Foreign Affairs and Defence
Liam Byrne Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome to the Chair.
May I warmly congratulate the Defence Secretary on his new role, and strongly endorse the comments he made about Britain’s armed forces? My own regiment has recently been on the frontline in Estonia, and I want to strongly endorse the words he used. I also endorse the advice he gave to new Members sitting on these green Benches. I first sat on these green Benches—on the Government side—37 years ago, and I strongly agree with what he said. I feel that sense of honour and privilege every day in this House.
I had hoped to start by welcoming the Foreign Secretary to his place. I wanted to wish him well in discharging the immense responsibilities of the office he now holds. I have to say that I was dismayed to hear the Foreign Secretary answer questions on the “Today” programme this morning that should more properly have been answered in this House—a view that I believe Mr Speaker shares. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will be very well served by the outstanding civil servants at the Foreign Office. I want to express my gratitude to our ambassadors and high commissioners around the world. On overseas visits throughout my tenure, I was superbly served and looked after. I also want to thank the outstanding young officials who worked in my private office.
I should like to pay a special tribute to my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. He demonstrated clear strategic thinking about how British foreign policy needed to adapt to the world as it is today and injected real energy into British diplomacy. I hope the whole House will acknowledge that to persuade a former Prime Minister to serve as Foreign Secretary was a real benefit to our country. It was also a pleasure to serve alongside the former Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and Macclesfield, who I am very sorry are no longer sitting alongside me on the Front Bench. They were both superb Ministers, who worked diligently at the Foreign Office.
I cannot recall a more perilous period in international affairs. I entered the House of Commons just two years before the momentous fall of the Berlin wall, which precipitated the demise of the Soviet Union and the consequent end of the cold war. It is difficult to overstate, having lived with the terrifying spectre of nuclear confrontation, the collective relief we all felt. Yet the world is once again in the grip of a galloping escalation of tensions and dangers, where the international institutions created on the heels of the second world war to defend our values and protect mankind are being undermined, the narrow nationalism that so disfigured our continent is once again rearing its destructive head, and despots and dictators increasingly ride roughshod over democratic freedoms and the rules-based order.
Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought war once again to the European continent. The Israel-Gaza conflict is devastating and risks regional conflagration. Poverty and debt stalk the global south. Yet covid taught us that no one is safe until we are all safe, while climate change is the greatest existential threat of our time. Never have we faced dangers so grave when our fates are so closely entwined. So at the very time when we need an international rules-based order to tackle these common threats—climate change, migration, terror and pandemics—we are more fragmented than ever. Divisions are hardening and debate is coarsening.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for giving way and I am delighted to see him in his place—on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Can I take it from his remarks that he subscribes to the view that we need not only a rules-based order, but a rights-based order? Here in our country, and indeed in Europe, the framework for those rights is the European convention on human rights. Are we to take it from his remarks that it is the policy of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition that we should remain a member of the ECHR?
Mr Mitchell
That is certainly the policy of the Opposition, and I hope it is common across the House that we should remain part of the European convention.
I was talking about divisions hardening and debate coarsening. Public discourse is increasingly vitriolic, be it in pursuit of single issue causes or broader agendas, from the left or the right, or driven by motives that may or may not be religious and may or may not be well-intentioned. The challenge this presents to British foreign policy is immense, but Britain has punched above its weight precisely because of our leadership role in the international system.
As His Majesty’s Opposition, our role is to hold the Government to account, but also to give the strongest possible support where we can. I hope that we can work constructively, as our two parties have done hitherto. In opposition, we will continue to make the case that Britain must be a force for good, that it is outward-looking and global in perspective, that we stand up for internationalism and co-operation, that we stand against populism and isolationism, and that we stand with the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. I am very proud of the Conservative party’s record in government on all those fronts. We stood firmly behind Ukraine, and we worked day and night with international partners to maximise the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, while supporting negotiations to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. We produced a groundbreaking White Paper on international development, which drew in the support of all political parties in tackling global poverty in a complex geopolitical environment.
Ukraine
Liam Byrne Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
May I urge the Secretary of State to step up pressure on his colleagues to shut down sanctions evasion? The Business and Trade Committee recently took evidence from the National Crime Agency, which said that the UK is still one of the world’s favourite places for economic crime and sanctions evasion. Companies House and the proposed new identification regime were widely criticised by the stakeholders we heard from. Of course, we also have the whacking great loophole called limited partnerships, which the Government are not currently proposing measures to shut down. We must shut down the spigots of cash that are funding Putin’s war machine, and we can play a role in that in the UK as well.
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. As I said, after a period of time, sanctions become holed, and people can get around them and through them. I have always taken a particularly tough line on the basic principle that people should not be friends with Putin and be able to benefit from that. Indeed, at least one yacht and a couple of private jets are grounded as a result of measures I took in the early days of the war when I was Transport Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman made a wider point on seizing assets. The way to do that and make it work is through the G7 and international partners, so that it is completely solid. Again, as in many other areas, we will try to lead that debate. As I have promised the House before, we will also look at what may have worked initially but now is not working. I respect the work that he has been doing on it, and I will certainly encourage my colleagues in government to follow through.
Global Military Operations
Liam Byrne Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his opening remarks and join him in paying tribute to the valiant work that our armed forces do. He gave us a tour de force of where we are represented around Europe and around the world, doing more than our fair share of making sure that we can sleep well at night, that our backs are covered and that we can stand up to the growing threats we face. I do not want to diminish his speech, but he could have just stood up and said, “We are busy, and we are getting busier,” because by any measure our world is getting more dangerous and more complex.
