Commons Chamber

Thursday 4th December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
09:34
09:35
09:36
09:36
None Portrait Q2. What steps he has taken to ensure that trade union recognition is considered when determining the award of public contracts. (906714)
-

Question number two, Mr. Speaker.
09:36
09:36
09:37
09:37
09:37
09:38
None Portrait Q3. What recent progress his Department has made on negotiations with the EU on a youth experience scheme. (906715)
-

Ben Coleman Mr. speaker, Minister, okay.
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:45
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:48
None Portrait Q7. What steps he is taking to improve national resilience. (906723)
-

>> Number. >> Seven, Mr. Speaker. >> Minister. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
09:51
09:51
09:51
None Portrait Q8. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the effectiveness of cross-Government working on food security. (906724)
-

Number eight, Mr. Speaker.
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:53
09:54
09:54
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:58
09:58
None Portrait Q10. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU. (906726)
-

Secretary.
09:58
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:00
10:01
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
None Portrait Q18. What steps he is taking to consult the public on his Department's policies on national resilience. (906735)
-

Luke Akehurst. Question number 18, Mr. Speaker.
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:16
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:30
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the cancellation of scheduled local elections in May 2026.
-

The Simmonds.
10:30
10:30
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me respond to the question directly. respond to the question directly. Local elections. Council elections will go ahead in 2026. That has will go ahead in 2026. That has been our position. That continues to be our position. Now, as a responsible government, you would expect that if there are expect that if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground, in particular councils, we will have that conversation with them. But we are as up for them. But we are as up for elections as anyone else.

What Mr. Speaker, this is about is our commitment to devolution. It is about the creation of strategic authorities and mayors who can unlock the economic potential of their areas and deliver for their communities. That will always be our guiding star, that will always be our lodestar in every decision we make around devolution. So I am pleased to confirm the long term funding offer to six areas in the Devolution Priority Programme once mayors are in post. The six strategic authorities will receive close to 200 million collectively per year for the next 30 years for their investment fund.

This way, we ensure our mayors, our strategic authorities have the strong foundation in order to unlock the growth potential that we can see in every part of the country. Now, the government recognises that strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on the strong history of partnership and joint delivery. This is what we've seen in our established mayoralties in Greater Manchester, in Liverpool and across the country. So the devolution priority programme areas have already made huge progress towards establishing their strategic authority.

We want to allow for meaningful period of time between the establishment of the strategic authority and the mayoral elections. Now we are also conscious that these places are simultaneously undergoing local government reorganisation whilst building these new institutions. Therefore, the government is minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that these areas have the opportunity to conclude their local government reorganisation to build strong, effective unitaries, which is what we want to see and to establish the strategic authority before the mayor takes a post.

These mayoral inaugural elections will take place, but what we are determined to do in the time being is to work with those areas so that we're providing capacity funding so that we're building these institutions so that we're strengthening their partnership and joint working to deliver for their communities. Mr. speaker, I come back to the thing at the heart of everything we will do is to unlock the potential of areas, build strong institutions that can do that job and work in partnership with them to achieve this.
10:33
David Simmonds Portrait David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know we share a value for local I know we share a value for local democracy. Last week, the Secretary of State told the House in response to a question from my friend, hon. to a question from my friend, hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley that the government's intention is that all the elections scheduled that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May. The following day. The Minister The following day.

The Minister told the House that Labour is up for elections. Our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and she went on to tell the House that the reason the government was resisting our amendment to ensure those elections went ahead was because it didn't allow for extenuating circumstances, such as a pandemic at national level or exceptional circumstances locally. So the question, Mr. Speaker, given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections and have taken this government at its word, the ambiguous ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, created significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections, the process for nominating candidates, the process for recruiting electoral canvassers, ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule.

So this is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for. So may I ask the Minister if she can tell the House, given her previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines which electoral officers have to face. When will she make a decision and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which it made central to its Budget last week? And will she ask the OBR to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have to, the budgets clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children reorganisation.
10:36
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Yeah yeah yeah. between two things local council elections where we have been absolutely consistent. Elections are happening in 2026. We're cracking on with it. We are getting ready for them. I hope the party opposite and the party there are getting ready for them. We will crack on with them. But, but, but but these are inaugural mayoral elections. They are inaugural mayoral elections. The elections are predicated on us laying a Statutory Instrument, which we are still to lay, and us having the consent of constituent authorities.

And it is absolutely right that we take stock of where we are and the process that we're asking places to get through to ensure that at the end of this, to ensure that at the end of this, we have strong unitary councils who are going through that process of reorganisation. We have strong strategic authorities, and then we have a mayor. I think that is absolutely the right and rational decision. And there is a clear distinction that I would ask the House to make between local council elections, which are scheduled and run to a rhythm, and inaugural mayoral elections, which we've not had before.

On the point of the economics, I'm going to I'm going to give the hon. Member the benefit of taking the question seriously, even though it was a completely ridiculous question. It ridiculous question. So we are we are committed to unlocking the economic potential of those areas. So we want to crack ahead with strategic authorities. We want to lay the sea so that we can get the strategic authorities set up in the time frame that we have been negotiating and agreeing with places we are committed to, that long term investment.

We will bring forward a proportion of that investment into next year and the year after in the transition, so that places can get on with their investment investment pipeline, they can get on with their programme. At the heart of this, I will keep coming to this, Mr. Speaker, is a determination on this side of the House to work with every part of the country to unlock the economic potential. We will do that in good faith. We will do that without playing politics. We will do that in partnership with any leader, no matter which party.

And I hope all members across the House spirit. Eshalomi.
10:38
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Shadow Minister for bringing this UQ and for the Minister for responding. I think it is right that when we see real change, it's about having male candidates rooted in our community with that increase in power and funding so that they can deliver. There are many issues and challenges across local government, which we all talk about, from sand, from temporary accommodation to children's social care. These are big issues that our councillors are dealing with day in, day out.

Mr. speaker, on the 11th of November, the Secretary of State told our select committee that he did not think that local government reorganisation was taking longer than planned and that election scheduled for May would be going ahead. But we find ourselves yet a month. Less than a month later, the Minister is now saying that more time is needed for local government reorganisation in those new areas. And I think given that we are less than six months out. Can the Minister reassure the House that in confirming that the local elections will be going ahead in the areas where we're seeing the unitary changes and the reorganisation process, that they will not be any more additional delays, this will have an impact for local people as well who may be worried about their jobs.

This will have an impact on the people working hard on these areas, so it's really vital we get clarity from the government on those areas where Unitisation has
10:39
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
carried on. Thank you to my hon. Friend. And she's right to point Friend. And she's right to point that this is about local people and this is about delivering for local people. And let me reassure her, people. And let me reassure her, that is the thing that is at the very heart of everything that we are doing. That same concern, that same commitment. This isn't about same commitment. This isn't about shifting the timescales for local government reorganisation. We are proceeding on the same timescales.

proceeding on the same timescales. We have authorities across the country who are putting in proposals, who are working to the timescales agreed, and we are committed to holding that. This is about devolution in a subset of the areas that are going through local government reorganisation. It pertains to four functional areas that are going through the process simultaneously. So not just the creation of unitaries, which lots of other areas are having to do, but also the creation of strategic authorities and mayors at the same time.

And it is absolutely right that we take stock and we create the space for them to do each of those things in a time that ensures that at the end of it, we have institutions that are strong and work well, so we want to ensure that we are taking forward local government reorganisation at the timescale that we have agreed and we've talked about with our partners on the ground, we then want to make sure that strategic authorities are created with the timescales that we've talked about and agreed with our partners on the ground.

What this is proposing is that we are minded to push the elections of the mayor to 2028, so that we can ensure the unitaries are set up and working well, ensure that we've got strategic authorities and we have that partnership working well, and then we have the inaugural elections. I think that is a completely rational and sensible place to be, and we are going to try to do it in lockstep with the areas on the ground. spokesperson.
10:41
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this incredibly important, urgent question. I'm sure colleagues across this House will have been as shocked as me to read in the media last night that the four priorities, strategic areas had had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to this House that have been referenced by other MPs. Will the Minister explain why? Yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs.

Why has the government chosen to cancel these important elections? A fundamental part of our democracy not told the that has told the media and not Parliament first? I also wondered if the Minister could provide clarity. I am very concerned about funding for local authorities. The government has repeatedly spoken about how important mayoral strategic authorities are to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. So my question is why is the government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed shared priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is a consensus on where investment is needed, why the government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delay elections? These authorities need the money now.

Will the government provide reassurance here?
10:42
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me be very, very, very clear. Firstly, it was not us who briefed the media about this, and we cannot control what other parties do. We always wanted to do the job of making sure that we were updating the house, updating members as well as local authorities. But it's incredibly, incredibly, incredibly important. To be very clear, this is not about cancellation of elections. These are inaugural elections. These are inaugural elections. There are local elections which are subject to a Statutory Instrument being laid, and they're subject to consent.

And at the moment, the government, for all the reasons that I have set out, are minded to have those elections in 2028 and we will work with the local authorities impacted to get our consent to do that. On the fundamental point about investment, look, we are as committed to investment as the hon. Lady. This is why we have announced 200 million over the next three over the next 30 years. To those areas. We are urging all areas to produce their investment pipeline because we want to see things happening on the ground.

We've committed to a third, but we will continue to work with areas to make sure that if they have viable investable proposition, government is walking hand in hand, side by side with them in order to unlock that. It's good for the areas, but fundamentally it's good for the growth of the economy and it's good for national government.
10:44
10:45
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you to my hon. Friend and for the huge amount of work that I know he put into getting us to this know he put into getting us to this place, and the fact that we are in a position where we have devolution deals, where we have places that are undergoing the process of local government reorganisation with the good faith that he talks about is a testament to the work that he has done. But it is absolutely right.

As a new ministerial team coming in that we look at the facts and we look at where we are and we make a judgement, and ultimately the thing that drives him and the decisions that he made with colleagues and that drives us and the decisions that we are making is to ensure that at the end of this, when we look back in 2030, we have got effective, powerful councils, unitaries across the country that are delivering for their people. We have strategic authorities that are built on strong partnership working because we know that's the thing that is critical for unlocking development, and we have powerful mayors.

So our objectives are the same with every area I speak to. The objectives are the same, and our judgement is that if we give ourselves some breathing room to do that and go through that process with those places, with the time required, we will be better and stronger. On the other side of this, we will do this in partnership with local areas. We are talking. I spoke to every single leader directly personally yesterday. We are going to do this with partnership because there is a common agenda at the end of this.

But it is absolutely right that the responsibility of me, my responsibility, the responsibility of this government, is to make sure that we are doing everything to ensure the process delivers to the outcome that I think members across the House adhere to.
10:47
10:48
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Yeah. can I reiterate again, these are inaugural elections and therefore we are not cancelling those elections, but these are inaugural elections that will always that will always subject to us laying a Statutory Instrument and subject to the consent of places and consent to the place and, and and but to his specific point about local government reorganisation, it is really important that we bring the House back to why we are going through this process of local government reorganisation.

We're not doing it because it's fun. We're not doing it. We're not doing it for the sake of it. We are doing it because of the state of local government that the party opposite left absolutely take responsibility. The fact decade and a half of underinvestment in local government, local government on their knees, ducking the decisions of the party opposite had to make. Now we are gripping the mantle and at the heart. At the heart of the reorganisation process is a simple premise that we want stronger unitaries.

We believe that is the way in which we can organise, in which we can organise services to deliver for communities. The party opposite should have got a grip and done it themselves. They didn't. They ducked it. We are now the ones that are having to pick that up. So I will not have members across the House talking to me about the pros and cons of reorganisation. We are doing it because we understand that we want to. If they were more serious, they would have cracked on, Cooper.

Cooper.
10:49
10:50
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Thank you to my hon. Friend and thank you for pointing out the funding. And just so the House records it, let me say what we are investing in. So absolutely in Cheshire and Warrington. Combined authority 21.7 million. Cumbria 11.1 million. Greater Essex 41.5 million. Hampshire and the Solent 44.6 million, Norfolk and Suffolk 37.4 million. Sussex and Brighton 38 million. This is about investment in places at the heart of this. This is about resources and this is about power, so that local leaders can work in partnership to deliver for their people.

I'm not going to apologise for that. That is absolutely the right thing. And again, I will come back to this every single time. At the heart of everything we are doing is to ensure that we have got strong institutions that can deliver for their people, because the legacy, and I know the party doesn't like me to talk about the legacy, but the legacy that we have for huge swathes of our country held back, growth held back, investment held back. Now that is not a reality.

That that is not a reality that we are willing to contend with, which is why we are doing the hard yards and the graft in order to unlock powerful institutions that can deliver for their people. The party opposite can bluster all they like, but at the heart of this is about investment in places. We are committed to this. It's a shame that the party opposite failed to do that.
10:51
Nigel Farage Portrait Nigel Farage MP (Clacton, Reform UK)
-
-
Nigel Farage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could scarcely believe it last year when the county council elections in Essex and elsewhere elections in Essex and elsewhere were postponed for a year. So clearly there is no reason at all why they can't go ahead in 2026. why they can't go ahead in 2026. Although I know the local conservative administration is fiercely opposed to that. But the fiercely opposed to that. But the whole local government reorganisation is a dog's dinner. The public don't understand what's The public don't understand what's going on.

You're asking people in Clacton to vote in local elections year after year after year. You're telling them we're going to get rid of a district council that they know and understand and respect and replace it with a pretty amorphous unitary authority. So if that is going to go ahead, clearly it is. I don't like it, but clearly it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You need a senior elected figure and we need a mayor. Order three times the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order three times the hon. Gentleman used the word you. I'm not imposing or cancelling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elections anyway. Minister. Don't be. Oh, no no, no. And and and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, no no, no. And and and the point of Urgent Questions is we do need to have short questions. The Liberal Democrat frontbencher will have been limited in time. Please

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have been limited in time. Please can members make their questions succinct? And the Minister to. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me reiterate again, we are
10:52
10:53
10:54
10:55
10:56
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Yeah. would say is we have seen the huge impact that the GLA and the mayor has had in London. London is one of the most successful, one of London is one of the most successful cities in the world because because of that strong basis. And I think it's a tragedy that the hon. Member doesn't want to be part of this vibrant city. I certainly am incredibly proud to be a Londoner under a London GLA and a London mayor.

But look to the more to the more fundamental question, the approach that we have consistently tried to take, both with local government reorganisation. I know the party like to refute this, but also with devolution is we will try to work hand in glove with places and ensure that places can come up with proposals that work for their patch. The whole premise of devolution is that local leaders and their people know what is best for them. So whether that is defining their boundaries, whether that is and whether that is defining their boundaries, which is why in the context of local government reorganisation, we've said to places, come forward with your proposals based on conversations that you've had with your people and your place, or it isn't in the context of devolution, where again, places have come together and said this is the functional geography that makes sense for us.

We will always take that approach because ultimately we believe that local people know their patch best and it is our job to enable them.
10:57
10:57
10:58
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business. >> Leader of the House? >> You, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker, the business.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the week commencing 8th of December will include Monday the 8th of December. Consideration of Lords messages to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Mental Health Bill. Tuesday the 9th of December. Second Reading of the Railways Bill. Wednesday the 10th of December. Opposition Day in the name of the Official Opposition, subject to be Official Opposition, subject to be announced Thursday, the 11th of December General Debate on Saint Andrew's Day and Scottish Affairs, followed by a general debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy.

The subject of these debates were determined was determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday the 12th of December. The House will not be sitting Monday the 15th of December. Second Reading of the Industry and Exports Financial Assistance Bill, Tuesday the 16th of December, setting Second Reading of the Finance Number two bill. Wednesday the 17th of December. Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions, Employer Pensions Contributions Bill and Thursday, the 18th of December, General Debate on matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment.

