role was carried out until 9 January by the US Secretary of Defence. Defence Secretary Hegseth did attend earlier this month, but it was remote attendance across a secure platform. If we see in the coming weeks any reduction in US air defence support for Ukraine or other matériel, how might the UK respond?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that I cannot possibly—and I will not start to—respond to such hypotheticals. Part of the challenge of the new US Administration to European nations such as the UK was to say, “Step up.” We were stepping up, but we have done more, and we will do more. One of the particular requests from the US Administration was that we take on convening and chairing the uniquely important and successful Ukraine defence contact group—which, the hon. Gentleman is right, was established and chaired up until the change of Administration by the US. We agreed to do that alongside the Germans. That is why the 27th contact group was convened and co-chaired by me and the German Defence Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Over recess, I delivered a message of solidarity from St Andrew’s church in Barrhead to St Andrew church in Bucha, the site of a horrific massacre. It was clear when I was in Kyiv that that brutality has meant the Ukrainians are still determined to fight, but again and again, they raised their concerns about their exposure and their overreliance on American air defence. What can we do to mitigate that, and what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating an integrated air defence zone in the west of Ukraine?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being out in Ukraine, demonstrating the solidarity of Government Members and the House in general. As he will have heard in his conversations with the Ukrainians, the overwhelming priority of the civilian population is air defence. That is why the announcement of the £1.6 billion that I put into new short-range air defence missiles—lightweight multi-role missiles, or LMMs—to Ukraine was so important. It is also why the work we have done in recent months alongside Denmark to develop Gravehawk, an innovative new technical system to help reinforce Ukrainian air defence systems that we will be able to roll out more generally, is so important. It is that combination of innovation, industrial speed and partnership with Ukraine that is reinforcing Ukraine’s ability to fight for itself and protect itself.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State rightly began his statement by condemning the Russian missile attack on Sumy on Palm Sunday, which killed civilians and children. However, he will be aware of Russian claims that this was a military target and that 60 Ukrainian military commanders were killed, as were NATO servicemen who were “in charge”. Can he confirm that we will not only provide increased military support to Ukraine, but step up efforts against Russian lies in the information war?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. These were men, women and children on their way to church; children were killed and severely injured in the attack. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you want short questions and short answers at this stage.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

With other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was in Ukraine before Easter, and there were three separate air attacks while we were in Kyiv. Fortunately, the air defence in Kyiv is particularly good, but that is not the case elsewhere in the country. Could the Secretary of State say more about how we are supporting Ukraine on air defence and whether we are considering supporting the new Sky Shield system?

[John Healey]

Alongside drones, we have given the highest priority to what we can do to support air defence systems in Ukraine. I have mentioned some of the recent commitments we have made and deliveries we are undertaking. During the course of 2025, we will develop and deliver more of those.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He quite rightly drew attention to the huge number of losses of Russian troops in the conflict, and the equally huge number of losses on the Ukrainian side. After the unsuccessful attempt at a ceasefire over Easter, does he see any prospect of anyone else intervening to try to bring about talks between Russia and Ukraine that could lead to a lasting ceasefire and ultimately a settlement? The late Pope Francis tried to intervene, as did the African Union and a number of Latin American leaders. This war cannot go on forever. Somebody has to intervene to try to bring about a process that will lead to a ceasefire that will stop the tragic loss of so many lives.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the war has to end and that there has to be a process that can lead to a political and negotiated settlement. My view, and the Government’s view, is that given the momentum behind the American-led negotiations at the moment, the best chance to achieve that is to throw our weight behind those negotiations to try to ensure they succeed.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I know that my constituents, not least the Ukrainian families who have found safety in our community, will have been horrified by Russia’s conduct over Easter. Does the Secretary of State agree that Russia’s actions over the Easter weekend show that Ukraine is still very much in the fight against Russian aggression and that Ukraine deserves our fullest support? Will he reassure the Ukrainian families in my community that that is exactly what Ukraine will have?

[John Healey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s community and the welcome that his constituents have shown to Ukrainian families, who are now part and parcel of the community. I hope his constituents, including the Ukrainians among them, will be reassured by the strength of the House’s cross-party support for their continued fight, and by our determination to try to secure a long-term peace in Ukraine.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the Defence Secretary believe that reports that the US has withdrawn intelligence sharing with Ukraine are an exaggeration? If not, does he believe that the UK and our trusted partners in the coalition of the willing can do a work-around on intelligence sharing?

[John Healey]

There was a moment when intelligence sharing with Ukraine was paused, but it was restarted with the momentum behind the talks, at the point at which Ukraine and the US were back on the same page. I am proud to say that the UK played a part in doing that and those arrangements are an important part of Ukraine being able to withstand the onslaught from President Putin.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

To support our Ukrainian friends, we need a robust sovereign industrial base. One proposal to help finance that and enhance supply chain security is the creation of a multilateral armament bank, such as the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Government should explore that potentially game-changing solution?

[John Healey]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and we are. That is part of the preparation for the defence industrial strategy. We want to find ways to maximise the investment going to British firms and British jobs, while making an important contribution not just to the defence and security of our own country, but to those of our allies as well.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The House rightly spends a lot of time talking about Russia, but Russia cannot act without Belarus. Will the Secretary of State update us on the discussions about Belarus’s role, and whether that was discussed in his recent meetings?

[John Healey]

To be quite honest with the hon. Gentleman, Belarus was not discussed. Russia is doing the active invasion and the attacks. Belarus is certainly an ally of President Putin, but not an active participant in this attack on Ukraine.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State was right to link the record level of spending on Ukraine with the opportunities for UK industry, but I am sure he would agree that that opportunity is also a challenge for the scale-up of the industry and the development cycle for new technologies. In addition to the support for innovation and financing, will is the Department considering additional measures to support our supply chains to build capability, so that organisations like our own defence cluster in Teesside can take their rightful place in supporting both Ukraine and the UK?

[John Healey]

We are indeed. My hon. Friend is completely right, and his long experience in industry bears that out. Having a productive capacity that is sovereign and in the UK is one thing, but if it cannot be supplied by the essential components and materials required, the strategic strength is undermined. We are very conscious of that as we develop a new defence industrial strategy, which we have not had in this country since the one produced in 2021.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he set out what recent steps have been taken by the Government to support the Ukrainian prosecutor general in investigating and prosecuting domestic war crimes?

[John Healey]

The Speaker will be aware of this matter from his recent visit to Ukraine, particularly to Bucha. The hon. Gentleman will know that from the outset, the UK Government, under the previous and current regimes, have continued to support with legal expertise and funding, where it is helpful, the evidence gathering and potential case building that I hope will lead to the prosecutions he wants to see.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The Secretary of State spoke of sending a clear signal to Vladimir Putin—I hope that his US counterpart will not take that too literally. Regardless, I would prefer to send drones the way of President Zelensky, and some £25 billion of frozen Russian assets would buy an awful lot of drones. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but I plead with him to take the lead on this and let the Ukrainians win in their finest hour.

[John Healey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope he heard what I said in response to his Front Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), on that issue.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Media reports and statements from representatives of the US Administration in recent days have suggested various options for Ukraine’s post-war borders, many of which would see the ceding of Ukrainian sovereign territory. I appreciate that the Defence Secretary will not want to comment on media speculation, but given his commitment to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, ahead of the talks tomorrow, will he say what the Government’s red lines are regarding any peace proposal from the US’s mediator that recognises occupied Ukrainian territory as Russian? I include Crimea in that scope.

[John Healey]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he cites media reports then says that he does not expect me to comment on them, and I will not.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government have once again stood firm with Ukraine as it fights to defend its territory and send a message to dictators that they cannot change borders by military force. The Secretary of State has been asked twice already about this today, but we are giving €21 billion-worth of munitions and so on to Ukraine, and billions of Russian assets were seized as part of the sanctions we imposed on the regime. We have not had an answer from him yet on what progress is being made on that. Does he not fear, like me, that given the transactional nature of the way in which President Trump approaches these negotiations, those assets could become part of the negotiations, which would mean that Russia could hold on to them, avoid sanctions and avoid paying for the carnage it has caused in Ukraine?

[John Healey]

As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), work is going on with allies on the question of the Russian assets. Our first focus in the Ukraine defence contact group was on what we could do now, what we could do quickly and what we could do in order to keep Ukraine in the fight today, because it is important that we do not jeopardise the prospects of peace by forgetting about the war. That is where the €21 billion—a record level of commitment—came from in that meeting in Brussels 10 days ago.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Lastly, I call John Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper]

I had better think of something quick. I will return to the question of fishing. It is right that we draw together with our European allies to fight and to bring this war to an end. However, it cannot be right for the French to leverage in fishing negotiations for defence spending. Will the Secretary of State press on the Prime Minister the need to defend our fragile coastal communities and make it clear to Paris that this cannot be helicopters for haddock or mackerel for missiles?