Globalisation, by which I mean international co-operation and the interdependence of the world’s economies, cultures and populations, is slowly dying. After the end of the cold war, Britain arguably embraced that concept of globalisation more than any other nation. As nations actively retreat, pushed forward by covid, becoming more siloed and protectionist and introducing more isolationist policies to reduce exposure and increase economic resilience, Britain’s economy and security are increasingly exposed.
When global security deteriorates, our economy suffers, as has been so blatantly illustrated by Ukraine and the price of oil and gas and food. It is baffling to hear the Treasury continue to say, “Yes, we will spend 2.5% on defence when economic conditions improve,” not realising the obvious connection that our economy and international security are directly related. Half our GDP is affected by international headwinds. We need to invest now to protect our economy and to allow our economy to grow.
Such is the deteriorating threat picture that the Government had to commission an update of the defence and security policy—the “Integrated Review Refresh”, as it was called. The Prime Minister’s opening paragraph said it is
“recognised that the intensification of competition between states was sowing seeds of instability.”
Paragraph 8 of the refresh stated:
“There is a growing prospect that the international security environment will further deteriorate in the coming years, with state threats increasing and diversifying in Europe and beyond. The risk of escalation is greater than at any time in decades”.
I have never seen such strong language in a Government paper before. It gives a clear warning that we are in for a bumpy decade. I therefore pose the question: why are we still stuck with a peacetime defence budget of just 2%? That is having a consequential impact on all three services.
At the time of the Gulf war in 1990, the Royal Navy had 51 frigates and destroyers and today it has just 18; the RAF had 36 fast jet squadrons and today it has just seven; and the British Army could muster three armoured divisions in Germany alone and one here in the UK. Today, we would struggle to put together one. It is not just the size of the armed forces that has diminished; the last defence review introduced ruthless cuts to equipment. The main battle tank is now reduced to just 156 and is three decades old, and upgrades will not be completed until the next decade. The armoured fighting vehicle, the Warrior, is also decades old, and it was replaced by a wheeled vehicle without a turret. The 8-tonne recce vehicle that was brought into service in 1971 was replaced by the massive 43-tonne Ajax, which should have entered service in 2017, but a dire procurement process means it is still struggling to get sign-off.
It is a grim state of affairs when our armed forces are not shaped to meet the threats, but trimmed to meet the budget. I appreciate that I am not speaking to the right Ministers here, because they understand this. It is the Treasury that needs to appreciate this, and I think we should pay tribute to the work that I know Defence Ministers are doing behind the scenes to make the case that we need to upgrade our defence posture, because the consequence of not doing so is the cuts we have seen.
The Type 32 frigate programme has been dropped completely, the E-7 ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—plane has been reduced from five to three platforms, the Hawk training aircraft has been cut completely, the Typhoon fleet has been reduced, and even the plans to introduce the promised 138 F-35s have stalled at just 78. The Hercules transport aircraft, which is absolutely imperative for special forces operations, has been cut in its entirety. However, the real kick in the teeth is the armed forces’ manpower, which has been reduced from 82,000 to 72,000, while our land warfare capabilities have been severely reduced by the reductions in tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and artillery systems.
Sadly, we are neither ready for war, nor any longer able to project a viable conventional deterrent to maintain the peace. The Navy and the RAF have to some extent regrouped with investment and upgrades in response to the changing character of conflict, but the British Army has been left behind, without a clear narrative as to what it should be training for, how it should fight and, indeed, the force structure it should adopt.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the right hon. and gallant Member for giving way. Today is the 41st anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands, and it is an appropriate moment to celebrate the sacrifice of everybody who gave their lives in that campaign. It is a good moment, however, to reflect on how our country would go about embarking on such a military operation today. What is his assessment of our capability to launch a campaign like the campaign that liberated the Falklands?
Mr Ellwood
I certainly pay tribute, as I think we all would, to our armed forces for their courage and what they did to liberate the islands, but I am actually articulating that very point in saying that we are behind the curve. This goes against the spirit of what Ministers are trying to do to step forward, as I have outlined, and the recognition in the defence review refresh that the world is getting more dangerous.
The NATO summit in Vilnius is approaching, and there will be four main themes. The first is maintaining NATO deterrence, which will mean moving from out-of-area operations such as Afghanistan towards a NATO territorial force. Secondly, there will be plans to transform the alliance into a more modernising rapid response force, rising from 40,000 to 300,000. Thirdly, there will be support for Ukraine. Finally, there will be a look at global challenges, including China. In every one of those cases, there will be a call for greater investment in our defence posture, and that will add to our overseas commitments.
We need to recognise what we have done in Ukraine, and I again pay tribute to Ministers for that. We have stepped forward, and more so than any other nation in Europe. We can be very proud of that—not just militarily, but with the political commitment. We have been an exemplar, with the training we have done with the Ukrainians, the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, the battle tanks and the Storm Shadows, and even in encouraging the F-16s to get there as well. We have become ever less risk averse, and ever more willing to look Putin in the eye and not be spooked. I also pay tribute to the Government for planning and putting together the Ukraine recovery conference, because it is critical to look at the next steps we will actually take.