The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee. The House will then rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday, the 18th of December, and return on Monday the 5th of January, 2026.
11:20
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Leader of the House. if I may, I would like to express my personal sorrow at the death of Sir John Stanley this week. The House may not know that he was the first person to reach and to comfort the dying Airey Neave, after Neave had been the victim of a bomb from the Irish National Liberation Army, a spin off of the IRA. Sir John was also a highly effective member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I invited the House to join me in supporting our cricketers Down Under.

That was the kiss of death. They instantly lost the first. They instantly lost the first test. So I am thrilled and I hope the House will join me in congratulating Joe Root on his majestic, his majestic hundred in Australia in the present test. Madam Deputy Speaker, once again, the past seven days have not been a thing of glory for the government. Not a single measure in the Budget has been scored by the OBR as positive for growth, while the OECD and a host of other experts have warned that the Chancellor's tax rises last week will actually hold growth back.

Except for seven members, every member opposite voted in favour of keeping the two child benefit cap in 2024. Last week they voted in exactly the opposite way. Junior doctors will go on strike for the third time this year in the run up to Christmas. In fairness, though, I should say there has been one of light. The government has rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday we were treated to the inglorious sight of the Prime Minister misusing the engagements question once again to make a party political broadcast at Prime Minister's Questions.

We do not have a presidential system in this country, thank the Lord. Nor do we insist on a rigid uniformity of practice in this House. But if the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement to Parliament, he may do so in the usual way. Giving notice to you, madam, or to the speaker, and taking questions from colleagues in this House on the policy. I therefore ask the leader, as I spokesman in the Cabinet, to tell the House what he will do to stop this practice from recurring.

And I am also asking, Mr. Speaker, to make clear in public that this will not be tolerated by the chair in future. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was reported this week that the government will be drawing up and will be drawing on German start up companies to fill a supposed drone gap for the British Army. I'm sure the whole House will share my view that the UK should seek to offer a welcoming environment for foreign investment, and all the more after a Budget which has done nothing to support economic growth.

I also recognise the value of having leading international companies competitively involved in the testing and development of drones, but it is a serious concern that there appear to be no plans within the Ministry of Defence to provide strategic leadership, investment and support to start up drones. Companies created, led and managed in this country. We have been and by British nationals. We have been promised a defence investment plan, but Ministers have been unable to say when this plan will be presented to the House.

It looks as though they may be leaving it to the last full week of term, perhaps in order to avoid a proper measure of parliamentary scrutiny. Experience has repeatedly shown that in times of crisis, nations need to have core capabilities. Solidly based in UK owned and led domestic manufacturing. That was one of the lessons of the pandemic. It's hard to imagine a more significant emerging defence need than that of high quality, high technology and cost effective drones, and there are superb companies in this country ready to scale as needed.

Last June, the Prime Minister called for what he termed a national conversation on defence. He made clear, rightly, that the defence of the realm was not just a matter for MoD, but the whole of our society, as well as the whole of government, needed to be mobilised into a better understanding of the threat. Since then, that threat has only become more serious. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in Lossiemouth today to make an announcement, but the sad fact is that he has said precisely nothing to lead that wider national conversation or raise awareness of the threat.

Meanwhile, the public are uncertain as to the need and rationale for new spending, and key aspects of our defence and security readiness are, if anything, getting worse. So I ask the leader if, at the very least, we can have a statement next week on what the government is planning to do to support the UK drones industry in need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker of the House. Thank you. Very much indeed. Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, can I join with the shadow leader in paying tribute to Sir John Stanley, who was a committed and long standing Member of Parliament and a highly respected Minister, and he gave 41 years of continuous service to this years of continuous service to this House and to his constituents. Let me also, Madam Deputy Speaker,
11:26
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
congratulate one of our senior Doorkeepers, Paul Barwell, on his outstanding 20 year service to this House. I know all members value the excellent support of the Doorkeepers, and I am sure that the whole House joins me in thanking Paul for his commitment and his service. I join with the Leader of the House in sending congratulations to Joe Root on his inaugural test century in Australia. And I also, Madam Deputy Speaker, send our hope on behalf of the whole House.

Our condolences to the friends and family of the legendary Robin Smith, who died unfortunately, recently. Madam Deputy Speaker, this House is embracing the Christmas spirit. We've seen the arrival of Christmas trees, and I note that one of them came from one of them at least came from Kielder Forest in Northumberland. So as a North East MP, I'm very proud and very grateful for that. On wider matters this week on world Aids day, the HIV Action Plan was published with commits to one of the most ambitious public health goals of our time, ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030.

And we will tackle, Madam Deputy Speaker, the barriers to accessing treatment such as stigma, discrimination and inequality, backed by the first ever national investment in engagement initiatives. Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that this weekend members across the House will be supporting the UK's 5.5 million small businesses on this year's Small Business Saturday. Small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. They provide essential services, create jobs and drive growth, and this government is determined to make the UK the best place to start and grow a business.

Fostering a culture for risk takers in every community in High Street by removing the barriers that have held them back too long. The festive season is a critical time for many small businesses, and I hope that they are set for a bumper Christmas and to keep communities safe. Over the busy Christmas period, we announced a further crackdown on town centre crime. Police and local partners will work together to tackle shop theft and street crime across hundreds of our town centres. We also want people to stay well this winter, and one of the ways we'll be doing that is by rolling out online access to nearly every GP practice benefiting patients across England.

We promise to end the ATM scramble. It's a massive step towards that ambition, making it easier and faster to get GP appointments. Let me now turn to the questions from the shadow Leader of the House. He talks about growth in the economy and the Budget. And of course, central to the Budget was our ambition to get growth moving. But I would gently point out that growth has been moving in the right direction. And it is. We are the second best performer in this regard in the G7 in terms of PMQs in the Scott Arthur PMQs, the speaker has already made very clear his views on these subjects.

And I say to the shadow Leader of the House that I to make it clear in Cabinet matters around statements and questions, because it is important that when Ministers come here that they are held to account, but also that they do so within the conventions of the of this House. But I've said this before, Madam Deputy Speaker. In some senses, Ministers, including the Prime Minister, can't really win on this one because if they do take time to update the House on something which is important, then sometimes they told that's not the right time to do it.

And if they don't tell the House on important events that are going out, the criticised for doing that too. So I do think there's a sense of balance in regard to the defence matters which the hon. Gentleman raised. It's very important that we see investment in drone companies is a very successful and expanding drone company indeed, in my constituency, I will regard draw to the attention of defence Ministers his concern. I don't agree with the the slant which he put on the government's approach to these matters.

We take national security very seriously. The Prime Minister takes national security very seriously. He is aware of the current and growing threats, and is determined that our country is ready to step up and meet those. Threats, and I will draw his attention to defence Ministers and see if we can get a statement at the earliest opportunity.
11:30
11:31
11:31
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
understanding of this place. Thank you. >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Bobby Dean. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I join the Leader of the House in his tributes to Sir John Stanley and Paul Barwell? And he also referred to Christmas spirit getting going in and around the house. I'd asked him to spare a thought for the Lib Dem staffers clutching coffees this morning after their Christmas party last night. I can't confirm or deny if I joined them. So earlier this week, the government announced a trade deal between the US and UK on drug prices and medicines, and having reportedly rejected a price increase of £2.5 billion earlier this summer, the government's negotiators went back to the table and apparently are now going to pay £3 billion more instead.

Now there's a very live debate over how much the NHS should pay for drugs, which I respect, that Big Pharma have always wanted to drive down prices and have not liked the purchasing power of the NHS. That is clear. But the nice thresholds have not changed for some time, and there are some that argue that that means that we are missing out on particular medicines, but others also make the alternative argument that the opportunity cost for that spending in other areas of healthcare is it means that the threshold to stay where they are.

Wherever you stand on that debate, I think two things are clear. One is that this debate should not be settled by the bully boy tactics of President Trump. He introduced 100% tariffs, breaking the WTO rules on tariffs over this. And he's come out with the explicit intention of putting Americans first. Secondly, the government should explain how this huge price increase will be paid for. Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS providers, says it is not yet clear how it will be paid for and there are fears from GPS, dentists and community pharmacies about them being the ones who will suffer as a result of this increase in prices.

So can the Leader of the House urge the Health Minister to come to the despatch box and answer questions about the impact of this new deal?
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
Martin Vickers Portrait Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)
-
-
And in place of the chair of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Backbench Business Committee, Martin Vickers. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The chairman sends his apologies The chairman sends his apologies for for his absence. In addition to the debates that the leader mentioned, there will be Westminster Hall debates next week, on Tuesday on consumer led on Tuesday on consumer led flexibility for a just transition, and on Thursday, the role of Fairtrade certification in UK Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade. And the second debate on Thursday afternoon is particularly important, madam speaker, because it was initiated by me, future of the oil refining sector in the UK and the following week, beginning December the 15th on Tuesday, there will be debate on planning policy for quarries and on Thursday, literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen and community audiology, all of which shows what a vast range of interests there are across the House.

Turning to my own question, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Saturday I visited Humberside Airport along with the Shadow Transport Secretary, and the management there outlined the challenges faced not just by them but by regional airports up and down the country. They're facing increased National Insurance costs. In the case of Humberside, they're facing the the potential loss of business from Eastern Airways, which is in administration. And if the work in the on the North Sea and the rigs and so on is declining, they face the loss of the helicopter transfers that they rely on.

So could the leader provide government time for a debate on the role of regional airports?
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:27
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and with permission, I will now make a statement regarding the sickening case of child sexual abuse at a nursery in Camden. And before I go further, I do want to remind the house that, of course, there remains a live police investigation underway and that the perpetrator is awaiting sentencing. All of us here and people across our country will wish to join with me in expressing our horror, adhering of these appalling crimes. A 45 year old British man, Vincent Chan, pleaded guilty to 26 offences.

These include multiple counts of sexual assault on a child by penetration, assault of a child by touching and taking, and making indecent photographs of a child, including category A images depicting the most serious abuse. He was employed by a nursery setting in Camden between June 2017 and May 2024. On the 8th of September 2025, he was arrested after evidence was uncovered on devices seized in a previous police investigation. He was then charged with the 26 offences in question.

On the 9th of September, Madam Deputy Speaker yesterday, Vincent Chan entered a plea of guilty and sentencing will take place on the 23rd of January. In the meantime, the Metropolitan Police have met families of all of the children they have identified as victims of contact offences. In addition, the met have written to the other families whose children attended the setting in question while the individual worked there. To reassure them that where there is evidence of offences, the affected families have been contacted.

Local children's social care services are providing emotional and practical support to families and signposting them to specialist support services. Madam Deputy Speaker, The NSPCC have been commissioned to set up a bespoke helpline as the first point of contact for anyone affected by these horrific acts. Details of the helpline can be found in the communications from Camden Council and the Metropolitan Police. Specialist support is available for victims from the NSPCC helpline. People can people affected can be supported directly or referred to the right source of support to meet their needs, and the government has provided funding to ensure there is sufficient capacity to support support families.

Following a notification of a serious incident. The Police Integrated Care Board and the local authority have completed a rapid review to establish the facts. That means setting out a clear timeline of the events leading up to the incidents, of the incidents themselves, of the roles played by different agencies, and the safety of children at the nursery at each stage. Those initial findings are now being worked through quickly, but I can confirm to the House that the rapid review has concluded that a full local Child Safeguarding Practice review is warranted, which is being set up immediately.

I am clear that this wider review must shine the strongest possible light on these horrifying incidents, and that we learn every lesson we can to make sure that crimes like this are guarded against at every step and every stage. And Madam Deputy Speaker, it is critical that local safeguarding partners can continue their investigations, but I will work closely with them with the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel with its chair, Sir David Holmes, and with Home Office colleagues to make absolutely sure that we have in place the most robust safeguards possible.

We must do everything in our power to protect children. On that, I take my responsibilities as Secretary of State not simply for education, but for children with the utmost seriousness. But preventing cases such as these, madam Deputy Speaker, needs everyone to believe and act on the fundamental principle that safeguarding is everyone's business. It is the duty of all of us right across our society if we see abuse to report it, if we see or hear something that feels wrong, to question it and to challenge it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, all of us owe that to our children to do the right thing. Keeping children safe is one of the most important duties of any society, and I would like to thank our earlier staff and wider children's services workforce. Those who work so hard day in, day out to give children the country of this country the best start in life. I know all committed early years and children's services professionals will be just as horrified as we all are to hear about what has taken place.

Just as distressed to think that something like this could happen in a place that should have been dedicated to keeping children safe and helping them thrive. The defendant has now pleaded guilty to these sickening crimes and will be sentenced. But Madam Deputy Speaker, my thoughts this afternoon are not on him. They are with all of the child victims of these vile and abhorrent crimes and their families who are now trying to recover from the suffering and the pain that he has caused.

My promise to them through these darkest of days, my promise to members here today, my promise to families across the country, is not only that justice will be served, but that we will strengthen the ways in which we keep children safe. We will root out abuse from wherever it hides, and we will never stop working to rid our society of this evil. And I commend this statement to the House.
12:32
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
Laura Trott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Utterly horrific case. I want to thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her statement and advanced sight of her statement and her officials and advisers who took the time to brief me on it. Any parent who has ever sent their parent who has ever sent their child to nursery has had a physical reaction to this news. It's just so reaction to this news. It's just so unspeakably awful. And the betrayal of trust that has taken place is abhorrent. I know the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this place will be the families and children affected, and all of our collective efforts must now focus on how we do all we can to prevent this ever happening again.

With that goal in mind, I have a number of questions about the case that I want to put to the Secretary of State, with the full understanding that much of this might be covered by the serious case review. And I'm seeking her assurances that these issues will be looked at in the future, rather than expecting full answers now. The the first question is about the time it took for the images and videos on the devices in question to be looked at by the police.

My understanding is whilst the perpetrator was first arrested and the devices seized in June 2024, the devices were not examined and the abusive content was not found by the police until over a year later. This is obviously an unacceptably long delay given the case involved nursery children and a man who in 2024 was barred from working with children. There clearly needs to be an expedited process for devices where children are involved, particularly those who cannot speak and advocate for themselves.

And I'd be grateful if the Education Secretary would confirm she will raise this with the Home Secretary. Secondly, I understand that there were CCTV in use at the nursery, but this was wiped by the time that it took for these serious abuse offences to come to light. And so we do not have access to it. This is terrible because with the CCTV it may have been possible to more easily identify affected children and spare the hundreds of parents the unimaginable terror that their children may have been affected.

Obviously, this links to my first point about delays in accessing the devices, but given that in other nursery abuse cases, it's also taken time for offences to come to light. Looking at the retention guidance around CCTV in nurseries seems a sensible step and one it would be helpful to understand if the Education Secretary is considering. Thirdly, this investigation was triggered by a member of staff at the nursery raising concerns. Can the Secretary of State confirm if these concerns were investigated immediately by the nursery, and at what stage Ofsted was notified? And the steps that Ofsted took? Is the Secretary of State content that a rigorous and timely process was followed by Ofsted? It will seem unbelievable to most people that this was able to go on under the noses of other staff and in the daytime, without anyone else being aware.

Can the Secretary of State confirm if other concerns were raised about Mr. Chan previously by other nursery staff or by parents, and what checks have taken place on safeguarding procedures at this nursery chain? Subsequent to this incident? Lastly, according to reports, the perpetrator in question had 26,000 indecent images of children and 16 nursery devices at his home. Was it standard practice for these devices to be removed from the site? Why did nobody notice? And why was he allowed to have so many devices? Is the Education Secretary considering revised guidance around the use of devices in early years settings? Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand with the Secretary of State officials and the police as they do all they can to seek justice for victims, and we in this House will do all we can to ensure that this never happens again.
12:36
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. Lady for her response. I know she shares my commitment and determination to make sure that our early years settings are safe for our children, as parents and children rightly expect them to be. Madam Deputy Speaker, she raises a number of important questions a number of important areas related to policy. I will answer them as best I can, and she will appreciate. There may be limitations on the precise nature of what I can see, but she raises important questions that will need to be considered through the work of the local review.