[John Healey]

That was worth waiting for. My first focus as Defence Secretary is securing a defence and security agreement and seeing that as the passport to more British firms and British jobs as we play our part in some of the Europe-wide procurement programmes and industrial developments that we need to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. I will allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.

Defence Reform

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Today this Government are bringing in the deepest reforms in UK Defence for 50 years, which will fundamentally change the way defence operates.

Defence must change to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The Government’s recent announcement of the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the cold war—rising to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament—is crucial for our national security. It is also a huge opportunity, and responsibility, for UK Defence.

Alongside this significant investment, must come serious reform: to speed up our decision making, focus on outcomes, secure faster delivery and achieve the best value for money for our troops and taxpayers.

Under the Secretary of State and Ministers, UK Defence will now be led by a strengthened Department of State, a fully-fledged Military Strategic Headquarters, a new National Armaments Director Group, and the Defence Nuclear Enterprise.

Our new leadership “Quad”—the Permanent Secretary, Chief of the Defence Staff, National Armaments Director, and Chief of Defence Nuclear—will drive a defence which is more concentrated on strengthening warfighting readiness and deterrence. They will shift an organisation which too often has been obsessed with process to one focused on outcomes—in which information flows quickly, individual accountabilities are clear, and results are demanded.

The key features of our new system will be:

The Permanent Secretary will lead a more agile Department of State. In line with wider civil service reform, this area will be lean and highly skilled, unleashing the exceptional capabilities within Defence by making the systems and processes around us more efficient and empowering. This area will be responsible for providing policy muscle and clear strategic direction to ensure that Defence is focused on outcomes and delivery. The Department of State will contain a streamlined set of four DG roles reporting to the Permanent Secretary, focused on strategy and transformation, people, policy and finance.

Our armed forces show great courage and collaboration in the work they do on operations to keep our country secure at home and strong abroad. The UK armed forces’ most senior officer, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), will, for the first time since this role was created, now command the service chiefs and head a newly-established Military Strategic Headquarters as the single point of force design and delivery of the armed forces. The new MSHQ will support the journey from a “joint” to an “integrated” force that better harnesses all five domains of maritime, air, land, cyber and space. They will be supported by a small central team integrating across activity and force design, prioritising investment to improve warfighting readiness and lethality.

The National Armaments Director Group will fix the broken procurement system and make defence an engine for economic growth in every corner of the UK. It will bring together teams delivering the national “arsenal”, the Government’s defence industrial strategy and end-to-end acquisition under one leader, the National Armaments Director. This new structure will enable collaboration by bringing together Defence Equipment and Support, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Defence Digital and parts of Defence Support. The group will also include roles focused on international collaboration and exports, commercial and industry, options and commissioning, and corporate, with the Enterprise CIO moving to the group by 1 July 2025. These roles will work together, and with industry, academia, international partners and allies to develop and deliver innovative solutions to departmental problems.

The Chief of Defence Nuclear is responsible for cohering across the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE), in addition to leading the Defence Nuclear Organisation (DNO) and its arm’s length bodies. The DNE unites the Royal Navy, Strategic Command and DNO, with its ALBs including the Submarine Delivery Agency and AWE—the partnership of organisations that maintain, renew, and sustain the UK’s nuclear deterrent which keeps us and our NATO allies safe 24/7. The financial nuclear ringfence ensures nuclear spending is prioritised and allows a focus on delivery and outcomes. Under Defence reform, CDN will act as the clear point of accountability for the ringfence, working closely with industry and the MSHQ finance teams to ensure effective management.

We will have four new budget holders, one for each of the Quad. Funding and spend will be categorised into invest, readiness and operate—with the NAD holding the invest budget and MSHQ responsible for the operate budget and the readiness budget of the frontline commands. Balance of investment decisions will be made across the whole Department, set against Ministers’ strategic priorities to ensure resources match ambitions. The principal accounting officer will delegate multi-year budgets, in line with HM Treasury’s departmental spending settlement, to each area. Financial year 2025-26 will be a transitional year, with quarterly reform programme milestones through the year and the bulk of the transformation complete by financial year 2026-27. The drive to reform Defence will continue throughout this Parliament.

The far-reaching changes in this Defence reform programme will help cut waste, boost British growth and jobs, and fast-track the technologies of the future into the hands of our frontline forces.

This is the start of a new era of UK Defence.

[HCWS 573]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of accommodation for service families.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

On behalf of the House, I would like to mark the passing of Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, the last surviving battle of Britain pilot—one of those strikingly few brave young men who turned the tide of the war and kept our nation safe from Nazi invasion.

The fire sale of military family homes by Conservative Ministers in 1996 was probably the worst privatisation ever. The Government were paying £600,000 a day to rent back the homes and then paying all the repair costs, with no power to plan or to do the major upgrades needed. We bought back 36,000 forces homes in January, we started the defence housing review in February, and we aim to publish our housing plans in the summer.

[Lillian Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. The men and women of our armed forces perform the ultimate public service. They and their families make considerable sacrifices to keep all of us in the UK safe and secure. Does he agree that the least we owe our servicemen and women is decent housing that they can proudly call home?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right; the sacrifice that those who serve in uniform make to keep us all safe is exceptional. The least that their families deserve is a decent home—it is, after all, the heart of all our lives. The steps we have taken with the buy-back of the Annington homes is a decisive break with the past, and we will now put in place the necessary plans to upgrade forces family homes for the future.

[Clive Jones]

The Ministry of Defence owns more than 300 houses in the former Arborfield garrison in my constituency. Only a handful of them are occupied by service families; the remainder are let privately. But increasingly they are being left vacant, which, with the estate not being maintained, is affecting the lives of constituents. I am told that no decisions can be taken on the future of the site until a housing strategy is completed. Can the MOD make an early decision on the Arborfield housing, to stop the neglect and return much-needed, affordable housing to the market?

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the specifics, I will certainly look into that. He sets out for the House the character of some of the neglect and decline that we have seen in our forces housing for so long, and the bind that previous Governments have been in, without the power or control to make the upgrades and plan for wholesale renewal for the future. That is what our housing review will start to fix. We cannot fix these deep-seated, long-running problems overnight, but we are determined to do better than we have done in the past.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure forces families in North Durham that the Labour Government are ending the previous Conservative Government’s failed approach of papering over the cracks, and are instead taking action to deliver new, high-quality family homes for our service personnel over the years to come?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. My hon. Friend and I stood on a manifesto, on which we were elected as a Government, that committed to ending the scandal of forces family homes. The buy-back that we have put in place is the start of delivering on that promise for armed forces families and delivering, as we are doing on a number of fronts, for defence.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The litany of complaints I receive from service families in accommodation in Gosport include damp, black mould, unsafe electrical wiring and waste water flowing into homes. One constituent wrote to me that:

“The overall condition of our flat is unfit for purpose, unhygienic and quite frankly a threat to our safety.”

This has been going on for decades, under successive Governments, and our service people and their families quite simply deserve better. What I want to know from the Secretary of State, on behalf of my constituents, is when we will begin to see tangible differences. Pinnacle and VIVO are not fit for purpose; when will we see them replaced with an organisation that can do those repairs, and do them properly? I invite him to visit Gosport to see some of that appalling service family accommodation for himself.

[John Healey]

The hon. Lady is right; it is shameful. Her Government had 14 years to fix the problem; we are now doing that job. We have a policy in place that means that no one should be let a home with apparent damp and mould problems. There is a special, dedicated report line for those problems, and if they are severe, service families should be offered alternative accommodation. The defence housing review, which is now under way and will report in the summer, will set out plans for a long-term overhaul of these deep-seated problems, which are overdue and have been neglected.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that UK military aid is adequate to meet Ukraine’s capability requirements.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

As a new Government, we stepped up and speeded up the delivery of UK military aid to Ukraine. This year the UK will provide £4.5 billion in military support, the highest ever sum. We are fully behind President Trump’s pledge to bring a lasting peace to Ukraine, and we want to see success in today’s talks, but we will not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. Over the weekend, President Trump’s special envoy dismissed the Prime Minister’s plan for an international force to support the ceasefire in Ukraine, calling it

“a posture and a pose”.

Whatever the wisdom of those remarks, does the Secretary of State see a future in which UK forces could deploy on peacekeeping operations in Ukraine without a US security guarantee?