I took a look at my last speech from when we debated Ukraine, and some of the recommendations I made then remain valid today. We still need to agree what the mission is. For me, it is actually the removal of Russian forces from mainland Ukraine. That should be clarified, but I believe it is what the Ukrainians want. Crimea is a separate and more complicated challenge. We must secure UN safe haven status for the port of Odesa to go back to getting grain out so that we can reduce food inflation, which is running at about 19% in this country. We must assist Ukraine to construct its own major armaments programme—for example, in Poland—so that it can manufacture, assemble and replenish its own weapon systems, rather than relying on western stocks. We must ensure that the Wagner militia is listed as a terrorist organisation, along with sanctioning Putin directly. I also emphasise the need to welcome Ukraine into the joint expeditionary force—I still have not had an answer as to why that is not a possibility and a stepping stone into NATO. We wish the Ukrainians the very best as they move forward. There is an emphasis on saying that they can do this, but they need that continued commitment, which I hope we will see from NATO, despite what happens in the United States over the next couple of years.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, our world is changing fast. Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine will not be limited to that part of eastern Europe. Iran could soon join North Korea in posing a nuclear and ballistic missile threat, and there is increasing instability in the western Balkans. China is also challenging the norms of international behaviour. Great power rivalry is back, global tensions are increasing, and when we add the challenges of climate change, increasing competition over resources, population growth and the proliferation of the weaponisation of artificial intelligence, there is a strong argument to increase defence spending. There are many questions for the defence Command Paper, which I hope will be produced soon.
Finally, Armed Forces Day is rapidly approaching, which is a chance for a grateful nation to show its support to the men and women who make up our armed forces community. They are on duty around the world, at sea, on land and in the air, promoting peace, delivering aid, providing security, fighting terrorism, working with our allies and supporting our comrades in arms, such as in Ukraine. Armed Forces Day is the day when barrack spaces and garrisons are opened up across the country for local communities to visit on a family day out, and to learn more about what our military does, the equipment it uses and the vital role in plays in watching our backs. Those events are held up and down the country and are both informative and entertaining, involving celebrities and local businesses. They are a simple but much appreciated way to say thank you to our valiant armed forces community for all its hard work, dedication and efforts to keep us safe in the UK and across the globe. As the armed forces covenant reminds us, we have a duty of care to all our service personnel, not just in the training they receive and the equipment that is procured, but in ensuring good provision of accommodation as well as mental health support.
Our armed forces who step in harm’s way for us deserve the best support we can provide. When we speak of the armed forces community, that is not just the regulars in uniform; it is the reservists, the cadets, the surrounding families, husbands and wives—it is all those directly supporting anyone who wears the uniform. I give a special mention to our veterans who may no longer be serving, but who remain very much part of the armed forces family. If hon. Members see anyone in uniform on Armed Forces Day, or a veteran proudly wearing their medals, please thank them for their service—it will make their day. Let us all support our brave military on Armed Forces Day.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). I wish to thank our armed forces for what they do both here at home and in many countries across the world. They are a credit to our nation. Bearing in mind that the defence of our island must be any Government’s top priority, these debates are important, not least when we face a world that is as unstable as it has ever been in my lifetime.
I note that the heading of this debate is “Global Military Operations”. Those operations are set: first, by the Government’s priorities; secondly, by what we can afford; and, thirdly, by our obligations, not least to NATO. Having served in the armed forces for nine years, and been in this place for 13 years, four of which have been with the Defence Committee, I have seen Prime Ministers and some Ministers struggle to clarify the scope and structure of our armed forces and to fund them properly. I exclude the current set of Ministers who are doing an outstanding job. My criticism goes straight to the Treasury in the main. To be fair to the Government, world events have a nasty habit of changing, as yet another defence review—a “refresh” of the previous one—highlights, and this while the world stands on the edge of an abyss with another murderous war taking place in Europe and, worryingly, on NATO’s borders.
Since the end of world war two, we have not faced a top-tier opponent, but that threat is very real today with both China and Russia raising the threshold. I quite accept that conflict on this scale would be fought with allies, not least the US. But as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned the Falklands war—let us hope we never have to go back there again. Many of my friends served when I was in in 1982—let me say that, as the Falklands is one of our main dependants, the question for this or any Government is: can we retake the islands in the event that they are invaded? If we cannot, clearly, we are failing in our duty.
While the US gears up for major conflict, I do not detect the same sense of urgency here. To deter war, one needs to prepare and train for it, with sufficient mass to sustain a lengthy conflict. On that point alone, we must reverse the decision to cut the Army by 10,000. Everywhere the Defence Committee has gone—although I can speak on my own behalf—I have heard that our armed forces are stretched to breaking point.
I said at the start of my speech that a Government’s top priority must be the defence of our island nation. That is essential, of course, but this debate is about our global reach, which requires more funding for more planes, more ships and more soldiers. It is clear from the Committee’s evidence sessions that the pitiful 2%— or just over—of GDP that is spent on defence is not enough. It clearly is not. It was more than 5% in my day, and since then the kit has become more expensive and our requirements and obligations even greater.
If we are to play our part globally, along with our allies in most cases, we must fund our armed forces to allow them to do the job that we in this place send them to do. It is our responsibility. We cannot ask them to do things without the kit, the manpower or whatever they need to do the job. If we do, we are failing in our duties.
Global reach and influence are of huge significance, as China is showing. Too few politicians, regrettably, have understood the significance of a military presence around the world and the diplomatic and economic benefits that flow from it. An effective presence costs money—money that politicians all too often divert to other priorities. I mentioned China, whose economic and military reach around the world are expanding at an alarming rate. China appreciates that the world’s resources are not limitless and that, to ensure its security, those resources need to be identified, secured and protected.
The war in Ukraine is a wake-up call, if ever there was one. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, to his predecessor and to Members on both sides of the House who have stood together on this issue; long may that be the case. Many European countries, not least Poland, Germany and France, are increasing their defence budgets. Political leadership is what we badly need if we are to fund our armed forces sufficiently to meet the inevitable rise in our global responsibilities. To be fair, our brave men and women are already operating in many countries, as we have heard, and very effectively. That is to their great credit, but greater mass is needed for the reasons I have stated.