She asks about the time it took for images to be considered. That will be considered through the local review. She is right to raise that question, and I will, of course, discuss the issue that she raises with colleagues at the Home Office when it comes to children. She also asks about the use of CCTV and devices. She is right again to do so. I would also just like to make clear to the right hon. Lady that we believe that it may not have been the case that CCTV had been in operation at the nursery.

That has come to light subsequently, but we will make sure that the review considers that important question. But on the wider point around the use of CCTV and devices in early years settings, some earlier settings do already use CCTV. As she notes, sadly, we know that it can never prevent entirely the the prospect of abuse taking place, and there may well be differing views amongst parents and carers and the sector about CCTV use in settings. However, I appreciate there have been a number of ways in which this has been raised as a concern.

Therefore, I do intend to appoint an expert advisory group to develop guidance for the sector on the safe and effective use of CCTV and digital devices. This guidance will set out best practice technical information and clear expectations, and I will provide updates as that work progresses. The other questions that she raises are the right questions. She is completely right to raise those issues, and the local review will consider them further. She'll understand that I can't expand on many of the facts, but I do appreciate the care and sensitivity that she has shown in the approach on this issue.

I know the focus of everyone in this House will be with the families today, those who are suffering because of these despicable acts. We stand with them across this House as they get the support that they need and the justice that they deserve, and we as a government will continue to do whatever steps take, whatever steps are necessary to keep children safe, to root out abuse wherever it hides, and to rid this evil from our society.
12:39
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
Chair of the Education Select Committee. Helen Hayes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Vincent Chan's crimes statement. Vincent Chan's crimes are utterly horrific, the most egregious breach of trust imaginable, and every parent's worst nightmare. My thoughts, and I know the thoughts of the whole house, have been with the children who are the victims of Vincent Chan and their families. Ever since his crimes came into the public domain, incidents such as this and the recent case of Roxana Lecca, who was convicted of abusing children at two nurseries, raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of Ofsted inspection regime for the early years, which currently rates 98% of providers as good or outstanding.

So can I ask the Secretary of State what she's doing to ensure that Ofsted urgently brings forward the reform of that early years inspection framework, so that it is fit for purpose? Will she review the current requirements for safeguarding training for early years practitioners, and for the use of CCTV to ensure that all staff are appropriately trained, and that the requirements are fit for purpose? Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State's colleagues in the Home Office have decided not to implement the version of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse recommended by Professor Alexis Jay in the Icsr report, citing the workload that it would create.

Will the Secretary of State agree with me that workload should not be a consideration when it comes to the safety of children? And can I go back? Can I ask her to go back to her colleagues in the Home Office to urge them to rethink this decision and to implement the more robust mandatory reporting obligation set out by professor J, which includes criminal sanctions for non-compliance. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State spoke about the support that is being provided, quite rightly, to the victims and the families who are the victims of Vincent Chan.

Can she say a bit more about how support will be made available to those children and their families, so that they can draw on it throughout their lives whenever they need it? Thank you.
12:41
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The chair of the Select Committee raises questions relating to Ofsted. I know the right hon. Lady did so as well, and I'll respond in some detail on that. It is important that we understand what has happened here to make sure we, as far as we can prevent this ever happening again. It is critical that the local safeguarding partners conclude their investigations, and we will work with them and with the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, but we will also work with Ofsted to review the regulation of nursery chains.

The Ofsted keep all settings under review and conduct visits where risk assessments deem this necessary. But the horrific crimes that we are discussing today are an important reminder that we expect providers to be vigilant across all early years settings, and it is important that settings and staff do report and act on concerns quickly as part of an open safeguarding culture. I set out to the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, my intentions around considering CCTV and the use of digital devices and I would as always, appreciate the the input from the select committee and from the chair as we take that work forward around the wider need to make reforms in child protection and children's safeguarding matters.

On the 9th of April, the government published a progress update to address the recommendations from IXA, including the establishment of a Child Protection Authority to provide stronger national oversight of child protection. We will be launching a consultation shortly on how we take this forward, and I will continue to discuss all of the related matters with colleagues at the Home Office.
12:42
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Munira Wilson. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing that officials provided to me? The details of this case are harrowing and deeply disturbing. My first thoughts are with the families affected, and I sincerely hope they are getting all the support and care they need. Sadly, however, this latest heinous case is part of a distressing pattern that is emerging in early years settings across the country where safeguarding practices have not been followed or are proving insufficient to prevent babies and young children coming to harm.

Less than three months ago, Roxana Lecca was jailed for eight years on 21 counts of child cruelty when she worked at Riverside Nursery Twickenham Green in my constituency. After and just last year, another nursery worker was jailed for manslaughter following the tragic death of Gigi Mohan in Cheadle. A BBC Panorama exposed a worrying level of abuse and neglect in nurseries across the country. So whilst she is rightly said that lessons will be learned from the Camden case, it is clear that we already urgently need to strengthen safeguard in early years settings.

The safeguarding panel review in Twickenham in the Twickenham Green case, and the parents of the children affected have set out clearly three broad areas for change transparency around who is working in our early years settings, what qualifications and what training they've had and their history and vetting. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to looking at an early years practitioner register? Australia, as Australia has recently proposed. Secondly, monitoring in the Twickenham, green and Jeremy Hunt cases. CCTV was vital in securing convictions and might have prevented or might have caught sooner.

And I welcome her announcement today. But will the Secretary of State would now seriously consider mandating CCTV in nurseries with a requirement for management to regularly review footage and Ofsted to routinely check footage at inspections? And thirdly, accountability. The Vincent Chan and Twickenham green cases involved nursery chains. Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when Ofsted will start corporate inspections of nursery chains and ensure that when serious safeguarding issues are found in one setting, inspections are triggered across the chain.

Madam Deputy Speaker, No parent should have to worry about their that their child is safe when they head off to work. But our most vulnerable are repeatedly being let down. She rightly said keeping children safe is one of the most important duties in our society. Ministers urgently need to act to do so and we stand ready to work with them.
12:45
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the hon. Lady and for her engagement with officials in discussing these matters. It's an area where I believe we'll be most effective if we can work across the House in addressing the very serious concerns that have been raised here, but also in a number of other cases, to which she makes reference around the use of CCTV and whether it ought to be mandatory in use in early years settings. That will be an area that I would ask the expert advisory group to consider when they look at guidance.

There are differing views across the sector and amongst parents and carers because whilst there could clearly be benefits associated with the use of CCTV, others have raised concerns about the potential for misuse of such recordings and we need to ensure that any guidance or changes are brought forward in line with the evidence, to make sure that it leads to appropriate use of CCTV and settings, and appropriate use of devices in settings. In terms of the role of Ofsted, Madam Deputy Speaker, from next April, Ofsted will inspect new early years providers within 18 months of opening and move towards inspecting all providers at least once every four years, compared to six years previously.

Ofsted will receive additional funding to enhance the quality of inspection by strengthening quality assurance processes and providing targeted training for inspectors. We are working with Ofsted to introduce reporting on larger nursery chains, so issues that span a group of providers can be addressed and Ofsted will always continue to keep all settings under review to make sure that visits take place when risk assessments deem this necessary. And now, as the local review does, its work, which will take place led by an independent reviewer, a reviewer independent of the local authority and local safeguarding partners, we will of course, consider any recommendations that come forward through that work that have wider implications in terms of the sector and in children's safeguarding.

And I will, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, continue to keep members updated on progress.
12:47
Tulip Siddiq Portrait Tulip Siddiq MP (Hampstead and Highgate, Labour)
-
-
Tulip Siddiq. State for education, for her statement and for reassuring us that this case is being given the importance and urgency that it deserves? Madam Deputy Speaker, this is every parent's worst nightmare, and I want to pay tribute to my constituents and the brave parents who are here today to watch the proceedings, not just because they want justice for their own children, because they want to make sure that never again are children put in this situation. There are a number of requests from the parents in my constituency, and I recognise the Secretary of State won't be able to answer all of them, but I would be grateful if she could write to me.

On whether she has considered enhanced background checks for everyone working with children, enabling the use of safeguarding CCTV in nurseries and early years, providing a mandatory two adult supervision rule for all nurseries and childcare practices. Is she looking into expanding Ofsted ratings to include a clear assessment of nurseries, digital device policies and controls? If you're looking into establishing an independent, state run safeguarding reporting body that parents can approach directly when concerns are raised, as there was in this particular nursery, and such a body must be fully resourced to investigate childcare providers without reliance on internal nursery procedures.

And finally, could I ask the Secretary of State, will she ask the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, who will meet with me and affected parents to discuss not just this particular case, but to discuss how we strengthen the safeguarding process and the accountability of large childcare providers in our country.
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:54
Jen Craft Portrait Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)
-
-
Jen Craft. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This appalling case. I think all of our thoughts are with the families of those children with the families of those children affected, and I don't think we can even begin to understand the impact that that will have on those children throughout their lives. And there will be a whole load of support that will need to be brought in to protect them and actually deal with the knock on effects that they will be experiencing.

I am brought to mind of a case that's been brought to my attention with another group of extremely vulnerable individuals, and these are older children, but with complex and severe learning disabilities. A parallel I can't talk too much about it because it's a live case, but a parallel that struck me was where serious safeguarding concerns have been identified and given weight in one setting. When that organisation is part of, in this case, a larger chain of nurseries. And in the case where I am a multi-academy trust, it does raise questions as to whether that body can be trusted with safeguarding more widely.

And are there plans in place to look at that corporate responsibility and to, rather than just see it as an individual, isolated incident, to look across the piece and a similar parallel? I understand that it was a whistleblower that brought this case to the attention of the police in the first place, and I would just like to know what measures will be introduced to protect whistleblowers in cases such as these, particularly when the person in the organisation to the whistleblower is reporting may be compromised.
12:55
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, and she raises a number of important concerns around where groups can operate, both either in early years settings or schools, and the importance of making sure that we have the right framework in place to take action where that is necessary. This is something that we are taking an active approach on, both in early years and also in schools, working with Ofsted on these key points. I recognise the limitations in what she is able to say in the chamber today about the case that she mentions, but I of course, on my hon.

Friend the Minister would be willing to meet with her to discuss further her concerns in this area and what more we can do to make sure that we keep all children safe from harm. She raises the question of whistleblowing. I won't comment on the case in particular here, given the local review is underway. But of course, whistleblowers do continue to enjoy protection under the law in the action that they take to protect others from harm. And, of course, through the progress against Alexis Jas review, we will be taking further action around mandatory reporting.

As we discussed today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mark Pritchard. The whole House's thoughts are with the. Victims and the victims families, but with the education. Like to but with the education. Like to join me in praising the Metropolitan Police team that brought this case to charge, and in particular, Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford and his team, of course, the CPS. It his team, of course, the CPS. It must have been harrowing for them to investigate it and bring it to a to investigate it and bring it to a charge.

But more generally Madam Deputy Speaker, there's an estimated half a million sexually abused children in this country every year and according to National Crime Agency, 840,000 individuals are currently posing a sexual risk to children. And there
12:57
12:58
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points, and he is right to thank the police for their thorough work in what has been a complex, extremely complex and harrowing investigation. And I want to pay tribute to all of those who've been involved to this point in supporting the victims and the families and those who will be involved in taking forward further work in this area. He is also right to draw attention to the scale of child sexual abuse that we still sadly see in our country.

Before I came to this house, I worked with many of those who had been affected by child sexual abuse. I understand the lifelong impact it can have on many, many people. I understand also that for a very long time we have not been serious enough as a society in encouraging those who have experienced appalling abuse, including in childhood, to seek the support that they need and the advice that they will need, often for many, many years into the future. And a key issue that we've often faced in that regard has been the fact that where children have come forward to report abuse, they haven't always been believed by those in positions of authority.

And that has to change, which is why the culture shift that is required is as important as any legislative measures that we need to take, so that children are believed when they report abuse, and that action follows that those in positions of authority, where they fail to do so, face consequences for their actions and their failure to take forward allegations by children and others. He also references the appalling scale of what we see online. We will continue to work with Home Office colleagues on this issue, and of course we will.

I will look carefully at what he said around the development of the Child Protection Authority. We will be setting out more details to the House in due course and to update members in this area, alongside a consultation that will allow views to be aired about the best way forward in setting this out and Jas Athwal.
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:05
13:05
13:05
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
and friend is a deeply personal tragedy and today we keep her and her loved ones in our thoughts and in our prayers. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 4th of March 2018, Sergei and Yulia Skripal were targeted by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence services. Three GRU agents flew to the UK intent on killing Sergei Skripal. Two agents known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov travelled to Salisbury and contaminated contaminated the door handle of Sergei's house with the nerve agent Novichok.

With callous and despicable disregard for others who might enter or leave that address. Sergei and Yulia were poisoned and spent weeks in a critical condition. Others, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were harmed as they responded to the incident. Then, on the 30th of June 2018, Charlie Rowley gave his partner Dawn Sturgess a gift of a Nina Ricci perfume bottle. She sprayed her wrists with the contents. Tragically, the bottle contained Novichok and had been recklessly thrown away by Petrov and Boshirov as they left Salisbury four months earlier.

Dawn died at Salisbury Hospital on the 8th of July 2018. An inquest was opened. However, it was clear that a proper examination of Dawn Sturgess death would require a statutory public inquiry, which has been chaired by Lord Hughes. Today, after an extensive and painstaking process, the inquiry has published its report. The inquiry has found that those who were involved in the assassination attempt against Sergei Skripal were morally responsible for Dawn's death, and that deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act.

The chair concludes that the operation must have been signed off at the highest level of the Russian state, including President Putin. Now, in respect to the emergency services treatment of Dawn, the inquiry found that she received entirely appropriate medical care, but that, tragically, her condition was unsurvivable. In terms of preventability, the chair has concluded that the government's public health advice following the attack on the Skripals was reasonable. He also found that although there were failings in the management of Sergei Skripal, the risk of assassination assassination by Russian personnel was reasonably assessed and based on that assessment he did not need a new identity.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the inquiry has been clear in its findings of responsibility and we must respond equally unequivocally. Now, I've described the acute threat that Russia poses to the UK and to our national security, to hon. Members in the House. Previously, its recent acts have ranged from murdering Alexander Litvinenko using a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury, espionage, arson, cyber attacks and the targeting of UK parliamentarians for interference operations. Since 2018, the UK has been at the forefront of the response against Russia.

In direct response to the poisonings, the then government expelled 23 Russian undeclared intelligence officers. This triggered the expulsion of over 150 Russian diplomats by 28 countries, including NATO allies. The UK has subsequently committed to prevent the rebuild of Russian intelligence and to remove Russian dirty money in the UK, developed legislative powers to harden the UK's defences against state threats, and delivered new port and border powers, increased security checks on goods from Russia, and banned Russian owned or linked aircraft from entering the UK.

The invasion of Ukraine introduced a stark new reality and demonstrated Russia's intent to undermine European security as well as global security. The UK has led the way, standing by Ukraine and providing unprecedented military, humanitarian and diplomatic support. In total, the UK has committed £21.8 billion for Ukraine and has sanctioned over 2900 individuals, entities and ships. This government is proud to be at the forefront of the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and security.