[John Healey]

As the Chief of the Defence Staff said over the weekend, no one should doubt that the work that the UK is leading with France to pull together a coalition of nations willing to step in and help ensure lasting peace in any negotiated settlement in Ukraine is critical and substantial. The UK is determined and will lead that effort.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

This year, the UK is providing Ukraine with more financial aid through military support than at any time since Putin’s illegal invasion. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial to wider European security, and to our own security here in the UK, that we continue to support Ukraine and ramp up the pressure on Putin?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. Putting the Ukrainians in the strongest possible position as they choose to go into discussions is part of the responsibility and commitment of this Government. We plan very closely with Ukraine the support we provide, and our 2025 plan to support Ukraine has been developed with the Ukrainians and reflects what they need most: drones, air defences and ammunition. That is why this month the Prime Minister announced a £1.6 billion deal to supply more than 5,000 lightweight multi-role missiles for air defence that were built in the UK, both backing the Ukrainians in their fight and boosting British jobs and business.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In this age, when the plot of “The Manchurian Candidate” appears more like a documentary on US politics than a work of fiction, have the Government received any indication that their efforts militarily to support Ukraine would be actively opposed or blocked by the Trump Administration?

[John Healey]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that, in the context of a negotiated peace, the security arrangements or guarantees in Ukraine will need US support. I have made the same point strongly in my discussions with Secretary Hegseth. As Defence Secretary, my job now is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by continuing levels of UK military aid, encouraging other nations to do more, and developing—alongside the French—plans for multinational support to maintain the long-term security of any peace in Ukraine.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Rochdale’s Ukrainian community is fervently proud of what the Prime Minister has done in recent weeks, and not just on the diplomatic front but with the record support for Ukraine militarily. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to call out the Russian lies and propaganda that have been propagated of late, including the lie that somehow Ukraine is not a real country, but a fake country, and to call out the lie that Britain’s security does not also depend on Ukraine’s security?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. The first line of defence for the UK and for Europe is in Ukraine. The Ukrainians share our values and are fighting with huge courage—military and civilians alike. It is our job to stand with them during that fight to safeguard their future and their ability to make their own decisions as a country. If and when they go into the negotiations, we will stand with them then, and we will stand with them after a negotiated peace, which we all hope President Trump is capable of securing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Paddy Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much?

On the potential peacekeeping force for Ukraine, we have heard from the Secretary of State that it is jointly British and French. In fact, in every one of his answers he stressed the amount of work we are doing with France. Is it therefore not extraordinary that, at the very same time, France should be working to undermine our defence industry by having us excluded from a £150 billion European defence fund, which will include other non-EU states?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly a glass-half-empty type of guy. The European Union, when it produced its defence and security white paper last week, set in place specific arrangements for any third nation, such as the UK, that strikes a defence and security partnership with the European Union. That is exactly what we went to the country with, promising to undertake that as a UK Government. Any country with a partnership in place then potentially has access to those sorts of programmes and that sort of funding, and that is what we will try to negotiate for this country and our industry.

[James Cartlidge]

I can assure the Secretary of State that I am full biftas behind our armed forces and the UK defence industry. Is not the point that we provide our nuclear deterrent unconditionally to European NATO countries 24/7, our Army is in Estonia defending Europe’s eastern flank, and we have done more than any other European nation to support Ukraine? Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister stand up to President Macron and stress to him that this is the worst possible time to prioritise fishing rights over Europe’s collective security?

[John Healey]

I just ask the hon. Gentleman to drop that Brexit rhetoric. We are leading efforts with the French Government and the French military to meet the challenge of the US and the requirements of Ukraine to have a coalition of countries willing to stand with Ukraine in the context of a negotiated peace, to help them secure enduring stability and deterrence, to prevent Russia re-invading that sovereign country.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure that veterans receive adequate support after leaving the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

12. If he will make it his policy to negotiate a defence and security agreement with the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

When the British public elected us as the new Government, we said that Labour will seek an ambitious new UK-EU security pact to strengthen co-operation on the threats that we face and will rebuild relationships with key European allies. With NATO as the cornerstone of our security in Europe, that is exactly what we are doing.

[Dr Savage]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Given President Trump’s increasing unpredictability and shifting policies, can the Secretary of State share how the Government are strengthening defence procurement agreements with European partners to enhance our capabilities and reduce our reliance on the United States?

[John Healey]

When I spoke last week with High Representative Kallas and Commissioner Kubilius, that was exactly what I discussed: closer defence collaboration that will see a stronger European effort, with the UK and the EU, but within the NATO framework, which is the cornerstone for all of us to keep ourselves safe.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

My constituents have steadfastly supported the people of Ukraine since Russia’s illegal invasion. Can the Secretary of State confirm that collective support for Ukraine will be a major focus of his discussions with EU counterparts and that under this Government the UK will always lead the way in stepping up support for Ukraine?

[John Healey]

Indeed, I can. My hon. Friend makes an important point. This period is critical for Ukraine and for European security. I hope that he sees a UK Government who are stepping up to provide stronger support for Ukraine, co-ordinating allies to do more, stepping up on European security, and above all stepping up on defence spending.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We support the Government’s commitment to strengthening defence ties with our European partners, but they need to go further and faster to ensure that the UK does not get left behind. Has the Defence Secretary spoken with his counterparts in the EU about the value of the new stand-alone UK-EU defence pact, which will enable the UK to better influence decisions around new finance programmes, such as a rearmament bank to support defence investment across Europe?

[John Healey]

Yes. Last week I met with High Representative Kallas and spoke with Commissioner Kubilius, and that was exactly the subject of our conversations.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

13. What discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the joint expeditionary force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

A lot has happened since the last defence oral questions six weeks ago. The Prime Minister announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, hitting 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. I chaired the Ukraine defence contact group of nearly 50 countries—the first European Defence Minister to do so—which secured an extra €1.5 billion of military support for Ukraine. With France, the UK is leading plans to put together a coalition of the willing to secure a peace deal in Ukraine; 31 nations joined a planning meeting last week at the permanent joint headquarters, and there are further meetings there this week as we accelerate that planning. This is a Government stepping up on European security, on Ukraine, on defence spending and in all areas. This is UK leadership in action.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

The Government’s commitment to use defence procurement to strengthen our industrial sector is welcome. Will the Secretary of State please outline how the Government are supporting local manufacturers across the UK and ensuring that defence contracts contribute to long-term industrial growth and job creation? In particular, how are they encouraging and supporting companies such as Pargat Housewares in my constituency, which is a private, ethnic minority-owned business and one of the UK’s largest producers of pots, pans and bakeware using advanced and extremely energy-efficient techniques?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right that SMEs are often the drivers of productivity and innovation. We recently announced that we will be setting targets for an increasing share of defence contracts to go to SMEs, alongside the formation of a new defence innovation office.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

If our forces go to Ukraine, it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission, but, as the Veterans Minister reminded us earlier, Operation Banner was also described as peacekeeping, yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts. Our soldiers in Iraq were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims. If our forces go to Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider a derogation from the European convention on human rights so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?

[John Healey]

If we go into Ukraine, we will be going into a negotiated peace, not a shooting war. Our aim is to secure borders, to ensure safe skies and to ensure safe seas. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will not support a UK mission and UK troops without that derogation?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course not. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Labour Government derogated from the ECHR after 9/11, and a country in Europe has derogated from the ECHR since 2015. That country is Ukraine, and that is because there is a war on. Surely he recognises that, even if it is a peacekeeping force, there will still be threats, and Russian nationals have been particularly adept at lawfare in our own courts. Surely he will at least consider giving the maximum protection to our armed forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment.

[John Healey]

Our armed forces will always have our fullest support. Just to be clear to the hon. Gentleman, we, alongside France, are putting together a coalition of the willing, responding to the challenge from the US for Europe to step up on Ukraine. We are responding to the requirement from Ukraine for security arrangements that will give it the conviction and confidence that any negotiated peace will last. That is a worthy mission, and it is one that the UK is leading. I hope that it has the support of both sides of the House.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T2. Our troops must be able to trust the body armour that they wear to keep them safe. Will the Minister for the Armed Forces update the House on how withdrawing cracked enhanced combat body armour is going and on when everyone in our forces can expect to know that their body armour is safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

T5. With the UK frozen out of the EU rearmament scheme while defence contractors and security firms in Albania, Norway and South Korea stand to benefit, what estimates has the Secretary of State made of the potential loss of economic activity in the UK as a result?

[John Healey]

The strongest argument for saying that there needs to be UK collaboration and co-operation with the EU and across Europe is that some of our best capabilities, from the Typhoon and the Meteor to Storm Shadow, have been developed through multinational efforts including the UK. It is that sort of collaboration that we want to secure for the future, and the EU White Paper gives us a basis for starting to negotiate that.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

We are incredibly proud of our veterans in Peterborough. Will the Minister join me in recognising the work of Councillor Jason McNally, our armed forces champion, and his predecessor, Councillor John Fox, and tell us what more the Government can do to help them to support more people signing up to the armed forces covenant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

T8. President Macron has blocked British firms from the new EU defence fund. What are the Secretary of State’s views on this act of solidarity?