Looking back in history, we have a rather poor record on being prepared for major conflict. The peace dividend that followed the end of the cold war saw a major disarmament, to the extent that we now struggle to find one fighting division where it is needed, as my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Defence Committee stated.
Richard Drax
May I not? I have little time left and I know others on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House particularly want to speak.
At the start of world war two—
Richard Drax
In that case, may I reverse my decision? I would be delighted to hear from the right hon. Gentleman.
Liam Byrne
I am very grateful. I wanted to underline the point the hon. Gentleman is making so eloquently to the House. The risk is even greater than he has set out, because global defence spending is now rising by between $200 billion and $700 billion a year. If we want to keep pace with that, defence spending is going to have to rise.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I will make three very quick points about focus versus spread, the need to prepare for economic warfare and the importance of expanding our soft power.
The beginning of the debate was pretty illuminating. The Minister eloquently set out the stark reduction in our capabilities since 2010. The reason why we need the defence Command Paper was well illustrated. On the one hand, the spread is getting bigger, but on the other, the capability that we have on hand is much reduced. We desperately need to bring a sense of focus to our priorities.
For me, that must start with the re-containment of Russia, which has a nasty habit of invading and invading and invading its neighbours. Down the course of history, Russia invades its neighbours over and over again. That is why we have to complete the rebuilding of NATO. Nobody has said anything today about President Erdoğan’s commentary on keeping Sweden out. That is something that this House should deprecate.
We have to strengthen our capabilities in the Arctic. China and Russia’s “no limits” partnership creates the risk of a new polar silk road through the Arctic that will halve China’s journey time for transiting goods around the world. Russia is re-equipping bases in the Kola peninsula, where, of course, it stables its second strike capability. We will need to strengthen our deployment and our weaponry in the Arctic if we are to keep the Arctic safe.
We have to bring greater attention to central Asia. We have to ensure that we do everything we can to support the multi-vector foreign policy ambitions of countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and others along Russia’s southern boundary.
We have to do more in Africa, not least because the Wagner Group is now raping Africa, exploiting 14 countries there. We already know that something like $250 million has been extracted from Africa to help fund Prigozhin and his dogs of war. We must bring a sense of focus and priority, and that is why we need a Command Paper.
There are also new opportunities to consider, of course. Defence spending is rising: NATO partners are committed to raise defence spending by something like $55 billion, and our allies in Japan are committed to raising theirs by something like $60 billion—that is $100 billion extra in defence spending among our allies. We should have an intelligent conversation about who should be spending what and where. I suspect that one of the conclusions would be that we should focus much more aggressively closer to home.
Secondly, we have to ensure that we are prepared for economic warfare. The alliance structure has been transformed over the last two to three years. We now have not just a rules-based order but the hardcore of a rights-based order—AUKUS, NATO, the North American free trade agreement, the EU, the Quad, us, Korea, Switzerland and Israel. Together, those countries make up two thirds of global GDP—$61 trillion—but we do not co-ordinate critical supply chains across that great arc of the globe, and we do not co-ordinate strategies for critical minerals. In fact, we co-ordinate very little.
Part of the problem is that we have still to define precisely what a critical supply chain is. I put that question to the Foreign Secretary on Monday. Frankly, he struggled to answer it. He could not tell the Committee whether our dependence on China was going up or down, despite the fact that imports from China have doubled to £73.4 billion in the last decade. We have to get a grip on that; we have to think through, strategically and forensically, where we are economically vulnerable and how we can deepen our alliances, particularly with the United States and the EU, to ensure that our critical supply chains are safe from foreign interference. Our allies in Europe and America are spending $1.5 trillion on supply chains, the transition to domestic energy and their respective Chips Acts. We are currently shut out of those dialogues. We simply cannot afford to have that vulnerability in the future.
Finally, I underline the importance of a whole-of-Government approach—as was mentioned by the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—and that includes transforming our soft power around the world. On the Foreign Affairs Committee, when we talk to ambassadors we tend to hear four or five common themes. First, we should see English as a strategic enabler, stop the cuts to the British Council and expand the provision of English teaching around the world. Secondly, we should think radically about how we expand the BBC World Service. The truth is the best stratcom we have available, so we should stop underfunding it. Thirdly, we should think about how we expand education links, whether that is through Chevening scholarships, university-to-university links or technical assistance programmes. Fourthly, we should expand the incredible work of our military attachés. Fifthly, we should get a well-functioning visa service and a Foreign Secretary who is travelling an awful lot more.
This has been a welcome debate, but it underlines the point that there is an awful lot more to do if we are to step up to the responsibilities that, across the House, we believe that we share.
Ukraine
Liam Byrne Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Minister is right that the capture of Kherson is potentially a turning point for the Ukrainian forces, not least because with longer range missiles supplied to them it might be possible to hit Russian navy targets in the Black sea and therefore begin to eliminate the possibility of Russia using its navy to fire Kalibr cruise missiles into Ukraine against the infrastructure the Minister talked about at the beginning of his speech. Is it now time for us to revisit the supply of longer-range missiles, which we ruled out at the beginning of the conflict?
James Heappey
We keep all these things under review, and each time President Putin has ordered an escalation within Ukraine we have looked at what we can do to strengthen Ukrainian capabilities. The reality is that the gains Ukraine has made down towards Kherson have brought the ground lines of communication into Crimea into the range of guided multiple launch rocket systems and high mobility artillery rocket systems. Arguably those ground lines of communication are militarily an equally valuable target set to Crimea itself, if perhaps not quite as provocative—although of course the Ukrainians reserve the right to set their targets, and, as we have seen in recent months, they have done as they need on occasion, and very successfully, too.