Now, this has inevitably made the UK a target for increased hostile activity by Russia. Following an arson attack in east London in May of 2024, the then Home Secretary warned of a pattern of Russian malign activities across Europe which had reached UK soil. In response, the UK expelled the Russian defence attache and removed diplomatic status from Russian properties believed to have been used for intelligence purposes. We are determined that the UK remains a hard operating environment for the Russian intelligence services.

In October last year, we sanctioned three Russian agencies and three senior figures who were attempting to undermine and destabilise Ukraine and its democracy. And in July, the UK sanctioned and exposed three GRU units and 18 of their military intelligence officers for the targeting of Yulia Skripal and cyber operations in support of Putin's illegal war in the Ukraine. Yet we are now grappling with an increasingly reckless methodology. The director general of MI5 recently highlighted Russian state actors turning to proxies for their dirty work, recruiting disposable individuals on social media platforms, instructing them via encrypted apps and then offering payment in cryptocurrencies.

UK law enforcement has secured convictions in several significant cases. Just this year, six individuals spying for Russia, six men involved in an arson attack on a warehouse supplying Ukraine, an individual who attempted to offer services to Russian intelligence, and a former MEP who accepted bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives in the EU parliament. These cases serve as a strong reminder for anyone, anyone seeking to facilitate or undertake hostile state activity for Russia on UK soil now.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this government remains committed to providing our law enforcement partners with the tools that they need to tackle these threats. We've specified Russia on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration scheme to make it even more challenging to conceal relationships with the Russian state. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can now announce that the government is going further today. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary has imposed a further cost on the Russian regime by sanctioning the GRU under the Russia sanctions regime, along with several associated individuals.

These sanctions recognise the continued reckless and destabilising activity of the GRU, which seeks to undermine Ukraine, European security and the safety of the United Kingdom. They will include sanctions against eight GRU officers under the cyber sanctions regime and three GRU officers under the Russia sanctions regime, who have been implicated in hostile activity across Europe. We are also summoning the Russian ambassador to hold Russia to account for its responsibility for the tragic death of a British citizen.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there has also been extensive misinformation and disinformation relating to these horrific and barbaric poisonings. This inquiry has categorically rejected those falsehoods, and this government continues to reject the lies spread by Russia through its propaganda and through its paid mouthpieces. I wish to wholeheartedly, I'm sure, on behalf of the whole House, thank Lord Hughes and his team. This was a considerable task of great importance, and they have collectively approached it with diligence, care and sensitivity. I also want to take, I'm sure, on behalf of the whole House, the opportunity to thank the first responders, military personnel, the scientists, the medical practitioners and all of those responsible for responding to the attack.

They are the very best of us, and I know that members right across the House will join me today in paying tribute to them for the important work that they do to keep us safe. Madam Deputy Speaker Dawn Sturgess was the victim of an utterly reckless and dangerous act, a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by Russia on British soil. The pain and suffering it has caused can never be undone. But we must honour Dawn Sturgess memory, uphold truth and justice, and keep everyone in our country safe.

I commend this statement to the House.
13:15
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
I call the Shadow Secretary of State Chris Philp. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, let me start by thanking the Security Minister for advance sight Security Minister for advance sight of his statement and setting out straight away that the opposition, of course, fully support the government's work in keeping our country safe. And I think I agree with and support everything the security Minister said in his statement just a moment ago. I particularly welcome the additional sanctions that he announced in relation to certain members of the Russian security services.

I also join with the security Minister in remembering Dawn Sturgess, who lost her life as a result of this reckless and barbaric attack, leaving highly dangerous chemical weapons lying around was a reckless undertaking by those Russian agents, and Dawn Sturgess death lies squarely at their door. I also pay tribute to Sergei and Yulia Skripal for the bravery they have shown when faced with targeting by agents of the Russian state who came to this country specifically with the purpose in mind of killing them.

I also pay tribute to the emergency services and security services, as the security Minister did, who responded so bravely, and some of whom, like Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey themselves, were harmed as they responded to this attack. The emergency services and security services on that day and in the days following, I think distinguished themselves greatly, and I know the whole House will want to thank them for the work they did. Now, the chair of the inquiry concluded, as the security Minister said, that this operation would have been signed off, would have been agreed to at the very highest level of the Russian state by President Putin himself.

And that, I think, makes an important point, that Russia is a dangerous and a hostile state and that Vladimir Putin is a dangerous and hostile leader, a man who this inquiry has found personally sanctioned the assassination of civilians on British soil. And, of course, the atrocities that the Russian state and President Vladimir Putin perpetrate are not confined to those we've discussed today. We've seen on their own soil the Russian state murder domestic political opponents like Alexei Navalny.

We've seen them shoot down civilian airliners. We have seen them interfere across Africa, and we have seen Putin support former President Assad of Syria in persecuting civilians in Syria, including supporting the use of chemical weapons. So we should be in no doubt at all about the threat that Russia and President Putin pose, not just on our soil, not just in Russia or in Ukraine, but across the whole world. I think there is a lesson there for the way that we in the West collectively consider the Ukraine conflict, which the security Minister spoke about.

I think the actions we've been discussing this afternoon are one of many reasons why we in the West should be steadfast and unwavering in our support for Ukraine. The lessons of history are quite clear. Appeasement doesn't work. Showing weakness when faced with an aggressive dictator simply emboldens them. And I hope those people in our government and other governments, particularly the American administration, keep that in mind as they conduct negotiations in the coming days and weeks. Now, I know the Security Minister will not be able, quite rightly, to be able to comment on details, but I know the House will appreciate an update and assurances about the work being done to protect us domestically against Russian threats.

He didn't mention in his speech cyber threats. And we know, of course, that Russia actively and repeatedly he did mention it. I do apologise. He did mention it. Russia repeatedly and deliberately target both governmental infrastructure and private sector IT infrastructure. And an update on the work he is leading to counter that would be welcome, sir. He is able to, and whether he can give any indication as to whether we are proactively engaged in degrading Russia's capability in that area, I appreciate there are severe limitations around what he can say, but any indication he can provide to the House, I think would be very much appreciated.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the lessons which we can draw from this episode relate not just to Russia, but relate to any state where we have intelligence or information that they are engaged in aggressive, hostile acts. And we know, of course, that it's not just Russia. Other states, including China, are engaged in different but potentially equally damaging espionage and other activity on our soil. And a lesson that this episode, I think teaches us is that we can't be complacent.

We can't prioritise, for example, economic links above national security. We need to be on the front foot when it comes to these threats. And in that spirit, and drawing that lesson from this episode, and perhaps the Security Minister can explain to the House why China is not in the enhanced tier of Firs, which in my opinion it should be, and why the government appears to be contemplating granting planning consent for a super-embassy for China on a very sensitive site, close to sensitive communications infrastructure, and from which it is very likely China will conduct large scale espionage activities.

The lesson this episode teaches us is that we can't be complacent, and we must be active and energetic in protecting our national interest. But Madam Deputy Speaker, in general terms, I fully support the direction of Travel Security Minister has set out and of course, the opposition will support him personally and the government in the work they're doing to keep our country safe.
13:21
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister Dan Jarvis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Shadow Home Secretary for his response and the tone of it? his response and the tone of it? I'm very grateful for it. I think he will have noted from my opening remarks that the gravity and the seriousness with which I attach to the matter at hand, and I know that the matter at hand, and I know that he and Right Honourable and hon. Members opposite will have noted that in my opening statement, I that in my opening statement, I spoke seamlessly about the work done by the previous government, and this one, because I believe that standing against Russia and the threat that they pose to our national security should be and is a shared endeavour across this House.

And I pay tribute to the work that the previous government did at the time of 2018. And beyond that, in standing against the threat that we face and wherever possible, we should work closely together on it. I thought the shadow Home Secretary very accurately characterise the nature of the threat. I agree with what he said with regard to Russia and with regard to Putin, and it is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this attack and other activity that he characterised. He spoke about Ukraine, and I'm grateful to him for doing so.

And again, I do want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the previous government for the commitment that they made to defending Ukraine. I think it should be a matter of great pride across this House that perhaps above almost everything else, it is something that binds this house together. There is a unity of purpose amongst us all in ensuring that we stand together to support Ukraine in their fight against Russia. And I give him and the House an absolute commitment that we will continue the work of the previous government.

Genuinely. I was really pleased that he asked about cyber, because cyber is something that I am particularly keen to ensure that we coordinate our activity across government as effectively as we possibly can. In truth, it was one of the reasons why the Prime Minister made the machinery of government change back in September to ensure that the security Minister now sits across both departments, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, so that I can more effectively coordinate that work.

He will know that the government introduced the resilience, the Cyber Resilience Bill just a couple of weeks ago. And from a Home Office perspective, we are working hard on the ransomware proposals that we consulted on earlier in this year. He was right to make the important point about the work that we do with regard to positively degrading the nature of the threats that he that he described. He knows I'm very limited in terms of what I can say about that, but I know that he will join with me in paying tribute to the very important work that the National Cyber Force do.

It didn't come as a huge surprise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Shadow Home Secretary, and in truth, I don't blame him for doing so, took the opportunity to raise the issue of China. I hope he's had the chance to look at what I said this morning at Cabinet Office. Oral questions and what I said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend yesterday with regard to the government's position on China, I hope he's taken the opportunity to look precisely at what I said about the embassy.

With regard to furs. I completely understand the points that he has made. The government continues to keep this under very close review, and I hope that we'll have more to say about it in due course.
13:25
13:26
13:27
Will Forster Portrait Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Will Forster. spokesperson Will Forster. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the Security Minister for speaking for the whole Minister for speaking for the whole House when he gave our sincere condolences to his family, when he paid tribute to the emergency and security services, but also when he gave his thoughts for those affected in the Novichok attack. Madam Deputy Speaker, A government's primary role is to keep our country safe. This report into the tragic killing of Dawn Sturgess on the streets of UK by Russian agents in their attempt to assassinate Sergei Skripal, is damning.

The report has found Vladimir Putin was responsible for a death of an innocent British citizen on our shores. Basic protections were not in place. Sergei was a clear target from Russian state assassins. The inquiry states that he was resettled in the UK under his own name. Russia used this to track him down and MI5 failed to rename him. Can the Minister confirm to the House why the security services left him in an alarmingly accessible situation, despite clearly being an identified target of Russian state assassination, including residing in Salisbury in his own name? How has the security services justified to the Minister their apparent failure to implement even basic protective measures such as CCTV, alarms or secure accommodation? Worryingly for UK security, Putin's assassins had no trouble locating him.

That failure put him at risk, but exposed the wider public in Salisbury and across the country that contributed to the death of dawn and entirely innocent member of the public. Last year, the searched his family's legal team described the Skripals as sitting ducks failing at sitting ducks due to failings that should have been foreseen by MI5. Given the preventable deaths and public risk, what accountability measures will the government take to ensure MI5 protects both vulnerable individuals and the wider public? Considering the threat Russia poses to world security, especially security at home? Will the government finally seize the £30 billion in Russian frozen assets across the UK, including Sutton

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Place in my constituency of Woking? Yes. And finally, the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And finally, the government needs to see this report as a turning point for the threat Russia poses to the UK. Will they launch poses to the UK. Will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in British politics to ensure no more UK politicians, like ensure no more UK politicians, like the former leader of the Reform Party in Wales, will be bribed with Russian money.
13:29
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Russian money. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, let me say at the outset that he's absolutely right about the importance of keeping our country safe. And I give him assurance that that we take that incredibly seriously. Of course, we will look very carefully at the detail of this report. He asked me about the accountability mechanisms that exist in government, and I can give him an assurance that the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities to hold the security services to account very, very seriously indeed.

And that is a process that the new Home Secretary and myself dedicate a significant amount of time to every single week. But I do think that we have to be crystal clear that the inquiry's report states unequivocally that the responsibility lies with the Russian state. The chair of the report found that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal was authorised at the highest level, and concluded that it would not have taken place without the approval of President Putin. The use of a military grade nerve agent on British soil was a violation of international law and a truly despicable act, and the responsibility for that lies with Russia and Russia alone.

Now, he entirely reasonably asked me about the seizing the confiscation of sovereign Russian assets. I can give him assurance that we take that incredibly seriously as well. Our priority is to ensure that all of the options that we consider with regard to that particular matter are in line with international law and are economically and financially responsible. But Russia must be held accountable for the terrible damage that they've done in Ukraine, and we will do whatever we can to make sure that they are held accountable and that they are made to pay for their actions.

His final point was an important one, and was about the interference by Russia in our democracy. I chair the Defending Democracy Task Force, which has recently had its mandate renewed by the Prime Minister. These are matters that we take incredibly seriously. We use the task force as the fulcrum point across government to ensure that we have a whole of system response that draws together both government departments and law enforcement, and I give him an assurance of the priority that we attach to that work.

But it is something that I believe should be a cross-party endeavour. So if the hon. Member or if other members of this House wish to discuss it with me further, I've always be very happy to do that.
13:32
13:33
13:34
John Glen Portrait Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)
-
-
hon. Member of Parliament for Salisbury John Glen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Security Minister for early sight Security Minister for early sight of his statement? And can I thank him most warmly for the way that he him most warmly for the way that he has presented the government's response this afternoon? As someone who has spent previous life in who has spent previous life in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, I think he served the people of my constituency very well. And I'm very pleased also with the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary.

This report today was written as a consequence of the need to bring clarity, to understand unequivocally who was responsible for what happened in 2018. But I think it's important to remember the huge impact it had on Salisbury. And obviously the tragedy that befell Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and Julian Sergei Skripal. This report is very clear about where responsibility and culpability lies. It lies with President Putin. Russia was responsible and Putin as an individual was responsible.

He personally ordered what happened in Salisbury and we should never forget it. Yeah, Putin is a ruthless dictator, not someone deals can be done with. And contrary to one of the candidates in the general election last year in Salisbury, you said I admire him as a political operator, I do not. I never will. I welcome what the Minister has said with respect to additional sanctions, and I would encourage him and his successors to always pursue energetically with continued vigilance, further necessary measures as required.

I welcome what he said about more sophisticated threats emerging on cyber, and I would urge him to extend that, to look at what happens with our cloud infrastructure. I just have one question. If I may, .6.25 in the report refers to the issue of regular written assessments that were lacking in terms of the ongoing care, if you like, of Sergei Skripal. I think that is the only element that needs serious review for individuals like him in future. But can I finish by thanking the Minister again for the way he has spoken today, which will give huge comfort to my constituents in Salisbury and to the families of those so tragically affected.
13:36
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:40
13:42
13:43
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
to be deployed? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to the right Speaker, I'm grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am, for the expertise and experience that he brings to these matters, not least given his very long standing least given his very long standing service on two relevant committees in this place. He mentioned CT in this place. He mentioned CT police, and let me use that as an opportunity to pay tribute to the work that they do. I have a very good and close working relationship good and close working relationship with CT police.

I think that they do extraordinary work. It is a privilege to stand alongside them, and they are exceptional in the work that they do. It is in part a symptom of the work that the previous government and this government did to make the UK the hardest possible operating target that increasingly Russia and other malign states are seeking the use of criminal proxies to do their bidding and their business in this in the United Kingdom. And there is a lot of work taking place not only across government, but working very closely with our allies in Europe and further afield to ensure that we are best placed to target malign states using criminal proxies.

And the director general of MI5 referenced that in his recent annual threat lecture. So I give him an assurance that in terms of the point about the UK being a hard target and he will understand better than most, I'm very limited in terms of what I can say about that, and it would be unwise to give detail that would be helpful to our adversaries. But I give him, again an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. He raised an important point about dissidents.