[John Healey]

That is just not accurate. There is a new proposal for a strategy from the European Union, and it has opportunities for third countries such as the UK to participate. Our discussions demonstrate the importance of the UK being able to collaborate industrially and as a Government to meet the threats we face.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that when we discuss procurement and British-made weapons, we also need to consider our responsibilities and legal duties in relation to the issuing of arms licences? Does he agree that now is the time to talk about ending all arms sales to Israel?

[John Healey]

We keep all our arms exports constantly under review. We have made decisions on a limited number of exports in relation to Israel. That position of keeping things under review continues, but we have no plans at this stage to make any change.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Staff Sergeant Peter Cluff died in February 2016, with an in-service designation to that death. His widow, Kirsty, and his children, Meredith and Heather, were in the benefit of the armed forces pension scheme and remain so. However, the scheme made a miscalculation and have sent debt collectors to them to try to recover a fairly small sum. I asked about the matter three months ago and have not had a response from the Department. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss this unedifying advert for the Ministry of Defence?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary should know that the whole House supports the Government’s actions to preserve peace in Ukraine, but that was not the point that the shadow Secretary of State was making. He was asking whether the Ministry of Defence recognises that it has a duty of care towards soldiers who fight for their country and then face decades of lawfare and the misuse of the European convention on human rights. Will the Ministry do something to protect those soldiers?

[John Healey]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to our duty of care and to standing by our forces. We also recognise that the previous Government put in place legislation—the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021—to deal with any concerns in this place.

Ministry of Defence Contingency Fund Advance: 2024-25

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The Ministry of Defence new cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2024-25. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.



The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Ministry of Defence will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £250,000,000 and £250,000,000 of capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £500,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

This is separate and additional to the advance sought on 6 January 2025 to fund the transaction to purchase 36,347 properties from Annington Property Ltd.

[HCWS468]

Ministry of Defence: 2025-26 Estimate

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2025-26, has been laid before the House of Commons on 11 February 2025 as HC638. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2025-26.

These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the “UK Armed Forces Quarterly Service Personnel Statistics”.

[HCWS438]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

12. In which financial year he plans to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The Government were elected on a firm commitment to set a path to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Prime Minister has said that we will do so in the spring.

[John Lamont]

So that my constituents can better understand the Government’s priorities, which does the Minister think that we will achieve first: a deal to lease Diego Garcia for billions of pounds, or spending 2.5% of GDP on defence?

[John Healey]

Everyone agrees that we must increase defence spending to meet the increasing threats. This Government are delivering for defence by increasing defence spending, and we have already increased defence spending by almost £3 billion next year.

[Aphra Brandreth]

It is clear that we face increasingly volatile and dangerous global security challenges, which is why the previous Government set a path to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence by 2030. What conversations have the Minister and officials at the Ministry of Defence had with NATO counterparts, particularly from the United States, on increasing defence spending? What implications does he think his party’s lack of timeline for reaching 2.5% will have on the special relationship, given the new US Administration?

[John Healey]

This country is at the forefront of defence spending in NATO, and we are ready to increase it to 2.5% of GDP. The hon. Lady talked about the previous Government’s plan for 2.5% of GDP. I have to tell her that that was an election gimmick, announced four weeks before the Prime Minister called the election; the Institute for Fiscal Studies described it as “misleading”, and the Institute for Government described it as “a work of fiction.”

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

This Labour Government have given our armed services their biggest pay rise in almost 20 years. I have spoken to service personnel in my constituency, and those who are part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. They talk about pay, but they also talk about service conditions and support for their families being key drivers of retention. What are the Government doing on those matters?

[John Healey]

I am proud to be the Defence Secretary who has been able, this year, to give the armed forces the largest pay rise in over 20 years. I am proud to have been able to do the deal that has seen 36,000 forces family homes brought back into public control, so that we can develop them for the future. This Government will reset the nation’s contract with those who serve and the families who support them.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

In my time in the Army, I saw at first hand blokes not getting the kit and equipment that they needed to operate efficiently. It angered me to read this weekend that the previous Administration wasted £5 million on McClaren mudflaps. Will the Secretary of State promise me that he will not take the—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think you need an Adjournment debate.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend speaks from experience in the Rifles, and he is completely right. The issue is not just how much we spend, but how we spend it. The Government are delivering for defence by getting a grip of defence budgets, tackling Ministry of Defence waste and investing in the kit that our frontline service people need. We scrapped the £40 million VIP helicopter deal, we have ended the pointless racing car sponsorship, and we have saved £300 million from an out-of-control consultancy spend.

[Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

When the UK persuaded NATO to spend 2% of GDP on defence in 2014, just two other countries did so; now, 23 countries do. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time once again for the UK to play a leadership role in Europe by persuading NATO to spend the money it should and keep America part of the alliance?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. It is time for the UK and European allies to step up and do more of the heavy lifting. That includes increasing defence spending, so that we can meet the threats that we face, and, as I have discussed with the new Defence Secretary in the US, boosting our defence industry on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

In the light of the growing threats facing our United Kingdom, it was genuinely shocking to read at the weekend that Conservative Defence Ministers spent taxpayers’ money sponsoring a race car. My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South are livid about the waste of their taxpayers’ money. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that he will continue his actions to root out every aspect of wasteful spending in the Ministry of Defence?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. We have to get a grip of out-of-control defence waste and out-of-control defence budgets. I am pleased to have been able to put an end to that pointless racing car deal, which delivered free race-day tickets and MOD-sponsored branded mudflaps instead of the kit that our frontline troops need. Of course, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Minister responsible for that deal—he agreed the contract and told the House that it was a “brilliant partnership”.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

This is a question about defence spending. We have a cast-iron commitment to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that the UK has not spent on defence since 2010, under the last Labour Government. On the Chagos deal, this is a military base that is vital to our national security. The Prime Minister was right to say that its legal certainty had been called into doubt. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. That is why we looked for a deal that would safeguard the operations for at least the next century.

[James Cartlidge]

When the Prime Minister said that the base “cannot operate”, he was referring to operations. That implies that there must be some kind of direct threat to satellite communications on Diego Garcia. The world will have seen that the Secretary of State has not defended that position—he is not leaning into it in any way—which makes us think this: given that the former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and the previous Defence Secretary Grant Shapps saw the same intelligence and rejected the deal, which has since got worse and more expensive, is not the obvious thing to scrap it, and to spend every penny that is saved on our armed forces?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, of course, were responsible for 11 rounds of negotiation on the deal, and the Prime Minister’s point was that a lack of long-term legal certainty casts into doubt the operational security of the base. This deal will secure an operational guarantee for at least a century.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to protect undersea infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

6. Whether he has had discussions with officials in the US Administration on its commitment to NATO.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I held the first call with the new US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, last month. We discussed the importance of all NATO allies doing more, including on defence spending. I look forward to meeting Secretary Hegseth this week at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Members of this House have raised concerns about the impact on Ukraine of both the new US Administration and continuing Russian aggression. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will use the upcoming Munich security conference to determine with allies the best way of ensuring Ukraine’s victory?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. I welcome the fact, as I think will the hon. Lady, that the new US Defence Secretary is spending his third full week in office in Europe. He has made it clear that he wants to discuss how to strengthen alliances, how to expand our defence industries on both sides of the Atlantic, and how to boost allied defence spending, including on Ukraine. That is something we all agree on.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer, but in the face of wider Russian aggression, could he expand on what conversations he has already had with NATO counterparts about how NATO can respond appropriately to the threat from Russia?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. Everyone in NATO, including every one of the European allies within NATO, is ready and is stepping up on Euro-Atlantic security. This Wednesday I will have the privilege of chairing the Ukraine defence contact group, a 50 nation-strong group in which we co-ordinate the support that Ukraine needs, because we must stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

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

7. What his planned timetable is for the annual provision of £3 billion of military support to Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

The Government have committed to maintain £3 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year, next year, and each year for as long as it takes.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I came back from Ukraine a week and a half ago. I was very close to the front and talked to many of the military commanders there, and they made it very clear to me that they were desperately short of artillery pieces, 155 mm, and, most importantly, munitions—they could hardly respond to the Russians. As I understand it, they are also short of C-RAM—counter-rocket, artillery and mortar—defence missiles, which are desperately needed to protect Ukraine’s energy sites and its civilians’ flats and houses. That hardware has been promised by many European nations, and of course by the USA—and I must say that when you are that close to the front, Mr Speaker, you realise how desperate it is there. In the light of this delay, will the Government commit the UK to at least provide the sort of weaponry that it can provide to alleviate that problem as far as humanly possible, but mostly to push our allies to do what they promised to do? From what I heard, without that hardware, Ukraine runs the risk of losing this war.