We are the largest European provider of military matériel in Ukraine and have to date provided equipment to allow Ukraine to fight back against attacks on sea and land and in the air. The UK has provided a variety of air defence systems including Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak launchers and hundreds of missiles. Those are helping to protect Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure, including its power plants. Last week my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary announced the provision of almost 1,000 surface to air missiles to help counter the Russian threat to Ukrainian infrastructure. We continue to engage with partners all over the world, looking to buy up whatever supplies we can find of the weapons systems the Ukrainians need most, principally for air defence.
We must think of more than just the here and now, however. One day this war will end and Ukraine will need to be rebuilt: its power and roads restored, bridges re-established, and schools, houses and hospitals repaired. The Kyiv School of Economics puts the cost of direct damage to buildings and infrastructure at some $127 billion already, so the UK is also providing support for Ukraine’s early recovery through the partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine, a £37 million multi-donor fund that the UK belongs to. Through this fund the UK, alongside other countries, has already provided extensive support for the repair of buildings as well as other activities in the Kyiv oblast and other parts of Ukraine. UK Export Finance has committed £3.5 billion of cover to Ukraine for priority projects across the infrastructure, healthcare, clean energy and security sectors, and the UK is supporting the HALO Trust, which so far has de-mined over 16,000 square miles of land in Kyiv oblast so that people will be able to return safely to their homes, agricultural land and businesses. Next year the UK will host the 2023 reconstruction conference to accelerate Ukraine’s recovery from the damage caused by Russia’s invasion.
The war Russia began has now lasted the best part of a year. Despite overwhelming odds, Ukraine has shown remarkable resilience, and I am proud the UK has played a major role in helping Ukrainians push back the invaders. As we prepare for the difficult months to come, our resolve will remain unwavering. President Putin has exacted a terrible toll on Ukraine, but he continues to make the wrong calls: far from being ground down, today Ukrainian forces are better equipped and better trained and have better morale. They will win and Putin will lose, and when he does the UK will be there, as we have been there throughout this conflict, to help Ukraine repair, rebuild and renew.
I just conclude by reflecting that thousands of men and women from the British armed forces have been involved in the support of Ukraine over the course of the last year. They have been working phenomenally hard, often in roles that do not catch the public eye. We are very grateful for everything they have done and the sacrifices their families have made in supporting them.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
As we rejoice at the liberation of Kherson, we need to be mindful that Ukraine is still very much a country at war. As Russian Federation tanks rolled across the border on to sovereign Ukrainian territory on 24 February, the world bore witness to an attack against the post-second world war settlement of a magnitude and kind without precedent.
I congratulate the Government on the superb and consistent support the UK has provided to Ukraine, but the situation constantly changes and I believe we now need a rethink on sanctions. I frequently hear people, including UK Ministers, say that this is Putin’s war, not that of the Russian people, thereby laying the blame for an entire nation’s aggression at the feet of one man. This aggression, we must not forget, seeks to erase Ukraine from the map, destroy its culture, and turn back the clock to a period when the Russo-centric Soviet Union dominated eastern Europe and its peoples. Having had the opportunity to visit Ukraine, most recently in September, and speak with some of the brave men and women valiantly defending their homeland, the notion that this is solely Putin’s war is one that I reject. Of course, western-induced regime change within the Russian Federation is not a sound basis for the United Kingdom’s foreign policy, but even if it were I do not believe, as is mooted by some, that new leadership in Moscow would necessarily bring the war to an end. In fact, I believe that the opposite is possible: a new leader trying to burnish their nationalistic credentials by taking even greater destructive and indiscriminate military action. No Putin does not necessarily equate to no war.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and it was a pleasure to be with him in Kyiv earlier this year. He is making an incredibly important point, because sometimes we hear our allies say, “We have to make sure that Putin cannot do this again.” Actually, that is the wrong analysis. We have to make sure that Russia cannot do this again.
Mr Djanogly
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will try to prove that point further.
Many of those in leadership roles surrounding the current Russian President, such as the Chechnya leader, Kadyrov—who suggested using a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine—espouse rigid nationalist views. They should not, and cannot, be absolved from blame for the invasion, as the term Putin’s war may allow. It is also important to highlight that many towns in reoccupied Ukraine now have unmarked graves resulting from murders perpetrated by members of the Russian armed forces: the Bucha massacre is a poignant example that we all have a duty to remember and reflect on. Reports are also rife of mass rapes, looting, torture, removal of children and confiscation of vital food stuffs—again, all deeds done by soldiers and administrators of the occupying power. It is clear to me that many people of the Russian Federation are up to their necks in heinous crimes committed during the ongoing war against the Ukrainian people, and the individual perpetrators must bear full responsibility and be prosecuted.
A case against those actively engaged in the invasion is clear, but what about the wider Russian people themselves? The problem is that by using the term Putin’s war, it is possible to excuse, overlook or ignore that the war, in all its gore and injustice, remains very popular among most of the Russian population. It is not just Putin, his cronies and his oligarchs. Some Russians, a small minority, have laudably taken a stand, memorably and notably Marina Ovsyannikova, who staged an on-air protest in March denouncing the war. Such defiance has, however, been more of an exception than the rule. Indeed, polling from within the Russian Federation continues to indicate strong support of over 70% for both the war and Putin among the populace.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow such remarkable contributions. It has been especially heart-warming to hear from Members who have talked about the people sponsoring Ukrainian refugees, because not just across this House but across this country, there is a shared sense that the brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces are fighting for freedom and to ensure that our values do not perish on the continent of Europe.