And again, that's something that I keep under very, very close review. And we make sure that we've got the right and most appropriate mechanisms in place to provide security. His point about chemical weapons was well made. We worked very closely with our international allies to ensure that we're doing everything that we can to minimise the risk and the threat. That is not easy work, and there are no guarantees of its success. But I do give an assurance that the seriousness with which we take it, and the approach that we want to undertake, is to work closely with our allies.
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah thank you. Thank you, >> Yeah, yeah thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this opportunity to make this statement. opportunity to make this statement. It follows the publication on Monday of our report into the government's new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. Getting the approach right is key to protecting more than 20 years of fragile peace in Northern Ireland, which is a truly remarkable achievement.

However, the past still casts a shadow over the present for many people, particularly those who have lost loved ones or are injured or suffered significant trauma during the conflict. Unresolved cases of killing, torture and serious injury can poison relations in the present. Our report is a unanimous cross-party document. It is the culmination of a year's work and I am grateful to our committee specialist, Doctor Joe Ryan, and our specialist adviser, Doctor Eamonn O'Kane, for their diligent and sensitive contribution to that.

In December last year, my committee launched an inquiry into the government's then emerging plans. We received almost 80 pieces of written evidence and held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, too, we visited Northern Ireland to hear first hand from people directly affected by the troubles. As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising these concerns with a unified voice and I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus.

This was considered constructive and consensual work done at pace to produce a report before the bill returns to the floor of the House for its Committee stage. It is our hope, the detail contained in it, and which I refer to now, can frame the parameters of debate in this House and beyond a host across a host of issues. I'll start with the commission. We found that the current main legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery ICRIR, has been unable to garner the kind of trust and authority necessary across the communities to carry out its work effectively.

It was clear that its roots in the Legacy Act hampered it from the beginning, and that fundamental reform was inevitable. There remain, however, several outstanding issues on investigations. The government must address the lack of any specific requirement for the investigations process to be easy, compliant, and the de facto exclusion of most troubles related sexual crimes from the Commission's remit on case referrals. The government's plans to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the New Legacy Commission seems sensible, but changes could still be made to the definition of close family member, which would make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life.

The centralising of appointment powers in the Secretary of State was also raised as an issue, with greater transparency and clear guidance around the appointment processes needed to bolster confidence, and the government's proposal to reform the Commission's governance and oversight may answer many of the concerns that we heard, but several remain when it comes to the proposed Victims and Survivors Advisory Group. For example, concerns have been raised about who its members will be and how they will be appointed, and potential duplication of the role performed by the Victims Forum in Northern Ireland.

Now to resources. All the reform, goodwill and political impetus in the world will not lead to truth and justice if there is not enough money either for investigatory or information disclosing bodies. The ICRIR itself has pointed out the increase in demand on its services, something we hope will only continue under the new Commission. And if the Commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner. The resourcing of organisations such as the PSNI and others with new demands on their records will also need to be considered.

Turning to the proposals for inquests, the government's plans for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the Legacy Commission are seen by some as an improvement on the system produced by the 2023 act, but concerns persist, including on why judges provide presiding, are to be appointed by Ministers that, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. Now to veterans. As I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans representatives during our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who we heard from twice, most recently told us the government had been listening to veterans concerns to an extent.

But he added that these are not really protections for veterans so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Indeed, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors described them to us at the same hearing as welfare that you would want to afford to anyone involved in the process of engaging with the Legacy Commission. Therefore, we concluded that in packaging these as protections rather than safeguards available to all, the government risks undermining trust in this process. Among the very groups, veterans and others, in which it hopes and hopes to instil confidence.

And we said that the reopening of previously defective investigations should only take place when necessary for the purposes of ECHR compatibility or owing to new evidence, information disclosure has been, and remains one of the most significant issues with legacy policy. The Troubles Bill assigns the government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security, something Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 act or with Operation Nova, and thus concerns persist about trust appeal rights and how this provision will operate in practice on information retrieval.

The government plans to move this to a new independent commission. The ICRIR again, Ministers will need to strike a balance, this time between safeguarding the information provided to the Commission so that individuals have the confidence to engage with it, and verifying that information so that the public have confidence in its reports. We also heard that there is a lack of detail on the body's relationship with the Legacy Commission, and the extent to which in an information firewall will exist between them.

With regard to the ICRIR and in other areas, the Government of Ireland will also have to play a part. There must be more detail on the Irish government's timeline for introducing similar structures to those being provided here, and more information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. To be clear, throughout our inquiry, we heard consistently about the lack of commitment to address legacy in Ireland. We were also told by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that there has been a lack of compliance in the Republic of Ireland, and a lack of commitment to beginning and completing article two investigations.

I and some of my committee colleagues met the Irish government officials on Monday as part of a visit to Dublin, and we were encouraged by the dedication and determination of those involved to establish legacy mechanisms. At this juncture, we urge Dublin to move at pace to show their commitment and mutual good faith, and to maximise confidence and the likelihood of successful outcomes. On Monday, we also met with TDs and senators from across the political spectrum. We agreed that the framework, the bill and our report represent an opportunity to take legacy policy forward.

And among many of the issues we discussed, we reflected on what it might mean if people from one community hear others in another community say the word sorry. Reconciliation is difficult and cannot be forced on anyone. My committee, colleagues and I plan to explore it in more detail next year, but it is clear right now, not least from the brave testimony of victims and survivors during our inquiry, that reconciliation stands a chance of succeeding only if accompanied by people's admissions and acknowledgement of the truth.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, legacy is not only about addressing the past, it is about laying the foundations for a better future. It has been a privilege to lead this vital inquiry, and I am deeply humbled by the courage of those I have met and had the honour to meet. Our committee's report gives the government the opportunity to pause and reflect on a process that is vital to the future of Northern Ireland. If they do, they will help ensure we can all seize this chance to put the the people that matter most, those who lived through the troubles and still experience its effects today at the heart of this new approach.

And we owe them to get this right. Madam Deputy speaker, thank you.
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:16
14:16
Bernard Jenkin Portrait Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)
-
-
He will speak for around 15 minutes. Sir Bernard Jenkin. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name and in the name of many honourable and right hon. Members from across the House. And I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate. The first debate on full debate on Ukraine since February this year. And the motion can be summarised very simply as Ukraine must win and can win.

And this is because the Russia Ukraine war was never some regional territorial dispute, as some would like to believe. It has now moved far beyond conventional geopolitics. It is not about territory and cannot be solved by Ukraine's ceding territory to Russia. This is because it is an existential clash between competing visions of how global security should be organised, and indeed the very nature of our society. This is the result of a long standing intellectual current within Russia, a mix of imperial nostalgia, nationalist theology and a deliberate, deliberate rejection of democracy and the Western rules based order.

Furthermore, this ideological framework isn't fading. It's growing, adapting and continually finding new ways to justify the unjustifiable both at home and abroad. Russia's view of a desirable world order is one based on spheres of influence and the right of big countries to impose their will on smaller neighbours. Putin and his henchmen are not politicians, as we would understand. They are intelligence officers and soldiers who have turned the tradecraft of the KGB into the statecraft of the Russian state in pursuit of building their world order and destroying ours.

For this gang of autocrats, an independent Ukraine is not just inconvenient. They cannot tolerate Ukraine's independence because it threatens the very foundations of their own idea of Russian identity. So their war in Ukraine is only part of a much larger war in their minds, a war which involves us in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, whether we like it or not. Yes, this war is coming to us and has come to us and minded of the words of Leon Trotsky.

And I use the word you, Madam Deputy Speaker, advisedly, as I quote, you might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. He said. Putin and his henchmen have been saying for a long time that they are at war with us. In the past few weeks alone, expert commentators such as Fiona Hill, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the MI5 former director, and Lord Robertson, the secretary general of NATO, have all affirmed that Russia, yes, Russia is at war with us. And yes, I mean Russia, not just Putin.

This is because Putin's gang of ideologues are skilled at exploiting the resentments of the Russian people in a highly controlled information environment, so that the people accept their lies and so support what they have been told that Russia is in some fight for Russia's survival against the hostile West. Now, some Western policymakers find this reality unpalatable. They prefer the illusion that Putin might accept some compromise, some deal whereby Ukraine might trade land for peace. But let there be no mistake.

This is not just wishful thinking. It is dangerous because it both ignores the motive for Russia to wage this war, and denies that Russia has already unleashed war against Europe and the United Kingdom. Hon. Gentlemen, I give way very briefly, but I've got a lot to say, and I. David Burton-Sampson I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he's giving a really great speech. And I agree with the hon. speech. And I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his points with spy ships through the channels and submarines off the coast of submarines off the coast of Scotland. Does he agree with me, therefore, that it's vitally important not only for Ukraine, but important not only for Ukraine, but for the rest of the Europe, that we work closely with the coalition of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the willing throughout this conflict? Of course, I agree to agree with that, and I will come. Come, come back to how we work with our allies later. The first thing we must understand is how the character of war has changed. In today's war, everything is a weapon disinformation, terrorism, sabotage, assassination, psychological manipulation, malign influence, cyber attacks, economic warfare, menacing undersea cables, even energy, food and fertiliser are used as weapons. And let's not also forget that Russia has weaponized the abduction of Ukrainian children, which is just one of the atrocities which Russia inflicts on the occupied territories.

And I am very sorry that the hon. Lady for Paisley and Renfrew can't be here, but I hope that her cause is being taken up by someone else in this debate. Make no mistake, we are today already under a sustained assault through a coordinated campaign which merges all these weapons and others. And these attacks are steadily increasing in audacity and seriousness. They are sometimes reported in the press, but often downplayed by wishful governments who are unwilling, are unwilling to acknowledge these attacks for what they are, that they can appear to be isolated acts of espionage or sabotage or diversion.

But they are not. They are elements of a systematic, strategic offensive designed to undermine public trust in our governments and our democratic systems, to fragment our societies, to establish groups that destabilise our countries from within and above all, to probe our defences and to find weaknesses to exploit further. This is a test of the resilience of our entire society. And this is hybrid warfare, the grey zone warfare. But the term total war might be more accurate as a description, and Total War is the apposite title for a recent book authored by the former member for the Isle of Wight, Bob Seely, the Baltic and Nordic, Nordic countries and Poland are currently the main targets, but so is the UK.

Indeed, the UK is singled out by Russia as public enemy number one because Russia sees the UK, quite rightly as a bulwark against threats and coercion which intimidate some other countries. But grey zone warfare is by no means the only threat the UK faces. Our critical national infrastructure is exposed, particularly offshore. NATO and the UK lack comprehensive air defence. Just this week, Putin said Russia is ready for war with NATO. And we have to be honest, when I ask this question how ready are we? This is also a dangerous narrative taking hold that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia in Ukraine and that we must just accept this.

This is wholly wrong. There are, in fact, detailed assessments publicly available which demonstrate that Russia cannot win militarily so long as NATO countries continue to give military and financial support to Ukraine, and economic sanctions against Russia are both maintained and strengthened. The I give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the hon. Lady and thank her for her support point. I just wondered if the hon. Member is aware that the Russian Member is aware that the Russian state is currently actually taking tanks out of museums to try to get them on battlefield. At the moment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them on battlefield. At the moment equipment. That is certainly true, but there are also, depending more and more what they produce in their more what they produce in their factories rather than their legacy stock. So that's making the war more and more expensive for them. more and more expensive for them. They're not in an ideal position. And as I will explain, the the initial Russian dash for Kyiv was disastrous for the Russian army. And the Russians failed from day one to establish air superiority over Ukraine, which is effectively a no fly zone for Russian military aircraft.

Ukraine has succeeded in developing technology and tactics which make Russian attempts to advance extraordinarily costly. Ukraine's ability to strike at Russian military and economic assets deep in Russia is increasing. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about a Russian victory over Ukraine. If we continue to sustain Ukraine and to undermine the Russian economy, the sanctions Russia will be forced to change its calculus for carrying on. Nevertheless, Putin is projecting confidence that he is winning. But let's be clear this is not the cause of the military situation, but because of a lack of political will in so many NATO countries.

If Putin wins, it is only because we let Putin win, as we let him win in Georgia, as we let him win in the Crimea and the Russian oblast of eastern Ukraine, before he embarked on the attempt to take Kyiv, he proved that we are soft and his confidence is based on his continued belief that nothing has changed. It has often been pointed out that the combined GDP of all NATO is vastly greater than Russia's, so therefore we should have nothing to fear.

But that advantage only matters if we have the will to use this economic superiority to defeat Russia's expansionist agenda. War is about if willpower. Sadly, notable exceptions like the Baltic states and Poland, we have really yet to demonstrate that willpower to win. This is particularly due to the United States. First, the vacillation of President Biden and his fear of fuelling escalation gave Russia time to build up its war machine and to exploit wider alliances. Now, the despicable and disastrous attitude of President Trump seems to offer Putin the opportunity to achieve everything he wants the subjugation of Ukraine, the humiliation of NATO, the enlargement of the Russian sphere of influence at the expense of European security.

Ironically, the effect of the Trump administration's 28 point peace plan has been to encourage Putin to keep the war going. This is because Trump appears ready to give everything he wants to President Putin. That is Ukraine. As a Russian vassal state. There is no incentive at the moment for Putin to stop this war. Under these circumstances, while the US is seeking to force Ukraine and Europe to accept peace at any price, and it sometimes looks as if European resolve might also crumble, Trump thinks he is the master of the universe, but is in fact being psychologically manipulated by Putin with flattery.

And I make no bones about it with bribes, but something positive in Europe may finally be happening. Despite the tendency of European leaders to focus on differences between them, Mats Macron, our own Prime Minister, and the leaders of NATO and the EU have shown remarkable unity. There is a realisation that a so-called peace agreed on Trump's terms would not be peace at all. Putin would continue his campaign by other means. There would be little or no deterrence to discourage Putin from resuming military action on some bogus pretext at some future date, as the European Union foreign policy chief has explained, and I quote, Russia has never truly had to come to terms with its brutal past or to bear the consequences of its actions.

And she argued that the nature of the Russian regime means that rewarding aggression will bring more war, not less. And she is right. Putin will come back for more. The democratic world cannot forget the lessons of history. The attitude of some is an eerie parallel of what Chamberlain said about Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland, which he described, and I quote, a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. And let this House never forget that Russia signed the 2004 Budapest Memorandum.

They prohibit the use of military force in Ukraine. President Putin disregarded this undertaking when he annexed the Crimea and then attacked eastern Ukraine. How many times do we need to learn this lesson? In Putin's world, Russia recognises no international law, only its own absolute sovereignty. So a Russian signature on any treaty is not to be trusted unless it can be externally guaranteed with people who have the necessary force. Putin is already taunting the UK and NATO with hybrid war attacks.

A Russian ship firing lasers at UK military aircraft in neutral airspace would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. This cannot just be ignored. Russia is testing NATO responses and mocking our slow pace to rearm. The consequences of remaining passive would be dire for the credibility of NATO as a deterrent force. Letting Russia have its agenda would also increase Russia's credibility with neutral countries at the expense of NATO and our allies. They will see the EU and NATO as representing waning powers, unable to contain Russia as we did during the Cold War.

The agreement on much tougher proposals at Geneva last week, while still engaging Secretary of State Rubio, is a real achievement. The latest news that Putin has again refused to stop the war exposes him as the true aggressor. This is a war that he could so easily stop instantly. So long as Europe and NATO continue to support Ukraine and Ukraine refuses to settle on Russian terms, then Putin will not agree to a ceasefire until he realises that there is no diplomatic shortcut open to him.

The biggest risk we face is that Trump loses interest in his peace effort and withdraws support for Ukraine. But there is already evidence that Trump's power over the Congress is waning. Abandoning Ukraine would split US politics. We must hope that the US would also continue with intelligence support, but we must be ready for that, and Europe should offer to pay for that intelligence if necessary. If that enables that intelligence support to be continued. But settling for a fake peace on unsustainable Trump witkoff terms would be far worse.