[John Healey]

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman went to Ukraine. He was there with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), and I look forward to meeting them both later this month to discuss the detail of what they saw. From my second day in this job, when I was in Odessa with President Zelensky, I made the commitment that the UK would step up and speed up support for Ukraine, which is exactly what we have done. That will be part of the discussions we will have with other nations at the meeting I will chair on Wednesday, and I am sure it will also be part of our discussions at NATO on Thursday.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

Along with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the £3 billion commitment to Ukraine this year, next year and the year after, but there are things that we can do at home as well. For example, this weekend I hope to host a reception for Ukrainian refugees in my constituency—a Valentine’s for Ukraine that we can send from all of us to all of them and all the Ukrainians who are finding refuge in our country.

[John Healey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s action in his constituency. The UK has a proud unity on Ukraine, and it has given a proud welcome to Ukrainians under the Homes for Ukraine scheme since day one of Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion. As my hon. Friend says, nearly three years into the conflict, Valentine’s day is a useful marker to recognise the warmth of welcome from the UK people and the struggle and fight that the Ukrainian people—military and civilian alike—are waging for their freedom and their future.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to help increase recruitment to the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

On behalf of us all, I wish our UK team in Canada good luck for the Invictus games. This week, I will have the privilege of chairing the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group. I will also attend the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers, and then the Munich security conference.

Mr Speaker, 2025 is the critical year for the war in Ukraine. The world is watching, and it is imperative that all allies step up their support. I am proud of the UK’s continued unity and leadership on Ukraine. This year, the UK will provide £4.5 billion in military aid—more than ever before. Our commitment is absolute. We will strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. I am grateful to continue to have the support of both sides of the House. Together, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Graeme Downie]

US navy officials have reported increased Russian and Chinese patrols in the High North. Last week, the Danish navy announced plans to acquire three new Arctic patrol ships, and March will see one of the largest Exercise Joint Viking operations in NATO’s history. With these concerns in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm which UK assets will be involved in Joint Viking this year? What plans does he have to update the 2022 policy paper on the UK’s defence contribution in the High North?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right about the High North. We will continue to maintain a strong defence profile and posture. Both the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be taking part in Exercise Joint Viking.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Surely, one of the most important lessons from the war in Ukraine for our own military base is the urgent need to fire up the defence industry and increase its capacity. However, today we learned from ADS that British defence manufacturers will be hit with a £600 million tax rise this Parliament from higher national insurance. Why are the Government prioritising higher taxes on defence instead of higher defence spending?

[John Healey]

On the contrary, we are backing British industry. We are looking for firms that can design, invent and make in Britain—a big change from the industrial policy under the previous Government. I was in Derby recently to announce an eight-year contract for Rolls-Royce that will support more than 1,000 apprentices—200 each year—and thousands of small businesses in supply chains across the country.

[James Cartlidge]

I know all about the Unity deal because, as the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry said, I negotiated it. This is extraordinary complacency on tax from the Secretary of State. The Government are taxing not just the defence industry but the education of defence people’s children and death-in-service payments. The fact is that the Defence Secretary is under “a tax” from all sides. The question is: is that how the Government will pay for their Chagos deal?

[John Healey]

We stepped up and accelerated the negotiations to conclude the Rolls-Royce contract, and I was able to announce it the other week to apprentices and management at Rolls-Royce. We are putting nearly £3 billion extra into defence this year. We recognise, as everyone does, that we must increase defence spending. We will return UK defence spending to a level that we have not seen since Labour was last in government in 2010, directing it first and foremost to British industry.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

T2. This week is National Apprenticeship Week. I know from my constituents that apprenticeships are a vital and successful route into the workplace. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the 26,000 apprenticeships in the defence sector across the country? Will the Government continue to build the right skills and workforce of the future through apprenticeships?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

T7. Do the Secretary of State, his officials and his chiefs have a plan to implement the additional resource from 2.5% of GDP when it arrives? If they do not, we will be faced with lengthy delays while procurement plans are put in place. Is this a case of ministerial prevarication, or is there a serious plan? If 2.5% arrives but there are no plans for procurement ready to hit the ground running, we will actually be no further forward than we were at 2%.

[John Healey]

Mr Speaker, we have the commitment and we have the plan.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

T4. I thank the Veterans Minister for recently visiting Redditch for a roundtable, where he heard from veterans about the excellent work by the Redditch armed forces and veterans breakfast club in bringing together the community and signposting critical support. Does he agree it is vital that the Government continue to work with such organisations to ensure that no veteran misses out on the support they deserve?

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T8. The United Kingdom has a strong defence industry worth £36 billion in exports, which is important to companies in my constituency, such as Collins Aerospace, Amentum and Chess Dynamics. The Government’s commitment to strengthening UK-EU relations is especially welcome in this sector. What steps is the Department taking to boost exports with our EU and NATO allies?

[John Healey]

We are setting out to reset relations with key European allies. We have said we will look to co-operate more closely with the European Union where that is in British interests and where we can add to the defence and security arrangements for Europe as a whole. We have struck some deep new bilateral agreements, such as the Trinity House agreement with Germany. We have to see our British industry not just as producing the kit our forces need, but as an essential part of our deterrence that, alongside allies, deters aggression.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

T6. Last month, I hosted the annual dinner for former servicepeople in my constituency, where I met scores of people who served our country proudly and bravely, like Councillor Clive Morgan. I will ask the Secretary of State the question they asked me, which becomes ever more urgent by the day: what are the Government doing to boost the resilience of the general public in this country in an ever-more hostile world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Are the Government doing any forward thinking—[Laughter.] No, I am being serious—about what will happen when the shooting stops with a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine? Wherever the border between free and occupied Ukraine finally forms will become the new frontline for Europe, so what provision are we making, even now, to be able to secure the future shape and safety of Europe?

[John Healey]

Despite the titters on his own side, the right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. At the point at which Ukraine decides to talk instead of, or as well as, fight, security guarantees will need to be in place to ensure that Russia does not resume its aggression. In Washington last year, the NATO allies made a commitment that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership, but there will be a period when during the talks, just as in the fight, they will require our support. We are giving that detailed discussion now.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

On Thursday, my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Veterans and People came to my constituency for an important discussion on veterans’ mental health. May I ask him for his reflections on that discussion and on what actions he will be taking moving forward?

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will have heard the exchanges earlier about the grave injustice and slur that was delivered upon SAS personnel in the coroner’s judgment last week, following the incidents in Clonoe. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to indicate not only to the House but to service personnel and the nation that he, as Defence Secretary, supports those who bravely served in Northern Ireland and stood on the precipice between peace and tyranny?

[John Healey]

I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation to do just that. It behoves us all to remember that those who served in our forces in Northern Ireland were part of a campaign that led to more deaths of UK security personnel in Northern Ireland than in Afghanistan. They deserve, and they will have, our fullest support.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

As seems to be the consensus of the House, our support for Ukraine must remain unwavering in the face of Putin’s war of nationalist aggression. I am proud that this country retrofits Storm Shadow missiles in my constituency. With an increasingly unstable geopolitical situation, does the Secretary of State agree that full co-operation with our NATO allies to defend Ukraine and guarantee the security of Europe continues to be integral in the defence of our own country?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend points to one of the major items for discussion on Wednesday at the Ukraine defence contact group, and one of the main concerns of NATO and the new Secretary-General, which is to boost the capacity of the European defence industry.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

The Eskdalemuir seismic array in my constituency monitors compliance with the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. At the moment, there is a restriction on wind farm development in the vicinity of the array, but wind farm developers are lobbying hard to have those restrictions relaxed. Can Ministers give a guarantee that they will not be relaxed if there is any suggestion that that would interfere with the array’s effectiveness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

I think I am right in saying that I am the only Member of the House of Commons, if not Parliament as a whole, to have Mauritian heritage; if I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. Why does the Secretary of State not see that the proposed deal between the United Kingdom and Mauritius is a dangerous one because of the increase in China’s access to the islands near Diego Garcia, an unaffordable one—whether it is £9 billion, £18 billion or £52 billion, that is money that should go to our armed forces—and, above all, a humiliating one in the eyes of the Mauritians, the Americans and the international community? Why will he not scrap it?

[John Healey]

The deal with the Mauritians is designed to secure the long-term operation and the legal base, and to guarantee our ability and that of our allies in the US to continue to operate from Diego Garcia for at least the next century.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Earlier in topical questions, the Veterans Minister said that the strategic defence review would be published in the next couple of months. Can he confirm that it will be published by the end of April?

Defence

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the statement on Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response on 22 January 2025.

[John Healey]

We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.