As we heard in the American elections, there are those who are beginning to argue that, now advances are being made and now Ukraine has recaptured about half the territory taken by the Russian invaders, it is somehow time to let up, to sue for peace and to question whether we are supplying too much to Ukraine’s armed forces. Those voices must be shut down as quickly as possible. Now that Ukraine’s armed forces are on the west bank of the Dnieper river, it is possible for them to begin targeting the supply lines into Crimea, which means Crimea suddenly comes into the crosshairs. It is now possible for us to think realistically about a battle of the Black sea in the months ahead.
I offer three thoughts to this debate—one about the military options and two about the political options—and I would be grateful if the Minister took them into account in his winding-up speech.
First, as former general Ben Hodges argued at the weekend, it is now possible for Ukrainian forces not simply to hit the lines of control into Ukraine with HIMARS from the west bank of the Dnieper river but, if we gave them longer-range ATACMS missiles, to extend the ambit of those fires into the Black sea. That would allow attacks on Russian navy assets, from which, let us not forget, Russia has been firing Kalibr cruise missiles at Ukraine’s water and electricity infrastructure, which is putting the pressure on morale that we have heard about this evening.
Hitherto, America and, I believe, NATO have said those longer-range fires are off the table. We have heard from the Americans that ATACMS missiles, because they have a range of 300 km and could be fired directly into Russia, will not be supplied to Ukrainian armed forces. We are therefore not equipping the Ukrainian armed forces with the full capabilities we have to offer.
Given the threat we know is coming from Russia, and given the threat we know is posed by the Russian navy in the Black sea, surely now is the time to take away that red line and make a much wider supply of weaponry available to Ukraine’s armed forces, so they can begin to double down on the advantage their courage has bought them with so much blood and treasure over the last few months.
Secondly, it is about not just projectiles but politics. There is a lesson to be learned from the way in which we brought Milošević to the negotiating table during the last Yugoslav war. It was very simple: we stated in terms that there would be an almost infinite supply of weapons to back the forces of goodness until he signed up to certain terms and came to the negotiating table. At that point, he knew there was no escape and that the bombardment would continue until he folded his cards. Sure enough, he folded his cards and came to the table, and the Dayton accords followed. Surely that is a lesson we should learn. Surely now is the time when we do not just say that Putin must leave, Russia must fail and Ukraine must prevail. Surely now is the time when we set out in terms the conditions that we are determined to see met and that, until they are met, there will be an infinite supply of weapons from us, as the arsenal of hope in this great conflict.
Those terms are very simple. First, wide blue safe skies across 100% of Ukraine. Secondly, 100% decolonisation of Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine, on 1991 borders—Russia must be removed from every inch of Ukrainian land. Thirdly, we must prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression. There are precedents for this in international law. We know how to do it, the case is very clear and we should make it very clear to Putin that the prosecution will now come. Fourthly, we should be prosecuting individuals for the war crimes of which they are guilty, not just in Bucha but across the black and blood-fouled earth of the territory that Russia has invaded. Finally, we must ensure there is a full exchange of prisoners, and a full repatriation of the up to 2 million people who the Russians moved from their homeland to various parts of Russia.
We know those are the five basic demands of Ukraine’s leaders, because many of us were in the presidential palace in Kyiv to hear them from President Zelensky. I do not understand why the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and perhaps even the Prime Minister cannot set out that there will be an infinite resupply of weapons until these terms are met. I do not understand why we are not making that crystal clear to President Putin, to the people around him and to the men and women of the Russian army, who are already fairly mutinous. We must make it clear that we are not going away, we are not backtracking, we are not retreating and we are there with the Ukrainian people and their armed forces until every one of those five objectives is met.
The final thing we should be doing is increasing the political pressure on Putin and those around him. I agree with 100% of what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said this evening, but I would go further. We need to ask ourselves in this House today: why are we not proscribing the United party of Russia as a terrorist organisation? Are we seriously saying, here in this House, that that party is somehow better, cleaner than Hamas, Hezbollah or the Basque separatist organisation ETA? Those are all “political organisations”, be that with a capital “P” or a lower case “p”, and we proscribe them for the terrorist organisations that they are. So why are we not taking the United party of Russia through that process and why are we not challenging every member of that party to leave it and leave it now?
Mr Djanogly
I totally agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I believe the Prime Minister referred to Russia as a “rogue state” today or yesterday, and one would have thought that the consequence of that would be exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
Liam Byrne
One absolutely would have thought that, because there is no excuse not to think that. When we put the point to the Foreign Secretary when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee this afternoon, he did not take it off the table, but nor did he give the Committee a timetable for that action. The hon. Gentleman is right, because not only should we be proscribing the United party of Russia for the terrorist organisation it is, but we should be designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. That is an appellation we have plonked on the Government and state of Iran since, I believe, the early 1990s. We knew even before the invasion of Ukraine that there was a good case for this, because Russia is a sanctuary for the Russian Imperial Movement, which is designated by the United States as a terrorist organisation. Russia has been providing a safe harbour for that designated terrorist organisation for some years, so why are we not going to commence now the business of designating Russia as a terrorist state sponsor?
That has all kinds of implications, not least one of the suggestions that I think the hon. Gentleman was aiming at, which is to begin banning tourist visas for those from Russia immediately. There will always be people in this House who say, “We can’t go to war with the Russian people. We have to accept that there are good people among those tourists.” I hear all of that, but if we are serious about making sure that Russia is not able to do this again, we have to make it clear to the Russian people the way in which we see the sins of their nation and make it crystal clear that they must act within their country to deliver a different kind of leadership in the years to come.