We in Europe have to accept President Trump's actions have demonstrated that he does not care about Ukraine, and his commitment to European security is at best ambiguous. So the right plan is for European NATO to be ready to continue to support Ukrainian resistance to Russia's demands, whatever, to continue to support Ukraine's military and to help to finance Ukraine's increasingly effective defence industries. That is why the motion refers to the release of the 140 billion Russian frozen assets in Europe.

So and it is so vitally important, Russia will then continue to suffer the astronomical attrition on men and materiel and at vast financial cost. And more intensive sanctions must also bite on their economy. In truth, we can't kid ourselves about the Russian economy. It remains pretty resilient. But sanctions have reduced foreign exchange earnings by some 20%. They only come from the export of oil and gas. Russia's domestic banks are now the only buyers of Russian government bonds. This is not a long term sustainable position for Russia.

Secondary sanctions apply to the Russian shadow fleet and to countries who are unable. The shadow fleet to exist have made, and can continue to make the export of oil and gas less and less profitable, or even loss making for Russia. But above all, we see the Russian army so slowly advancing in Ukraine, taking tiny areas of land at incredible human cost. We are seeing a land war which Russia cannot win. It has taken all of this year for Russia to take Pokrovsk, a small town and at the cost of some 100,000 casualties on the Russian side, and they and they have not, as my right hon.

Friend briefly intervenes. They have not already taken that town, though they say they have. The US ambassador to NATO pointed out recently that a snail crawling from the Russian border westwards would now be in the middle of Poland, had it left at the same time as the beginning of the invasion. That is how badly the Russians are doing militarily. So there is no breakthrough which would give Russia strategic military success. So Putin escalates by ramping up of hybrid warfare on NATO states.

He wants to move the focus of the war onto fresh battlefields. He attacks Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He could launch a military attack on a NATO member country using a form of warfare for which that country, unlike Ukraine, is not prepared. Such an attack on an ally would necessitate a response by the UK. If deterrence is to remain credible, it might even involve UK troops. In Estonia, for example. Our troops are not prepared for this kind of drone warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine and if they did, what would we do? I leave that question hanging in the air.

An attack could involve a missile attack on targets within the UK, for which we are equally unprepared, or on our offshore assets. Our allies in Germany and Poland and Finland take very seriously the real risk that Europe may be drawn into a more military confrontation with Russia, and a lot sooner than is comfortable to acknowledge. So what is it that we must do in the face of this now obvious threat to our security? We must acknowledge and explain, explain to our population that we are indeed at war now, and we must explain the nature of the hybrid threat.

We must call out Russian hybrid attacks for what they are, and we must devise robust responses, as well as increasing our own defences. Is are these intersections? And no more a sufficient response? We must constantly adapt the use of sanctions, realising that, like any weapon, Russian will devise countermeasures to evade them, we must, as a real priority, increase our military and economic support to Ukraine, however difficult that might be. We need to make it clear, both by our words and our actions, that Russia cannot win this war.

And I do say to the Minister, who's going to reply to this debate, it's not enough to repeat the mantra, oh, for as long as it takes. What does that mean? It is already taken far too long. We must commit to supporting Ukraine until Ukraine achieves victory. And soon. And that is possible. What does that victory look like? Ukraine must be able to sustain itself as a secure and independent sovereign state, as part of a family of free and democratic nations.

Victory is no threat to Russian territory or sovereignty. There is no plan or objective to topple President Putin. But this victory, victory is the only way to prevent Russia discrediting NATO and corroding the confidence that democracies can and must prevent despots from degrading the global international order. To help achieve peace, we in the UK must accelerate our own war readiness. As the Defence Committee set out in their recent report, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, Port Ellen, who oversaw the government's Strategic Defence Review, remarked recently we are under attack and underprepared.

Those are his words that our country is not safe. Changing this does not simply mean strengthening our armed forces, although that is essential. It means adapting a lot of things in our country so that we can survive and fight a war. This will be difficult, even painful. So the sooner we start, the better, because it is weakness which encourages Putin. The stronger we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are, the less likely we are to be attacked. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is, as on the Order Paper I call Alex Sobel. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex for securing and making such an eloquent speech. We made all the points I'm going to make in my speech, but I still will make it
14:38
Alex Sobel Portrait Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )
-
-
speech, but I still will make it nevertheless. So today is 1379 days since the full scale invasion of Ukraine. And let's not forget, the Ukraine had already been at war with Russia for eight years. We all remember the rhetoric from the Kremlin that Kyiv would fall in three days. Last week we heard from the former Russian ground force commander Vladimir Churkin, who made a rare criticism the Kremlin from inside Russia, saying that Russia had not been prepared for its invasion of Ukraine.

I think it's instructive for the House to quote from him. We had the traditional underestimation of the opponent and overestimation of our own military. Churkin said Russia had been buoyed by the confidence from its five day war in Georgia in 2008. During the first weeks, we were taught a serious, harsh lesson. The former defence Minister tried to find a face saving exit from situation, calling what was happening a gesture of goodwill, Churkin said. He also criticised the entire Russian intelligence community for telling the leadership that 70% of Ukrainian population supported the invasion, a claim which turned out to be entirely false.

We know that well over 90% of Ukraine, even in the east and the south and in Crimea, support continued sovereignty of Ukraine. It is one of the first times that top Russian official had made such public criticism of Russia's war effort, something that can lead to criminal charges in Russia. But let us in this country not be under any illusion that we are in our own war with Russia. Every day the Russians undertake hybrid attacks against us. But here, unlike in Ukraine, where children are under direct threat of death and abduction, Russia, our children are under threat of online manipulation.

And although our buildings are not under immediate threat of destruction by Russian drones, our borders are being tested by reconnaissance and drones to test our readiness for a full scale war. I've been to Ukraine seven times since the full scale invasion, and not just to Kyiv or Lviv. I have travelled this great country in their time of greatest need visiting Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Odessa, Chernihiv, Mykolaiv, Kherson Oblast, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and my own sister city of Kharkiv, which has been had a relationship with Leeds since not long after the full scale invasion.

I've seen firsthand the strength, courage and determination of Ukraine and the commitment to Ukrainian culture, language and identity, and I know that there will never, never allow their identity to be subsumed by Russia, which is why the practice of stealing Ukrainian children by Russia and buying them and then when of age, sending them back to Ukraine to fight for Russia is so abhorrent. The worst, most dystopian war crime one can imagine, and we need to ensure they are prosecuted international criminal courts for this.

And I'd also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for the amazing work she's doing leading the APPG on this matter. There is so much that we can say about the needs of Ukraine. I do not think we should use this debate for a running commentary on the war, or on the stalled peace talks, which Russia have disingenuously used to try and pursue their original war goals. I do want to talk about what can turn the dial.

As we all know, only maximum pressure on Russia and Ukraine in the strongest possible position will create a scenario where ceasefire can be agreed. The twin approach of seizing Russian state assets for military aid and squeezing the Russian economy through the strongest possible sanctions regime may create those conditions and certainly put Ukraine in a much stronger position than they are now. We all know what assets are held in Euroclear, and we need those assets to be seized and repurposed for the self-defence of Ukraine.

Euroclear has been holding about 200 billion belonging to Russia's central bank, the majority of an estimated 260 billion in sovereign Russia assets held in the West. My view is that the full seizure of Russian assets is clearly proportional to the crimes committed by the Russian state against Ukraine, and any post-war settlement will were huge reparations. So the seizure of assets are paying forward a long tradition of post-war reparations. I welcome the news yesterday that the European Commission plans to move forward quickly with the reparation loans.

Ukraine using frozen Russian assets or an EU loan based on common borrowing, with a figure of 90 billion being reported, which is very significant. The second option is due to some reservations by the Belgian government, who host Euroclear in Brussels. I welcome the Ursula von der Leyen statement that Ukraine has the means to defend itself and take forward peace negotiations. Position of strength I'm sure something that we in the entire House agree with. Publicly available information indicates the United Kingdom has frozen private corporate Russian assets belonging to sanctioned individuals amounted to £28 billion.

But could the Minister indicate the total value of sovereign Russian state assets currently frozen in the United Kingdom and say, where the government is prepared to allocate immediately those funds which are not subject to approval of international partners, so not the Euroclear assets to support Ukraine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

during this very difficult time. Of course. Sir Iain Duncan Smith what's quite interesting about this with quite interesting about this with the UK government, the Foreign Office particularly, is that the pressure that we've all mounted on them to seize these assets and use the capital value, most of them are in cash now anyway, but the answer in cash now anyway, but the answer has been refusal. I understand their nervousness about market instability as a result, but what instability as a result, but what they've also done now is said they can use the earnings, the interest from the loan from the capital.

You cannot own the interest if you don't own the capital. So we're dancing on the head of a pin. Wouldn't it be better if they were clear and seize the capital once and for all, and regularise the use

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that money one way or another? I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. So, and I actually think Member. So, and I actually think it's not just that that the profits or the interest from the assets that are held here should be repurposed. But actually we should look at how those assets are being look at how those assets are being managed and maximise that for the purpose of Ukraine as well. But to conclude my question to the conclude my question to the Minister to ask if the United Kingdom will be part of the Reparation Loan to Ukraine scheme alongside the EU if or when that comes about in terms of assets? I'll keep it brief.

Sorry. In terms of sanctions, keep it brief. As I've spoken about this many times before, the two issues which need more action is to complete the sanction regime on the shadow fleet and sanction third country imports to Russia, and also strengthen our enforcement in terms of those areas, the shadow fleet is not just a way of Russia moving its fossil fuel exports and financing its illegal war, but the unseaworthiness of the vessels are a danger to both people and the environment. In recent days, two Russian shadow fleet tanks and Turkish Black Sea went up in flames again a danger to people and to the to the environmental ecosystem of the Black Sea.

The shadow fleet is estimated around 630 vessels. Nearly all of them are old, in in a poor state of repair and the recent large packages from the US, EU and UK are welcome, but we still have maybe as many as 200 vessels who are not yet sanctioned. Obviously, the fleet evolves over time. We also need to use much more diplomatic muscle to ensure sanction enforcement, not just to prevent shadow fleets to dock, but also the use of nearshore waters for repairs, refuelling and supply.

Sometimes even in countries which have sanctioned the shadow fleet, crippling the shadow fleet is crippling Russia. I do think the government have moved on third party sanctions. So, for instance, Kazakhstan had a huge surge in imports of British luxury cars. UK automotive exports to Kazakhstan grew by 3,900% in the period January to April 2023, compared to the same period in 2022. I'm not sure there was that surge in interest in our vehicles in Kazakhstan itself, so I looked up the guidance on exporting to Kazakhstan from the FCDO, which states I'll be slightly longer.

This I'm afraid Russia is going to great lengths to circumvent sanctions and continue to procure Western military, dual use and other critical goods through third countries, including battlefield technologies. Russia relies on ceptive tactics such as indirect shipping routes, falsification of the end use of goods, and evasion networks. For example, in the context of Kazakhstan, this might include affirming Kazakhstan may receive an order from Russian importer for goods that are subject to UK sanctions, and so cannot be obtained directly from the UK.

The Kazakh firm orders the goods from UK supplier without informing them or others involved such as bankers, insurers, shippers that the end user the goods is in fact Russia. The UK suppliers export the goods to the Kazakh firm, which then re-exports them to Russia. This type of practice, and others like it, constitute the circumvention sanctions. These risks may affect all parties in supply chain, irrespective of the form of the UK. Supplier exports goods to Kazakh firm which then re-exports them to Russia. I think that, you know, these clearly are very helpful and instructive set of guidance to anybody trading Kazakh or any other country, pretty much every country neighbouring Russia, who is not a member of NATO or the EU or Ukraine, obviously.

So. So I would like to ask the Minister, and I know he's not a Minister, Business and Trade or the FCDO, but I'd like to ask him how many UK firms have had export licence revoked from trading with countries neighbouring Russia for sanction evasion? Because my concern is, is that that we have the guidance, we know what's happening. We can see the figures in the rises of exports of certain goods, but we're not taking the action against individual companies. And so, you know, that would be instructive as well and would really put us in a much stronger position of supporting Ukraine and trying to stymie the Russian economy.

I'm now concluding by saying that what we do in the next few months will decide the fate of Europe for the next 50 years. Will we scale up our support for Ukraine, ensure the Ukrainian people have a democratic future in the European family? Or will we slow walk again and slide slowly into our own military conflict with Russia? This is the time for us all to stand with Ukraine and ensure not just there, but all of our futures. Slava, Ukraine.
14:49
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
If members keep their >> If members keep their contributions to under ten minutes, we can get everybody in the Father of the House. Sir Edward Leigh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House. Sir Edward Leigh. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Western societies are visibly divided over how to respond to Russia's illegal invasion of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. And these divisions, of course, play directly into Vladimir Putin's strategic aims. Putin's method has always been to widen fractures within democracies and exploit hesitation amongst allies. At one pole of the debate are those who believe that any compromise with Moscow would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and a surrender of moral principle.

Now, the opposite pole are soft apologists for Putin, who dismiss support for Ukraine as naive or attribute it to sinister global conspiracies. These extremes distort sensible discussion, and we must fight against both ends to strengthen the thoughtful, strategic centre ground of this debate. Giving in to either extreme just makes it more difficult to develop and deploy a coherent Western policy. The responsible course is to steer between absolutism and appeasement, while protecting both Ukrainian sovereignty and our own national interests.

Now, the Ukrainian armed forces we know have performed very well. They approved. They can defend their homeland. Ukraine continues to hold the line across hundreds of miles. There are those who claim that Russians are winning, or that their victory is inevitable. But the history books are replete with examples of outcomes deemed inevitable. But they never happen, and the experience on the ground shows that this war will not be a slam dunk for either side. Predictions of imminent Russian victory ignore the reality that Ukrainian defences remain resilient and adaptive.

War is the mother of invention, and the Ukrainians have been extremely innovative in adapting their own offensive means, as well as defending against Russian countermeasures. So as long as Ukraine retains control of the territory in our holes, claims that Russia is, quote, winning, do not stand realistic scrutiny. Moral morale, ingenuity and international support have enabled Ukraine to deny Putin the strategic breakthrough he he seeks. And we in the United Kingdom have been one of Ukraine's most consistent and substantial supporters, and we should be proud of that.

We should be open to further support where prudent, while maintaining our clear position that UK will not become an active combatant. Now, critics who deride President Trump's peace efforts overlook the value of initiatives that at least attempt to move the conflict towards negotiation. Putin's rejection of recent proposals underscores that the obstacle to peace lies in Moscow, not with Ukraine or among Ukraine's friends. Let's be honest, I hope people will forgive me for not being entirely rude about our closest ally.

Many people are attacking Trump's proposals just because they are Trump's. If it will be Mr. Biden or a prospective president, Harris they may be would have been cautious, but these critics would not have attempted to stand in their way. We shouldn't let political prejudice undermine our careful examination of substantial proposals to end the conflict. President Trump is putting forward constructive proposals, and we should understand them if necessary. Be supportive whilst question them. Of course, it is easy to demand endless resistance from the comfort of our own homes, but it is our Ukrainian friends who are the ones paying the price in blood, lives and the future of their country.

There is no virtue in insisting upon absolute maximalist goals, while it is others who must bear the human cost of achieving them. Ukraine and Russia once enjoyed deep cultural, social and economic ties, and Putin has single handedly killed all that. He alone is responsible for turning to neighbouring peoples against each other. It would take multiple generations before Ukraine and Russia can be friends again, but we can try and help them, at least to stop making war.