[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1029.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey):

[John Healey]

We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to shadow Russian vessels through UK waters, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s response to recent Russian maritime activity. [Interruption.] I am glad that the House waited for this statement.

A foreign vessel, Yantar, is in the North sea, having passed through British waters. Let me be clear: it is a Russian spy ship, used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure. Yantar entered the UK exclusive economic zone about 45 miles off the British coast on Monday. For the past two days, the Royal Navy has deployed HMS Somerset and HMS Tyne to monitor the vessel, every minute, in our waters, and I have changed the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement so that our warships can get closer and better track Yantar.

So far, the ship has complied with international rules of navigation, but this is the second time that Yantar has entered our waters in recent months. In November, the ship was also closely watched, and was detected loitering over UK critical undersea infrastructure. To deter any potential threat, I took measured steps at that time as part of a clear, direct response to the Russian vessel. Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft, alongside HMS Cattistock, HMS Tyne and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Proteus, were deployed to shadow Yantar’s every movement. Today, I also confirm to the House that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine to surface close to Yantar—strictly as a deterrent measure—to make it clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move. The ship then left UK waters without further loitering, and sailed down to the Mediterranean.

As colleagues will understand, I will not comment further for reasons of operational security. However, I thank all the personnel involved for their dedication and professionalism. I also want President Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country. With our NATO allies, we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships and aircraft cannot operate in secrecy near the UK or near NATO territory.

This activity is another example of growing Russian aggression, targeting our allies abroad and us at home. The heads of MI6 and the CIA recently made a joint statement, saying that Russia is waging a “reckless campaign” of sabotage across Europe. We are seeing periodic incursions of Russian military aircraft into airspace for which we are responsible, and on Christmas day the EstLink 2 undersea cable between Finland and Estonia was damaged. Many analysts believe that that was caused by a vessel in Russia’s shadow fleet.

Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak. In Ukraine, it has suffered devastatingly high rates of casualties over three years in a war it thought it would win in a week. Compounding the humiliation, Putin has been forced to turn to North Korea to reinforce its frontline fighters. While the strategic defeat in Syria has exposed Russia’s diminishing power on the global stage, at home the Russian economy faces crippling strains.

Nevertheless, Russia remains the most pressing and immediate threat to Britain, and I want to assure the House and the British people that any threat will be met with strength and resolve. First, we are delivering on the foundation of security in our plan for change by making Britain secure at home. Yantar has now passed through the Dover strait and is in Dutch waters. In September, RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept two Russian Bear F aircraft operating near the UK. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is also playing an indispensable role in safeguarding offshore infrastructure with its multi-role ocean surveillance ship, RFA Proteus.

Secondly, we are making Britain strong abroad, working with NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. The UK activated Nordic Warden with JEF partners after the EstLink 2 cable damage. The operation is tracking potential threats to undersea infrastructure, monitoring the movements of the Russian shadow fleet and sending out real-time warnings of suspicious activity to JEF allies and to NATO. Today, I can confirm that the RAF will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to join the new Baltic Sentry NATO deployment to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic sea.

Thirdly, with allies we are piling the pressure on Putin. This year, the UK will provide more financial aid in military support to Ukraine than at any time since the full-scale invasion began: £4.5 billion to deliver military support, enhance training and strengthen industrial collaboration. The UK is also leading the way in finding ways to put pressure on the Russian economy, including sanctioning more than 100 ships in the Russian shadow fleet, which is more than any other nation; working with other countries to stop the Russian military acquiring the goods, equipment and technologies it requires to continue its fight and war against Ukraine; and with allies, exposing the activities of the Russian intelligence services, expelling Russian intelligence officers and sanctioning individuals responsible for hostile activity against the UK.

Russian aggression will not be tolerated at home or in Ukraine. That is why one of the first acts of this Government was for the Prime Minister to launch the strategic defence review, why the Government have increased defence spending next year by almost £3 billion, and why we will set a path to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the spring. This new era of threat demands a new era for defence. Change is essential, not optional, and the Government are determined to meet the challenge and determined to deliver for defence. We will protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure and we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security, we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence.

I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today.

I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents.

A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO?

Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom?

I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities?

In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place.

To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament.

[John Healey]

I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for welcoming the statement and the Government’s greater transparency. He, like me, has confirmed that he sees Russia as the most critical threat to the UK. He has been a Defence Minister and he understands, as he acknowledges, the importance of sending the strongest possible signals to our adversaries. That is the underlying reason for the decision I have taken to make this statement today.

The shadow Secretary of State argues that our response provides the UK with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership within NATO. I think we have already done that, not by asserting our argument but by our actions: launching and leading through the JEF 10 nations the Nordic Warden response to the attack on EstLink 2 and now by confirming that we will play a leading role in the new NATO deployment in the Baltic, which is linked to the work that we are doing through Nordic Warden.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about the priority for our undersea cables for our homeland infrastructure. These cables are not simply a technical network. They are the infrastructure for the things on which we depend for our daily lives: the operation of the internet; the supply of energy; and communications with other parts of the world. He will therefore have seen and noted in the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, launched by the Prime Minister within two weeks of the Government being elected in July, that defending and reinforcing the homeland defence of Britain is foremost in those terms of reference. We will, as I have said, report on the strategic defence review in the spring.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is very apt that he should be making this statement, because during our Defence Committee visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland last week, we discussed this very issue. Clearly, there is greater need for wider availability and capacity for Royal Navy and other maritime capability to meet the rising Russian activity in waters surrounding the UK. I refer, for example, to the threats to critical undersea infrastructure.

I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the Finnish investigation into Eagle S, which was accused of damaging the undersea infrastructure between Finland and Estonia? Secondly, what measures are available to the Government to stop vessels from traversing UK waters, to build on the recent insurance checks that were put in place in October? Is sanctioning vessels our only option?

[John Healey]

I thank the Chair and the members of the Defence Committee not just for the work that they are doing, but for the work that they are willing to do outside this House. I thank them for the visit that they paid to Lossiemouth to see for themselves some of the essential work that our forces personnel and civilians are doing in defending this country. He asks about the Finnish investigation into the EstLink 2 cable damage. That is for the Finns to complete and to confirm the findings of their investigation. It will be at that point that we can draw out and discuss any lessons that there might be for the UK.

We defend more fiercely than perhaps any other nation in the world the freedom of navigation in our seas. Ships of all states may navigate through our territorial waters. They are subject to the right of innocent passage, and so some of the steps that the Chair of the Defence Committee might urge the Government to take are simply not available to us under the United Nations law of the open seas. It is for that reason that we take the steps and actions that I have reported to the House—to make sure that we monitor, we watch and we track, so that those who might enter our waters with malign intent, or try to undertake any malign activity, know that we see them and know that they will face the strongest possible response.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is also important for Front Benchers to arrive on time to hear the opening statement—I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson was four minutes late—and it is important for them to know that they may not be called in the future, but, on this occasion, I do invite the hon. Lady to speak.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my lateness.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for their actions against the Russian threat. We also thank all the service personnel involved in dealing with this threat.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our defence policy and conventional forces should be focused on defending British territory and playing a leading role in our immediate European neighbourhood. As such, we welcome the Government’s announcement that the Royal Airforce will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft to join Baltic Sentry under NATO command.

Action to defend the realm is particularly pressing in light of recent escalations of hybrid threats from Russia. The suspected sabotage of undersea cables, including the damage to Estlink-2 on Christmas day, underscores the urgency of this moment. Such cables are the life blood of international connectivity and commerce and any attack on them is an attack on the collective stability of Europe.

The events involving the tanker Eagle S and its links to sanctioned entities supporting Putin’s war machine are deeply alarming. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of aggression that demands robust and co-ordinated action. This Government must rebuild trust with our European neighbours. The UK’s national interest and security have always been inextricably tied to that of Europe. From the second world war through to the cold war and the current war in Ukraine, our shared defence has been vital.

To that end, we urge the Government to work hand in glove with NATO countries to support Ukraine during the war and the rebuilding afterwards, including finding lawful ways to use the $300 billion of frozen Russian state assets as reparations; sign a comprehensive security treaty with the European Union to strengthen collaborative defence; and collaborate on developing cutting-edge defence technologies and ensure inter-operability with NATO allies to respond effectively in times of crisis.

We also face serious national vulnerabilities. The UK lacks land-based anti-ballistic missile systems to protect critical national infrastructure. Questions remain about the ability to secure the Greenland-UK gap.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when will they outline a clear timeline for achieving that? This is not the time for complacency. The threats are clear, and the response must be decisive.

[John Healey]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Perhaps she, like I, thought that there would be more interest in this House in the operation of the Competition and Markets Authority than the length of the urgent question proved was the case. It may just be that I can run a little faster than her.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It gives a whole new meaning to “running to the defence”.