The final piece of the puzzle, of course, is sanctions, and I hope that we will be able to have a longer debate about that when the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill comes back for its Report stage. It is ludicrous that the $45 million yacht, Phi, which the Minister and his colleagues have frozen, is down the road in St Katharine docks as yet unseized. We heard today that Mr Abramovich’s money from the sale of his football club has still not made it to Ukraine to begin with the reconstruction. When are these things going to happen? It is time that we do not simply freeze assets, but start seizing them and rechannelling the money into supplying Ukraine and its reconstruction.
Let me finish with a simple message: we in this homeland of Europe learnt something a long time ago in international relations from the approach the Athenians took to the poor Melians. They were the people confronted several thousand years ago with the message that might somehow makes right. That is not something we subscribe to in this country. This is a country that stands up to bullies and when we see others, like-minded souls, standing up to bullies such as Putin, our job is to back them every inch of the way.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
What a powerful speech to have to follow from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). I echo the comment made earlier by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion): this has been a very informative debate. I found the contributions from the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) really worthwhile listening.
The falling back of the Russian army from Kherson in recent weeks and days presents us with an opportunity to reflect on what the UK and its allies intend will be achieved by our support for Ukraine. To date, our position has simply been that we reiterate our moral and material support, and quite right too. But there have been voices in NATO and here in the UK who have since the spring been urging us to have aims that are independent of those of the Government of Ukraine. I am strongly of the view that as 2022 draws to a close we should not have stated aims that differ from those of the Government in Kyiv.
The Government in Moscow are determined to paint the war as one that Putin did not seek. When addressing the Russian people and extending the mobilisation of Russian citizens, the Russian Government seek to stimulate fear of the west. It has been said several times this evening that the UK supports Ukraine because of our outrage at the invasion, in the 21st century, of a sovereign state that posed no threat to its neighbours. But an additional reason why the UK’s aims and Ukraine’s aims are indivisible is in order to undermine Russia’s claim that this is a proxy war where NATO is using Ukraine to fight on its behalf.
Lord David Richards of Herstmonceux has argued that the UK and its NATO allies should have a grand strategic war aim with a defined end state. He said in April that without such a well-defined end state
“there is a risk that events overtake us in the way that happened in 1914”.
But there are some fundamental differences between now and then. In 1914, the UK intervened directly in support of Belgium and deployed the British Expeditionary Force, whereas NATO Governments have been at pains to demonstrate our restraint by supplying Ukraine with materiel while avoiding the direct involvement of our armed forces personnel in the conflict.
There are perhaps stronger parallels between the situation we see today and the one that arose in 1916, when it had been rumoured that some in the US were seeking to engage Germany and the entente powers in dialogue, with a view to peace. That was at a time when the aggressor was still in possession of territory that it had acquired directly as a result of its aggression. Britain’s then Secretary of State for War, the Liberal Minister David Lloyd George, pointed out that Britain and its allies were only just beginning to see some successes and that negotiating a compromise at that time would serve only to reward aggression. Lloyd George talked about the need to ensure that
“military despotism is broken beyond repair.”
Last week, it was suggested in the press that some voices in the US might have been leaning on Ukraine to alter its objectives. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, said:
“We’ve seen the Ukrainian military fight the Russian military to a standstill…Now, what the future holds is not known with any degree of certainty, but we think there are some possibilities here for some diplomatic solutions.”
When questioned about that, the US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said:
“The United States is not pressuring Ukraine…We’re not insisting on things with Ukraine.”
We should just stand back and reflect that Baron Richards and General Milley have been or are the professional heads of their armed forces, so they have seen enough of war to know that it is a blunt instrument, that it is unpredictable and that it is inferior, in most ways, to diplomacy. They and others are entirely right constantly to ask questions about the NATO grand strategy and whether we might be able to articulate our own end state or see a diplomatic way out.
On this point, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that safe skies implemented by way of no-fly zones policed by NATO would be the right thing, although that was something Ukraine called for early in the war. I was with him in Kyiv when we heard about the sorts of demands that were being articulated by Ukraine today, and I would agree with him that removing Russia from all of Ukrainian territory was much more along the lines of what is being called for today than anything else.
Liam Byrne
I, too, do not believe that there can be a NATO-policed no-fly zone, but what I do believe is that there can be a much a greater supply of air defence weapons that we have and that Ukraine needs.
Richard Foord
I thank the right hon. Member for correcting my understanding.
I talked last week to a Ukrainian MP from the sister party of the Liberal Democrats and he told me how we in the west have failed in the past two or three decades to fully understand that the Soviet Union was an empire. He suggested that we never fully appreciated that there was not consent for states to belong to the USSR in the first place and that it had been a Russian KGB-led empire all along, which some in Russia would like to see recreated.
Those are some of the reasons why the west should not at this time seek to have aims that differ from those of the democratically elected Government of Ukraine. Instead, I urge that we act solely in support of our Ukrainian allies. In the 21st century, there is no case for the logic articulated by Catherine the Great when she said:
“I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”
Liam Byrne
Given that the Minister recognises the risk of Putin damaging Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, why does he argue that we should not be providing longer-range fires to Ukrainian armed forces to counter that?