We can at least try and stop and end the killing. Of course, the ideal solution is for Russian forces to withdraw. If they do that today, everyone would rejoice. But we must deal with reality. They're not going to do that. So secession of secession of hostilities is the necessary first step. Responsible policy makers must prepare for outcomes that fall short of our ideals, while still ending the bloodshed. President Trump's efforts to encourage negotiation represent an attempt to find practical steps towards a ceasefire.

No agreement can be legitimate without, I agree, the free and sovereign consent of Ukraine, which cannot be dictated to by Washington or by Moscow. We should be absolutely clear that we cannot advocate any agreement. And this is the important thing that forces Ukraine to give up territory it currently holds to pressure Ukraine into ceding land would be akin akin to surrendering the Sudetenland. We left in 1938, Czechoslovakia absolutely defenceless. That must never happen again. And there's more we can do on our side in the West, not just in sending money and material to Ukraine, but in changing our own behaviour.

We need to increase economic pressure on Russia. Sanctions and financial constraints remain one of the few non-military tools that can meaningfully weaken the Kremlin's capacity to wage a war. Germany, I'm afraid, and some of our European allies continue to buy Russian energy in various forms, undermining our collective leverage. We must ask these questions of our partners are they actually making constructive attempts to secure alternative sources of energy? And we hope they are. The slow pace in which some European countries have diversified their energy supply undercuts the effect of sanctions.

Europe's overreliance on Russian hydrocarbons is yet another compelling reason for the United Kingdom to pursue to pursue nuclear energy. With renewed determination, we have got to learn from the lessons of history. Russia's economy, measured in nominal GDP, is roughly comparable to Italy's and therefore far from the superpower that people often talk about. I mean, no insult to our wonderful Italian friends. The disparity between Russia's global posture and the actual size of its economy highlights how vulnerable Moscow is to sustain economic isolation, and this is how we are going to win in the long term.

Although the military dimension of the conflict is vital, it alone will not produce a decisive victory or a durable settlement for Ukraine. Economic pressure, diplomatic alignment, long term energy resilience across Europe are equally important and they are vital to a to a successful strategy. The goal of diplomacy must be to find a workable, if imperfect, if imperfect, path that ends unnecessary killing. R should be a humane policy to be strong and to get a fair peace that stops the killing.

The longer the war continues, the greater the damage to Ukraine's economy, infrastructure, and demographic future. The continuation of the conflict also damages Russia, although its citizens have little say in the matter now. The United Kingdom has offered sanctuary to many thousands of Ukrainians supporting their education, welfare, community integration. Public goodwill remains high, but history teaches us that political and social patients cannot be taken for granted indefinitely. My fear, and I'll end on this point, is that there will come a day it may still be years away, where the British government and the British public will feel that we've done enough, and that is that, or the American government will stay say the same.

If a peace arrangement is not reached before fatigue sets in amongst Ukraine's allies, Kyiv may find itself dangerously exposed. Allowing that to happen would serve no interest except Vladimir Putin, and would hand him an undeserved strategic victory. The prudent course is to sustain, and, if sensible, to expand our support for Ukraine while actively exploring diplomatic routes towards peace. Now working constructively with our American allies gives us a chance, however modest, to help end the killing.
14:59
Sharon Hodgson Portrait Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP (Washington and Gateshead South, Labour)
-
-
Sharon Hodgson. >> I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex for securing this very Essex for securing this very important debate today and to my hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, for his leadership of the all party group, which he devotes so much of his time to. So importantly, I appreciate the opportunity today to speak to the bravery of the Ukrainian people in the face of an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack by Russia against a sovereign, democratic state.

Putin's invasion will be four years ago, come February and has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools. And I'm particularly concerned, as many are, who will speak today on this subject for Ukraine's children, many of whom have been subjected to state sanctioned abductions to the Russian Federation. And I welcome the government's new sanctions that target those supporting Vladimir Putin's cruel attempts to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukraine's children and erase their Ukrainian cultural heritage.

However, this issue was not mentioned in President Trump's 28 point peace plan between Russia and Ukraine. I'm therefore proud to add my name to an open letter to the Minister, released today and organised by my hon. Friend, the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, calling for the rights of children to be upheld in any peace agreement. And I know that she really wanted to be able to contribute to this debate today, but has unfortunately, as has been mentioned, already been called away on other business.

I also pay tribute to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly decision to join the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children and the appointment of Swedish MP Karina Order, order as the Special envoy on Russian abductions and deportations of Ukrainian children, and I look forward to supporting her in her new role in my own role as leader of the UK, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation and as the recently appointed chair of their parliamentary support team for Ukraine. I have listened to evidence from brave Ukrainians who have defied all the odds at our Crimea Platform summit in Stockholm just last week, the OSCE reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and President Perigenes Ponds reminded us of the wider implications of Ukraine's struggles.

And he said, when we stand with Ukraine, we defend something bigger than any one nation. We defend the idea of Europe itself, its liberty, its dignity and the right of every nation to choose its future. End quote. President Ponzoni appointed fellow Pstu member Boris Dittrich as a special rapporteur with a dedicated mandate to push for the release of the three OSCE officials who are unlawfully being held in Russian detention Dmytro, Shabanov, Maksim Petrov and Vadim Gold at the OSCE Autumn Session in Istanbul, President Ponzoni met with Marharyta Shabanov, wife of Dmytro, to discuss our efforts and I hope that the UK government also looks into how they can support their release.

I am proud that this Labour government has stepped up for Ukraine. The UK must uphold their promise to deliver the 3 billion of military aid to Ukraine every year for as long as needed, and I take the the point the hon. Gentleman made about that phrase that as long as needed should not be for forever, it should be as soon as possible. The UK's military, financial, diplomatic and political support for Ukraine must remain ironclad, and I am pleased that in recent weeks, alongside our allies, we have reasserted our steadfast commitment to Ukraine and a European security architecture based on the principles of the UN charter and the OSCE.

Despite blatant abuses by Russia and looking around the chamber today, I'm also heartened by the Cross-bench support for Ukraine. The UK has provided 470 457 million in humanitarian assistance since the start of the full scale invasion, and this includes 100 million of humanitarian support, 20 million to double this year's support to Ukrainian energy infrastructure and 40 million for stabilisation in early recovery, which the Foreign Secretary announced in Kyiv in September. And this funding is vital and I know it has been warmly welcomed, so we must continue to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and hold Putin to account for his war crimes.

And while other countries may choose to look away, our country's response must be one of strength, resilience and unity for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as long as it takes. Thank you. For Iain Duncan Smith speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Iain Duncan Smith speaker. First of all, can I congratulate my hon. Friend for his opening my hon. Friend for his opening remarks? They were very specific and very precise, and I will try not to repeat many of them, but to try and get into some of the other issues that exist. But I just, issues that exist. But I just, first of all, want to say that my personal connection with Ukraine goes right back to a matter of months after the original invasion.
15:05
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
I was involved with a charity called trust, a Scottish charity called trust, a Scottish charity that had gone out there to help those who were fleeing at the Polish border. And when that had sort of settled a little bit, they actually just decided to cross the border and carry on feeding people that had been dispossessed behind that had been dispossessed behind the front line. I see the gentleman over there. I call him an hon. Friend of this, because he's come Friend of this, because he's come out there with me to see the same remarkable charity.

It's a wonderfully bonkers British charity. They wear kilts, they put the pipes in their mouths and they dance and entertain the Ukrainians. Miles only a few miles behind the enemy lines risk themselves as well, at the same time. But they show in that form this remarkable bond that we have forged here in this country with the Ukrainians in their hour of need. It's peculiarly British, and that is really what we are about. We know what this is all about. That is the thing you don't actually, it doesn't have to have this House to lead this debate.

Because in truth, if we were to go down the high streets of this great country, we would find ordinary people will immediate react if you ask them the question, we stand with Ukraine. Why? Because they know what it is all about. History here tells us what happens when countries fall. They do not rise again unless somebody else can rescue them. And there is nobody to rescue those countries like Ukraine if it is not us. After all our experiences of the Second World War and all of our determination to try and make sure that brutal war never takes place again, it's happening now.

And I have to remind the US in all of this that they are in fact, if not guarantors, certainly under the Budapest Memorandum, they have an obligation to Ukraine. It's not something they can sweep aside because these obligations were made mostly because they gave up their nuclear weapons. I wonder if he would have invaded them if they had kept their nuclear weapons. We Ukraine, I think, was misled by the West. We said we would stand by them and away went their nuclear weapons.

And then, of course, Putin eventually decides piecemeal to invade them. First of all, as we know, he invades them part of the territory, then he invades fully later on. Apart from the fact that the. My hon. Friend is quite right that the the Russians have been singularly appalling in the way that they have both behaved, and also incredibly poor in terms of their military activity. But that notwithstanding, they would never have done this, I believe, if Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons and that would have been their major line of defence.

So having travelled many times to Ukraine to visit the charities and others, and spoken to many Ministers in in Kyiv about the difficulties and the problems, even in Kharkiv, not long after they had driven the Russians back. There are huge. When you go to Kharkiv and the other deputy speaker was with me as well, you see the devastation and how quickly it's repaired by the Ukrainians is another marvel. Many buildings that I first saw that had been literally shot out, blown apart, people had died there within the next time I went to see them, which was a year later, these were back up and standing.

I mean, it is a phenomenal testimony to the capability of Ukrainians. Despite this terrible war to we continue to recognise they have to keep on making efforts to live as normal a life as they and as normal as life as they possibly can. President Zelenskyy has rightly become the signal and the character of that defence. I know there has been a difficult relationship with the White House over his desire to wear fatigues, which strikes me as a rather petty point, but nevertheless it no matter how big they are, some people can be incredibly petty.

I must say, though, his whole character, his responsibility, his defiance in staying in Kyiv when Russia attacked, in their determination to find him and kill him, shows the courage of the Ukrainians embodied in one man. And I think we need to support him in difficult times. And Ukraine is not perfect. We know that. Which country can actually put their hand on their hearts and say they have never had corruption, and which countries that have come out of the Soviet Union and struggled have not struggled with corruption, because the only way you could exist in a Soviet country was corruption, because that's the way you got things done, because it was so bureaucratic and hopeless and people weren't properly paid, and they're trying to get on top of that, and they want to be a democracy, and they want to have freedom, and they want to have human rights.

And this is a country. Therefore, even if nothing else had happened, surely it should have been our responsibility to stand by them in their attempt to get this done. You only have to go back 150 years here in this country, and we were riddled with corruption, and we change the way that we ran things, and we changed the civil service code and we changed payments, and we got on top of it for the most part. And therefore, when we talk about lack of corruption, it comes after a number of years of hardship previously, many, many years ago in our history.

And I think, therefore, that who complain about this and point the finger, should point the finger at themselves, because it is a misunderstanding of history and our obligation to people who wish to be free, and who will one day, I believe, be utterly free if we stand with them. I also refer to the war crimes that Russia has engaged in. Appalling. And when you go to the battlefield, you will see what they've been doing. They deliberately target civilians, they target them so that the military will come and try and help them, and then they get a bigger target.

Right now, the the whole nature of warfare has been turned on its head in Ukraine. As a soldier told me the other day, he'd had his leg blown off. He said there is no such safe space behind the front line that there always was before. You have to go miles back before you can even begin to think of putting fly all day and all night, and what they do is they they hit one soldier and they, they, they literally lay them out, dead or alive.

But as the others run to him, they come down, rain down on them with their explosives. That is why they have so many. They have over 50,000 people in Ukraine today who have been serving the front line, who need prosthetics. 50,000 people in Ukraine today need prosthetics, and they have the most advanced prosthetics laboratories. Now that I have ever seen, they could teach us a thing or two, because the whole problem about the tourniquet now, because you cannot release the tourniquet, because you cannot get to the wounded soldier that lies on the ground, because you know what will happen if you go to them.

So they lie for often an hour or more with a tourniquet destroying their arm, even though it may be saving their life, it's destroying the rest of the arm. And so you end up terrible prosthetics requirements into their shoulder blades. And yet do they moan and complain about this? No, they do not. They actually sit down and work out the way to solve it. We have a lot to learn from them. We have a lot to learn from them on the battlefield, over the way that they counter those drones.

They are way ahead of us and I hope the MoD realises that it's not us that can teach them a lesson. It is them that teach us. I spent time trying to bring companies over from Ukraine here to give us that technology, technology on drones, on all these other areas that I think we should we should learn from them. And the other point I want to learn, because we just seem to talk about Ukraine as though they were capable of very little themselves. They had no manufacturing capability worth talking about, of defence.

Today they manufacture over 50% of their own defence needs. They do it unbelievably efficiently and they do it under fire from Russia on a regular basis. I visited companies in Ukraine where, you know, half of the place gets blown up and with about four days they are back manufacturing and fixing things, things that we used to do when we were in the Second World War, when we were bombarded, they show the same resilience, the same application and the same flexibility. So of course we must stand with them.

We stand with them because of what they want to be, and we stand with them because it is our responsibility to defend those who seek freedom and democracy as their cause. That is it. It is as simple as that. And the UK has been the most united over this, and I applaud colleagues around the House because we've all stood together in this and it's very noticeable when you talk to Ukrainians, they will always raise But the other point, and I will finish very shortly with this is the problem for us, is that we have failed really to settle the sanctions responsibility we have to the degree that we should have done.

There are huge problems over the shadow fleet that was mentioned before and over individual sanctions, which we should have been using on a number of occasions. It's remarkable, actually, when you think about it. But in the area of the one thing that we had complete control over, which was the sale of the Chelsea Football Club, £2.5 billion now sits and has sat for three years because we defined the ability to use that so poorly at the time, that there is now a dispute as to whether Abramovich is own.

Companies have a right to use the money or whether we can seize this. We have to deal with this. If we can't deal with that one issue, it shows how bad it's going to be for us in seeking reparations across the board. And so I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed. Do we think that Russia, for a moment would, would pause from seizing any assets it could to fund the conflict itself? And yet they the conflict itself? And yet they use the rule of law against us, despite the fact that they have no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

despite the fact that they have no themselves. It is, of course, the fact that we do stand by the rule of law and we do stand by the rule of law and that we teach others by that. But there is a reality. And I was just going to come to this, that all of this problem could be resolved if we had a greater resolve in the government. And I by the way, this is not a criticism of this government. It's a criticism as well of the previous government, the resolve of the Foreign Office and the Treasury to leave no stone unturned and resolve this matter and seize the money, the will, the will, the will is not in existence.

So I just want to conclude, I'm Deputy Speaker for this important debate and simply say that Ukraine should not be written off. It is not an issue of whether Ukraine has to deal now because they cannot win. Winning for Ukraine is getting back their land, their rights and their country. It is written into the constitution in Ukraine that the land that Russia occupies is theirs. In the Constitution, people talk glibly about handing over territory as a way of resolving this. This would only leave, as we said previously, to Russia, moving again within a matter of months or years and seizing the rest of Ukraine.

He does not care about territory. He cares about Ukraine. He believes Ukraine should be a part of Russia and he will never stop. And every weakness that we show in agreeing to some stupid 28 point plan that would sell them down the river and know that Putin would come back and we'll walk away and say, well, we did our best. That is not good enough. And so I urge the House, I urge the Minister, when he responds, to make it absolutely clear that we do not agree with any of that 28 point plan that would sell territory for peace, for it would not be a peace, it would be a short term aberration of responsibility millions.
15:17
Nia Griffith Portrait Dame Nia Griffith MP (Llanelli, Labour)
-
-
Yes, yes, yes. >> Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, first of all, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex Member for Harwich and North Essex for a fantastic speech and for taking the initiative to get the backbench committee to agree to backbench committee to agree to this debate. And it is good to see the strong cross-party support continuing. And I do appreciate the support that our UK government has given and continues to give Ukraine. But we are now at an absolutely critical time for Ukraine.