[John Healey]

But Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for the UK contribution to the Baltic Sentry NATO operation. We play a leading role in NATO and we will play a leading role in this operation in the Baltic. It reinforces our allies, and by doing that we reinforce our own defences and strengthen collectively the deterrence that we can, as NATO nations, offer to any future aggression and aggressive intent from President Putin.

The hon. Lady urges us to work hand in glove with allies over the support for Ukraine, which is what we are committed to do. It is why the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last week, when he confirmed the record level of funding for this year to support military aid to Ukraine and when he signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Finally, he made the commitment that I think the hon. Lady is looking for, when he said that, whatever happens next, our job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position both on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That is what I, as Defence Secretary, am determined to do for this country.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Putin and his autocratic friends mistake our freedom and openness for weakness, so may I enthusiastically welcome the strength of the response to the Russian activity? The Secretary of State will be aware of the reports in Newsweek in recent days about patents that have been filed in China for specific cable-cutting technology, presumably for military use by the Chinese. Can he reassure the House that, as well as being active in deterring Putin, the Government are taking a similarly robust stance on any attempts by China to cut the cables?

[John Healey]

I reassure my hon. Friend that I am aware of what he cites, and of the pace of development of many aspects of Chinese technology and equipment. Much of it may be for civilian use, but I assure him that we, with allies, are keeping a very close eye on what China is developing.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the action that he has taken, and all the work of our servicemen to combat this threat. The Yantar has been a well-known threat for quite a long time, but Russia has also been very capable of using private and commercial vessels to map cables and undermine our security. The reality is that we need more resources in our Royal Navy and other services. What assurance can he give the House that a bid has been put together to ensure that the Treasury properly resources him and our servicemen to do a job that we all depend on?

[John Healey]

Our UK servicemen and women will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks. I can give him that assurance. Most importantly, I can give him the commitment that we made to the British people at the election that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that Britain has not spent on defence since 2010.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Over recent years, we have seen a large increase in Russian activity of this type, and it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is critical and increasing. The UK sub fleet is built at BAE Systems in my constituency, and we play a vital role in countering this threat. Will the Secretary of State comment on the support that the Government will continue to provide to ensure that the submarine fleet continues to play this central role in the defence of our nation?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. I, too, am intensely proud of everything that is done, designed and developed at the Barrow shipyard. It is central to our UK security, and has been for decades. Like me, she will be proud that the Royal Navy submarine that surfaced close to the Yantar in November, which led to the Yantar heading directly off to the Mediterranean, was built in that Barrow shipyard.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that our Royal Navy and RFA are the best in the world. They need to be equipped with the vessels and crew to do their job and address threats such as those I am grateful to him for articulating. He will know that Portsmouth harbour, which Gosport sits opposite, is home to the six Type 45s that were commissioned without adequate propulsion units. Could he update us on the T-45 power improvement programme? Will it be sufficient for T-45s to be allowed to deploy with the upcoming carrier strike group? More broadly, what is he doing as part of the SDR to ensure that a significant and sufficient proportion of our naval personnel have seagoing liability?

[John Healey]

I am so pleased that, alongside the Royal Navy, the hon. Lady cites the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which plays an essential part in our maritime defence and operations. I give her that assurance on the Type 45s’ participation in the carrier strike group. If she would like me to write to her in more detail about the progress on the engine upgrade programme, I will happily do so.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for such a strong statement, which makes it clear to Vladimir Putin that this aggression will not be tolerated. Recently, Ministers were kind enough to answer a series of written questions from me on quick reaction alert, subsea cables and defence of the high north, all pointing to additional threats from Russian forces and the need for a strong response. With the strategic defence review well under way, how is the Secretary of State ensuring that it is flexible in dealing with those changing and evolving threats, and that we learn from Ukraine, and from the recent example of the Finnish ship in the Baltic sea?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is one of the strongest voices recognising that the high north will become strategically much more essential. Degrees of conflict and contest are likely to grow there, particularly as climate change leads to the opening up of the northern passage. If he looks at the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, and the work of the review and challenge groups, which have been an essential part of the external leadership of it, he will see that the concerns that he raises are central to the SDR’s work. When it is published, I am sure that he will find evidence that the caution he gives to the House is taken very seriously by the Government.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The activities of the Yantar may be an escalation, but this is not the first instance of such activity; it is almost two years since I first raised concerns about the activities of Russian vessels in the waters around Shetland. Events in Finland at Christmas show that Russia is prepared to go further, and we must show that we are determined to meet any challenge of that sort. This is a strategic threat for the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is particularly acute for our island communities, which rely on cables for digital and energy connectivity, quite apart from the pipelines serving the oil and gas industry. Will the Secretary of State speak to the energy companies and his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and ensure that our island communities are not left as a soft target for the next escalation in this business?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is not the first instance; indeed, the total loss of digital connection that his constituency suffered in 2022 vividly demonstrated the dependency of such communities on this critical infrastructure in their everyday life, and their vulnerability to damage or sabotage. I give him the assurance that he seeks. In the consideration of the strategic defence review, and certainly in its implementation, that is exactly the sort of question and challenge that we will meet.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his clear statement, and for spelling out why it is so important that we protect these deep-sea cables. Something like 95% of all international data goes through them. They are the backbone of the internet. Given those facts, can he assure us that the protection of that critical infrastructure will be at the forefront of the minds of everybody completing the strategic defence review?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I certainly give him that assurance.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s candour. It is important that the country understands the threats to the nation. It is estimated that the economy would lose tens of millions of pounds per hour if there were a data loss. These cables are strategically central to our national wellbeing. With that in mind, the Government have to explain to the public why we have to keep increasing defence spending, given what the consequences would be if we did not do so. If we move above 2.5% to 3% or 3.5%, it will not be because President Trump is pushing that narrative, as many Presidents have done before him; it will be because that is the strategic requirement of Europe and NATO to head off clear acts of aggression—close to a declaration of hybrid war on NATO. It is vital that the public understand why defence spending is so important at this time.

[John Healey]

As a leading member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the right hon. Gentleman understands better than most in this House the concerns and perspectives of other NATO nations, and he demonstrates that this morning.

On the question of the commitment to increase defence spending, everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. The commitment that my party made going into the election well predated the result of the US election. It is a commitment that we are determined to honour. If it is the case that everyone agrees defence spending must rise to meet the increasing threats, there is certainly a lead responsibility for Government and Ministers to help explain that to the public, but I would hope that everyone who believes defence spending must rise can and will play a part in conveying that to the public as well.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Although out of sight, our offshore infrastructure is absolutely vital to the smooth running of the economy, and any disruption would have a huge impact on my constituents in North East Derbyshire—it would be truly catastrophic. Can the Secretary of State assure me that we will not take the security of that infrastructure for granted and that we will take the necessary steps to provide that security as part of the SDR?

[John Healey]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s voice from landlocked North East Derbyshire recognising the fact that this is not simply a concern of maritime communities or islands, but of the whole country and for all of us in our everyday lives. High up, and with specific focus, the strategic defence review’s terms of reference, point to the need to review and reinforce the defence of our British homeland. Central to that consideration, in the light of our experience in recent months, will be the rising Russian aggression and the increase in such incidents.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his profoundly important statement, which is immensely reassuring, but may I ask about pre-emption? We all know that Russia is no respecter of international law, and an over-zealous and overcautious interpretation of the legal constraints on the UK armed forces could be very destructive. Are the Government refusing to rule out pre-emptive action against a hostile ship threatening critical national infrastructure, albeit if it lies under international waters, and will he agree that an open mind on pre-emption is a stronger deterrent than ruling it out?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman has huge experience in this field, so he will recognise that I simply will not and cannot get into responding to hypotheticals. He urges me not to allow undue constraint of perhaps established practices or rules where there is a good case for flexibility. I hope he will take as a signal of the serious intent that I will bring, with the approach and return of the Yantar to UK waters, my readiness, as I have reported, to alter the permissions that the Royal Navy was using so that, should the captains of the warships that we deployed to watch and track the Yantar require it, they could go closer, see better and determine more carefully what exactly the Yantar was up to. Like the surfacing of the submarine in November, that was a move to deter and discourage the sort of activity that we simply do not want to see in our waters.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Keeping ourselves safer at home means ensuring that Putin loses abroad, because when Putin is finished in Ukraine—whenever that may be—he will come for more. Defeating him means showing him that we have the resolve and the resource to defeat him in the future. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the SDR, we will have a way to combat, prevent and protect ourselves from Russia?