Leo Docherty
All options remain on the table. I note that Ukrainians have, thanks to western support, been terrifically effective in taking down some of the ballistic barrage in defending their skies, but I am not going to rule out anything from the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, made a good remark about the HALO Trust. I can confirm that we continue to support the HALO Trust, which has so far cleared 16,000 square metres of land in the Kyiv oblast and will continue to do so. We have pledged £220 million of humanitarian aid. I assure her that that is reaching the frontline, as it were: the people who need it. We are working with the United Nations, the Red Cross and NGOs. Some 13.4 million people have been helped so far with funds distributed. She also mentioned accountability, and I draw reference to my previous remarks about the International Criminal Court. She appealed for a joined-up approach, which is exactly what we are after. I have not yet read her report, but I look forward to reading it, and I am grateful to her for bringing it up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a moving speech reflecting on the great compassion shown by his constituents. He referred to the remarkable way they had opened up their hearts and homes. Every Member of this House will have seen that in their own constituency; I have certainly seen it in Aldershot. I second the thanks he put on record to the Revive café in Chertsey, the Weybridge Friends of Ukraine and the Weybridge community hub. He asked a technical question about Homes for Ukraine and the extent to which provision might be made directly to the local authority if it was not going via host families. I have not got an answer right now, but I will ensure that a colleague from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities writes to him, as well as the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Ukraine Update
Liam Byrne Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wallace
On a no-fly zone, we have set out our position, and I am not going into hypotheticals and what-ifs. Nevertheless, at the moment the balance is that I do not think it would suit the Ukrainian disposition, given the amounts of heavy armour and missiles in the Russian stocks. The Russians have a massive advantage with shells and missiles, and they would not stop in a no-fly zone, whereas the few things that the Ukrainians have to reach the Russians at depth are in the air, and one of them would be hampered.
On the resilience and support to Poland, we put 150 soldiers out there and 100 soldiers when the Belarusian migrant crisis was happening. We have nearly 700 soldiers there now helping the country in terms of resilience and, indeed, with humanitarian issues, if needed. I spoke to my Polish counterpart yesterday, and I am hoping to visit next week. We will also look at air defence requests from Poland to protect its airfields. It has been an ally for more than 150 years. We stand absolutely by Poland, shoulder to shoulder. When it comes to military requests, it is really important that we put the military equipment where it makes a difference and where the Supreme Allied Commander Europe wants it. There is often a danger in these events that we spread our forces all around for reassurance, but do not necessarily achieve the military tasks that we need to achieve.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I, too, want to thank the Secretary of State for Defence. It is now very clear that we need to re-contain Russia, which will mean resupplying Ukrainian forces, refortifying our frontline, and, crucially, repressing the Russian economy. At the moment, nobody can recognise the 275 figure that is being used for the number of sanctions that have been issued. The Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday heard evidence that the Government simply were not ready. Even today, the family of the founder of the Wagner Group have still not been sanctioned here, even though they have been sanctioned in Europe. When the Secretary of State sees the Foreign Secretary later today, can he ask her to get her act together?
Mr Wallace
I would have to have pretty wide eyesight, as my right hon. Friend is in Washington at the moment, but if I had some massive binoculars, I would definitely pass on the message. I am happy to try to get to the bottom of all the figures. On the amount of money that has been sanctioned, the statistics that I had was that the UK has frozen more funds in London than Europe and the United States, and that matters. The construct of sanctions are different in different countries, but I would be very happy to look into that. I do not think that there should be any hiding place—and nor does the Foreign Secretary—for any of these Moscow hoods who are running around, including the dreadful Wagner Group.
Ukraine
Liam Byrne Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wallace
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Ukrainian navy was snatched, effectively, with the invasion of Crimea, which was one of the main navy bases, and it has been operating predominantly on gifts of patrol boats from the United States. That is why last year we entered into an agreement to help Ukraine to build boats to enable it to protect its coastline, and to put infrastructure investment into ports so it could start to rebuild its navy. It is important that Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, has the ability to export and free navigation. Russia has already threatened that, and we saw the aggressive action toward HMS Defender earlier in the year, so it is important that we help the Ukrainians to help themselves.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Although it is important that we take Russian security concerns seriously, we must resist at all costs any attempts by Russia to re-imperialise eastern Europe. May I press the Secretary of State on two dimensions of his twin-track strategy? First, how ready is NATO to accede to requests to join not only from Finland but from countries in the western Balkans and Georgia, so that any tactical advance into Ukraine is a strategic defeat? Secondly, will the Secretary of State say a word about the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, because it is hard to envisage an arms control framework for Europe without some measure of control over ground-launched cruise missiles—even if they are non-nuclear—on the continent of Europe?
Mr Wallace
On the latter question, may I write to the right hon. Gentleman about where we are with that? Overall, as I said about strategic treaties, better transparency is really important. The last thing any of us wants is a growing arms race, but we want to have confidence that as the technology grows it does not become more dangerous, and the treaties can adapt with technological growth.
What is the narrative that the Kremlin does not want to hear, but is true? The No. 1 point is that it has been shown that a consequence of this aggression is the expansion of NATO, not a contraction, and plenty of other countries are watching. If there is one message I want to get to President Putin it is that others are watching, and the track record shows that they will do the opposite of what he wants when he behaves in this way.
Trident
Liam Byrne Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Woodcock
I will not give way, because I will not get any more time. I want to finish on the argument, which has been made clearly, that it is morally indefensible for a state to possess nuclear weapons. I do not agree with that at all, because they are there to prevent nuclear weapons from being fired. However, if the SNP thinks that it is morally indefensible or even “repugnant” to possess such weapons, why is it happy to be under the nuclear umbrella of another nation? It is not the case that other NATO members do not have nuclear weapons. I do not think that I can use the word hypocrisy, but it is a rank wrong that the party feels able to shelter under that umbrella while being happy to name-call the rest of the United Kingdom for wanting to keep nuclear weapons.
The question is not whether we do, or do not, go ahead with Trident, because the votes on that are absolutely nailed on. This will go past the point of no return. The real question exposed in this debate is: in which SNP constituency—which place in Scotland—will the nuclear toxic waste, which the SNP has admitted it will take, go?