[John Healey]

I hope the content of my statement—the assertion that the most immediate and concerning threat to the UK comes from Russia—and the action I have taken in response to the Russian spy ship, Yantar, being in our waters again, will reassure my hon. Friend that, exactly as he urges and as the shadow Defence Secretary the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has recognised, Russia is a serious menace. In Ukraine, it is fighting the first full-scale war in Europe since the second world war, but as the shadow Defence Secretary said, its aggression particularly in the grey zone—warned about by the heads of the CIA and M16—tells us that this is a regime intent on disruption and on disrupting our way of life. My hon. Friend is right to start by saying that the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he simply will not stop in Ukraine.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the actions it details to intervene in Russian activity in the waters around these islands. I also commend the diligence and professionalism of those men and women in uniform in the Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the RAF. He said in his statement, though, that the UK will

“continue to lead the way”

on sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet, but the UK is not leading the way on sanctions, is it? A Sky News investigation last week found out that the Government have no record of how many investigations they are carrying out into breaches of Russian sanctions. That follows a previous investigation showing that goods, including luxury cars, fossil fuels and items that can be weapons—or whose components can be converted into weaponry—have been flowing between the UK and Russia since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Surely the Secretary of State must be concerned that inaction elsewhere in Whitehall is potentially putting men and women in uniform in the UK’s armed forces at risk from Russia’s malign aggression.

[John Healey]

I certainly do not share the hon. Gentleman’s assertion. I simply say to him that I made the argument that the UK is leading the way with allies in action to deal with the Russian shadow fleet, and I confirm that we have sanctioned 100 ships—more than any other nation—that compose that loosely networked Russian shadow fleet.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement about Russia’s activities, which are concerning but not surprising. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nordic countries. Does he agree that close co-operation with our Nordic allies is important in dealing with this threat?

Building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and the broader discussion about transparency and information sharing with the United Kingdom, before Christmas every Swedish household received the pamphlet, “Om krisen eller kriget kommer”, meaning, “In case of crisis or war”. Sweden does that regularly. Is it time for us to look into that?

[John Healey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he does on chairing the all-party group on Nordic countries in this House. One of the benefits of all Nordic countries now being part of NATO, and of the very close defence and security relationships we have with those countries, is that we can indeed learn from each other. It is not just the new approach taken before Christmas by the Swedish, but the sense that a country is stronger if its society is resilient and if societies recognise they may be under threat and are ready to respond if required. There are certainly some lessons for us in the UK as we consider the future and consider the rising level and complexity of threats we may face in the years ahead.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Last week, alongside other hon. Members and peers in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited the nation’s flagship Prince of Wales aircraft carrier. The commanding officer Captain Will Blackett and his team showed us the ship’s capability, and we witnessed an incredible demonstration of how they can respond. But when we asked about how they would respond to ballistic missiles, or how this place and other institutions are protected from hostile states, it was a terrifying response. I realise the strategic defence review is ongoing and that there is a commitment to get to 2.5%, but with President Trump threatening to pull out of NATO, that is not enough. What plans does the Secretary of State have to go faster and to put our military retention and recruitment on a stronger footing, so that our country and infrastructure are properly protected?

[John Healey]

Captain Blackett and his crew were delighted that the hon. Lady and other members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme were able to go on board to be briefed and look at what an extraordinary piece of British military kit we have. The strategic defence review is set up to examine exactly the sort of points that she raises. It is designed to look at the threats we may face, the capabilities we may need, the resources available, and, in particular, the accelerated way in which the nature of warfare is changing and the central role of accelerating technology development in the changing natures both of the threat and of the capabilities that we must develop with allies to meet that threat.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If Putin’s Russia is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, the second greatest threat must be any American decision to turn their back on NATO. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything in his power to convince his new counterparts in the United States Administration of the seriousness of the threat that Russia poses?

[John Healey]

I do not expect the new Administration to require any coaching on the threats from Russia or other parts of the world. I expect that Administration to be one who take defence and security seriously, and who recognise that a secure, free and openly trading Europe is in America’s very best interests.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Secretary of State said in his statement that we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships cannot operate in secrecy near UK territory. He will be aware of an occasion just over a year ago when a Russian submarine was chased from the harbour in Cork by the British Navy, because the Irish navy does not have the sonar equipment to detect potential underwater threats. Those threats affect about 97% of the world’s communication and internet traffic. What communication or interaction has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government and the Irish armed forces to strengthen our co-operation with them and ensure that the west coast of these British Isles is protected?

[John Healey]

We do not and will not comment on specific operational details like that. Needless to say, however, we work very closely with the Irish Government on such matters. Recently, our Chief of the Defence Staff met his counterpart from Ireland.

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

I commend the Defence Secretary for his statement and for the actions that he has taken—particularly to change the rules of engagement to allow for the closer inspection of that vessel. However, he does not control all the maritime assets of this country. In December, the Transport Secretary told me that there had been no instances of the UK using its agencies to board and inspect bits of the Russian black and grey fleet. Will he speak to his colleagues across Government to ensure that we use all the arms of government and its agencies to interdict unlicensed, unregistered threats to our security?

[John Healey]

Where there are grounds for interdiction, the Government collectively will certainly be ready, with the appropriate agency, to take action. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served as a distinguished Defence Minister for some years, that that sort of close co-ordination and collective action is a feature of the national security secretariat that we have at the very heart of our Government. It plays an important role and ensures that we can deal with any such threats or aggressive activity in the most appropriate way.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I thank the Defence Secretary, his team and the service personnel involved for their robust response—that is exactly the kind of thing we need when dealing with Russia. He is right when he says that the Russian army in Ukraine has nearly been destroyed, but of course the Russian navy—particularly the northern fleet, which we have to deal with in the UK—is still at strength. He has said a couple of times that Russia is the most pressing and immediate threat to the UK. In the light of those facts, does he still think it is the right decision to send the UK carrier group—which, given the Royal Navy’s size, is most of its deployable force—to the far east for five months this year?

[John Healey]

Yes.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Undersea cables in the modern era are as vital to this country as the merchant navy convoys were in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942, and they are equally vulnerable. Taking shape on the banks of the Clyde at the moment are the state-of-the-art Type 26 frigates, which have mission bays on board. The right hon. Gentleman is fleet of foot—as we have heard, he won a foot race today—but we are in an underwater arms race. Will he do all he can to ensure that, when those ships take to sea, their mission bays bristle with the necessary underwater equipment to take on that threat?

[John Healey]

Those bays are designed to be interchangeable, and they will do exactly that.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is clear that Putin is testing the west’s resolve. I welcome the rigour of the statement. The threat to our underground cables is an international issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Nations response has been disappointing, and that its convention on the law of the sea is wholly inadequate to deal with such subversion and, indeed, is out of date? What steps are being taken internationally to get concerted action to protect the undersea cables on which every nation depends?

[John Healey]

I think the problem is less with the basic rules of the sea and more with observance by states that wilfully test the limits or contravene them. That is why the actions that I have reported to the House, in the instance of the Yantar in British waters, are exactly the sort of steps that nations such as the UK will continue to take, working with allies—particularly close NATO allies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Nobody can be in any doubt whatsoever about the strength of his words on what it means for us in the United Kingdom to stand firm. We thank him for that determination and his strong voice, which we in this Chamber all support. When the naval crew of HMS Somerset were called back to their ship on Christmas day, the message was clear: the Russians do not take a holiday, but neither do our Royal Navy crews. Russia’s perpetual activity in pressing towards our boundaries outlines the need for the complete preparedness of our Navy. Will the Secretary of State outline whether greater support is needed to ensure that our Navy is at full strength, given that our service fleet is now smaller than those of France and Italy?

[John Healey]

We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.

Defence

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Written Corrections

[John Healey]

I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Security Council—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.

[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 588.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey):

[John Healey]

I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Secretary-General—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.

Contingency Fund Advance: Annington Homes

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Further to my statement HCWS323 on 17 December 2024 on developments in military housing, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has a new cash requirement to fund the transaction to purchase 36,347 properties from Annington Property Ltd.

The deal represents a decisive break with the failed approach of the past and reverses a privatisation that currently costs the MOD £230 million a year in rent. It offers excellent value for money, as well as opening up the “once in a generation” opportunity for a new military housing strategy which will provide service families with a better standard of accommodation while contributing to wider Government objectives on house building and growth.

The agreed purchase price is nearly £6 billion but eliminating the liabilities associated with the leases creates budgetary headroom to partially fund this purchase, meaning that the public expenditure impact of this measure, and the impact on public sector net debt, is confined to £1.7 billion. The ONS has agreed this fiscal impact approach. Funding for the deal is being provided by HMT. The Treasury scored additional funding to the reserve at autumn Budget for this purpose.

Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £1,698,300,000 for this new expenditure and additional cash of £4,296,200,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the MOD. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £5,994,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

This is funding for a one-off financial transaction, and therefore does not reflect the MOD’s cash management position.

[HCWS350]