It is vital that we continue and we intensify our support for Ukraine, because Putin cannot be allowed to get away with this illegal invasion of Ukraine and his evil programme of seeking to eliminate Ukrainian identity altogether, a strong show of Western solidarity and support for Ukraine is absolutely essential, not just for Ukraine's sake, to restore peace to Ukraine, but to deter Putin from further aggression, which ultimately affects the security of the whole of Western Europe. As hon. Members have referenced today, it is not just those countries closest to Russia that are affected.

We have already numerous Russian provoked incidents across Europe involving a range of hybrid warfare techniques. Now, I do applaud my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, for his efforts in setting up the coalition of the willing and encouraging support for Ukraine, but I would be grateful if the Minister could address some very specific issues. First and foremost, the issue of finance, because current, current external funding for Ukraine is only secured up until the 1st of March 2025. There is real concern about the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the EU's ability to issue guarantees backed by frozen Russian assets, most of which are located in Belgium, making it extremely difficult for Ukraine's military and political planning.

So it would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten us about what contingency measures are being developed to mitigate a potential funding gap. How might the United Kingdom contribute more actively, particularly given the 25 billion in frozen Russian assets, as reported in the annual review by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? And if the guarantees are not approved in time and if the financial situation is not resolved, how would the Minister anticipate Ukraine's strategy would need to evolve? In the meantime, whilst Ukraine is facing uncertainty about future funding, Russia, as many members have referenced, continues to find ways around sanctions.

As just one example Ukraine's military intelligence. The recently published a detailed breakdown of the industrial network behind Russias iskander-m ballistic missiles, and noted that 13 of the 49 companies involved in the Iskander supply chain are not currently sanctioned, even though they are directly contributing to the production of weapons which are being used against civilian targets in Ukraine. And once the components reach Russia, where do they go next? Well, Ukraines intelligence service has highlighted that Moscow has already helped North Korea upgrade its Cayenne 23 and 24 missile systems.

Now, I appreciate the UK has already done a lot to strengthen sanctions, but in the light of the examples like the one I have just mentioned and the use of the shadow fleet and third parties as described by my hon. Friend for Leeds Central and Headingley, I would like to ask the Minister to look at what more we can do to stop sanctions being flouted, and to work with allies to make sanctions as effective as possible, because strengthening sanctions is a key way of helping Ukraine, especially as financial pressure remains a core pillar of Ukraine's resilience strategy.

Continuing on the issue of resources, it is very worrying that Italy has announced a temporary suspension of its participation in NATO's Pearl Pearl program for procuring US weapons for Ukraine, according to the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, this pause is linked to ongoing peace discussions and the premise that in the event of a ceasefire, security guarantees, not weapons, will become the central requirement. But this announcement creates yet more uncertainty for Ukraine and obviously has serious implications for allied burden sharing within Pearl.

So I would like to ask the Minister what assurances he can give about the UK support for the Pearl programme to support Ukraine, and what contingency plans there are to make up for any shortfall caused if the Italian withdrawal from the programme becomes more permanent. And I would like to move on to security guarantees. As Zaluzhnyi, who is writing in the Telegraph recently, the former commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, said in his article We Ukrainians strive for a complete victory, but we cannot reject the option of a long term end to the war.

But all this is impossible without effective security guarantees. He goes on to say such security guarantees could include Ukraine's accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, or the deployment of a large allied military force. So again, I would like to ask the Minister, what is the current UK thinking about the scale of the security guarantees that would be needed to give Ukraine the security that it would need in any form of peace? And as we know, there are many, many, many aspects to the Ukrainians resilience.

And this is something that we were witness to when we went on a recent visit to Ukraine. Of course, we've all heard about the appalling suffering on the front line and the terrible plight of those living under Russian occupation. But the impact on the rest of the country is, of course, enormous. There are so many challenges that the Ukrainians are tackling, such as the damage done by the drone attacks night after night, both to buildings but also to morale, dealing with the internal displacement of people.

We visited the town of Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea. They were welcoming 17,000 internally displaced Ukrainians. They were welcoming businesses and factories, re-establishing themselves in Vinnytsia and a university that had moved En bloc to Vinnytsia from the occupied area. The challenge of getting online Ukrainian education through to children in those occupied areas, the challenge faced by those seriously injured soldiers, as indeed the hon. Member for Chingford has just referenced, who are picking up their lives again and again, showing huge resilience as so many Ukrainians have done, the challenge of getting the stolen children back, the ingenuity in developing drones, automated vehicles and anti-drone technology, the rehousing projects and the challenges of attracting foreign investment with the challenges of getting appropriate insurance.

And again, I would like to know what further help the UK government can give in that respect. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are the very specific challenges that I would like to hear answers from, from the Minister. And I think we all agree that we really do need to support Ukraine now before it is far too late.
15:24
Angus MacDonald Portrait Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Mr. MacDonald. >> Mr. MacDonald. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you very much for bringing this subject to the House, bringing this subject to the House, a very important subject. My hon. Friend, it is very disappointing to me that this room is not full and me that this room is not full and that we don't have the Prime Minister sitting there. I cannot think of a more important subject for us to be debating in the United Kingdom. The the almost certain outbreak of war, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm very sorry that the Member for Chingford, for Clacton rather, is not here to tell us his view on Russia. I think we'd all be very interested in what he had to say. Ukraine is defending the Western world against Russia. There's no doubt about that. The Baltic states, Finland, Moldova, Poland, Estonia, they're all building up their military forces, and they're expecting that Putin has territorial ambitions in the land to. In the meantime, all over Europe, Russia is conducting sabotage, rogue drone flights, turning anchors over our power lines and data links, cyber attacks, exploding packages and courier flights, and even assassinations in the UK.

In the previous government, even Boris Johnson was much more supportive in his response than our current government. France and Germany are very much leading the way now, with Britain timidly following on. The Chancellor raised 28 billion in his recent Budget and 40 billion this time last year. Yet we have a target of increased defence spending from a very modest 2.4% of GDP to only 2.5% by 2026. Whether our Prime Minister or Chancellor will admit it, we are at war with Russia already.

Surely this Budget would have been the perfect time to announce a substantial new contribution to Ukraine, to help them fund the defence of Western Europe. Why is our Prime Minister being so timid in his support for Ukraine? Is he still hoping that President Trump will stop his flip flopping and actually firmly support Ukraine? Is he not upset that the United States no longer donates arms to help Ukraine, but to set himself the arms to Europe? Just yesterday, Trump boasted that Ukraine is forced to pay top dollar for weapons to give to Ukraine.

This is war profiteering. Does our does our Prime Minister read the Wall Street Journal, where he will have read a detailed report on Steve Witkoff and Trump's own son in law, Jared Kushner, meeting the Russians to carve out multi-billion dollar deals for the benefit of themselves and major American companies. Donald Trump has declared, we know this is not about peace. It's about business. Did the Prime Minister receive Steve Bannon stating that Russia was America's true ally in World War Two, and they should be allies again? Did he read the press yesterday with the German general, Christian Tooting, saying that he no longer has peer group contact with us general, and that channel has been cut off, really cut off.

My mother is American from a long line of Republican supporters. She is appalled that the party of Reagan and George Bush have decided to ally themselves with Russia, rather than with their traditional allies of Britain, Germany, Canada, Japan and the many other old friends. I appeal to our Prime Minister to grow a bit of backbone. The Trump side firmly with the European nations, and once more ensure that Britain is the leader of the world's civilised countries in supporting Ukraine. Thank you, Sir Tim Roca.
15:28
Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca MP (Macclesfield, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my commendation to the hon. Member for securing the debate hon. Member for securing the debate today, an important debate, and also hearing the right hon. Member for Chingford, speaking earlier, as for Chingford, speaking earlier, as reminded me of our trip to Ukraine earlier in the year. Thinking of surreal moments. It can't be more surreal than being on a road outside Kharkiv watching The right hon. Member try and fix a car that wasn't working properly.

In recent weeks, it's become painfully clear that many of us underestimated the sophistication and intent behind the Trump administration's manoeuvres regarding Ukraine, Europe and Russia. What at first seemed like a genuine pivot towards supporting Ukraine now appears, in retrospect, to have been a carefully orchestrated performance designed to protect Russian assets, pave the way for future business dealings, and shape a narrative in which Ukraine's defeat was treated as inevitable. At the heart of this strategy lies the $300 billion of Russian assets that hon.

Members have mentioned repeatedly this afternoon for many years, including in this place. We've debated whether those assets should be used to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild. But we now know from reports that US officials have been placing intense pressure on European governments to leave those assets untouched, and indeed insisting that it's their view that they be returned to Russia after any peace deal, while feigning for months a willingness to ramp up support for Ukraine. Now, that illusion was crucial because the more Europeans believed that Washington might still back Ukraine, the less likely European governments were to take unilateral steps, including seizing or repurposing these Russian assets.

It was a calculated sleight of hand, and it succeeded. And even now, European leaders remain hesitant. Whilst I believe Washington has now made its position unmistakeably clear that Ukraine is expected to accept a settlement that has been shaped by Russian interests, because ultimately, I believe it's Trump's assessment that Russia will ultimately prevail. And so I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to face the facts, the September October pivot when Trump and Vance claimed Russia was losing and Ukraine could win, was most likely theatre.

Trump has always accepted the Russian narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat, and once the pretence ended, US officials made their message clear to the Ukrainians except a deal now or face a worse one later. Russia can fight indefinitely. Ukraine cannot. And in my view, this is not diplomacy. It's coercive pressure on Ukraine. And it carries an unmistakeable message that the United States administration is now structuring its policy around the assumption of a Russian victory. In the long term, many of us will be incredibly worried that Trump will pressure Ukraine into giving up territory and ultimately fail to give any meaningful security guarantees.

It is for Ukrainians who have paid a price in blood to decide for themselves what price they are prepared to pay for peace. So what does this mean for Europe and for Britain? First, it means that we must accept the truth that if Ukraine is to resist Russian maximalist aims, we must step up now. Not in six months or in two years. It means that the fate of Russian sovereign assets is not a technical financial matter. It's a strategic one. And that every delay, every hesitation, every concession on this issue weakens Ukraine and emboldens the Kremlin.

And third, it means we must recognise that 2026 will likely be the decisive year in this war. Yes, Russia faces a mounting economic difficulties, fuel shortages, internal discontent and the Kremlin still insists on its war aims. But its capacity to sustain the war is not limitless, and a sense of futility in Moscow is a necessary condition for peace. And so Ukraine's ability to hold the line, supported through European unity, is central to bringing that moment closer. But I don't think we've touched on it this afternoon.

Ukrainian resilience is not endless either. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of desertion, a stark measure of exhaustion eroding morale amongst frontline soldiers. Many units are understrength, increasingly reliant on poorly trained conscripts rather than experienced volunteers. Some brigades operate without adequate rest, rotation or munitions. Commanders describe troops who are physically depleted, mentally exhausted, and losing confidence in the strategic direction of the war. The result is a brittle front unit stretched to breaking point, lacking resilience and vulnerable to sudden local collapses without substantial support.

I really do worry that the Ukrainian military could face a cascading breakdown as Russia continues to pile on the pressure, and the strain on Ukraine's civilian population is equally acute. After three years of missile and drone attacks, millions of Ukrainians endure repeated power outages, damaged infrastructure, deep psychological trauma, limited access to heating, electricity, clean water. Mental health support has deteriorated sharply, especially as winter approaches. Displaced families have exhausted their savings, livelihoods have vanished and the cumulative stress of air raids mourning for the dead and uncertainty has driven a marked rise in depression, anxiety and long term trauma.

Communities live in a cycle of destruction, partial recovery, eroding resilience with each passing month and Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we should be clear eyed about our own position. We had warning after warning, but never did enough. The invasion of Georgia in 2008. The annexation of Crimea in 2014. The full scale invasion was several years ago, and still we didn't ramp up defence spending. The British armed forces have experienced years of hollowing out cuts to troop numbers. Chronic underinvestment.

Only now are we finally beginning to reverse some of this decline. But can we honestly say the pace is adequate to the threat that we face?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker I was just struck by what he was saying about probably eight years ago. It was probably eight years ago. It was during Trump won. I was in the United States with a group of United States with a group of Latvian MEPs. I remember being kind of bemused by how often the Latvians wanted to turn whatever Latvians wanted to turn whatever discussion we were having to, to defence, and to some extent it was kind of annoying me by the end of kind of annoying me by the end of it.

But now I realised I was completely and utterly wrong and actually they knew what they were doing and I didn't in that instance. But would you agree with me that actually we need to sell this concept of a peace dividend, which I was really sold on, but actually didn't exist at that moment, because you have to invest first in order to get that in the long term. And what we're really looking for is peace in Europe long term. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

once again, we genuinely do get a peace dividend. Thank you. I completely agree with my hon. Friend. And I think actually the hon. Member for actually the hon. Member for Harwich raised this earlier that it's actually the Baltic countries, Poland, Finland, those who've had Poland, Finland, those who've had direct experience of Russian aggression that are most clear eyed about the Russian threat. And we about the Russian threat. And we don't want a sort of wishy washy peace that doesn't deliver genuine security.

There has to be genuine security. There has to be genuine security at the basis of it. And and that brings me to the to the point that we shouldn't dodge here, and which I think we've touched on already, which is as we build a coalition of the willing and we potentially, in a peace agreement, may be asked to agree to put British troops on the ground to contribute towards maintaining ceasefire lines or deter Russian aggression. We have to be honest about where the British public is at, and I'm not convinced the British public is yet psychologically in the place where it needs to be for that commitment.

And I think we all have a duty to contribute to that understanding of the threat that Russia faces to our security here at home, to speak honestly with the country about the risks we face, the commitments we might be asked to make, and about the moral and strategic imperative of ensuring that Russian aggression doesn't succeed. Because if Ukraine falls or is coerced into a settlement that gives the Kremlin what it could not win on the battlefield, Europe will not be safer.

And the central truth, I think, revealed in recent months, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that Ukrainian resilience is not infinite. Their morale depends on them knowing that the world has not forgotten them. Every air defence system, every shell, every economic sanctions on Russia and measure to support them and their statehood matters not just materially, but psychologically and every equivocation, every delay, every wavering signal emboldens Putin and his gang of thugs. We're clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom, but for the principle that aggression should not be rewarded.

And I believe people in this House agree with those principles, and we have to act therefore with urgency, clarity and resolve. And I think there's been two references by hon. Members this afternoon to to Munich. We're 87 years on from what was described as an unmitigated, unmitigated, total and unmitigated defeat. And today, I do worry that the Trump administration's push for peace, shaped by Putin's interests, risks the same mistake pressuring Ukraine to accept a settlement that serves the aggressor rather than justice or security.

So let's be clear in this place that we stand with Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and its security, because we do not want to repeat the errors of the past.
15:37
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Helen Maguire Madam Deputy Speaker and I congratulate the hon. Speaker and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex for securing this debate and setting out so many key points in setting out so many key points in his opening speech. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's been 1379 days since Russia launched its full scale invasion in Ukraine. 1379 days of Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, 1379 days of Ukrainians forced from their homes, 1379 days of Ukrainians fighting for their country and for Europe.

As we stand in this House and debate today, this devastating war continues. The UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine has reported the total civilian casualties from January to October 2025, or 27% higher than during the same period last year. The number of casualties for the first ten months of 2025 has already exceeded the total for all of 2024, since the full scale invasion began in 2022, there have been over 53,000 civilian casualties and 14,500 deaths. Alongside civilians. There are around 400,000 Ukrainian and over 1 million Russian military casualties.

A complete loss of human life. Madam Deputy Speaker, I begin with these horrific statistics not to overwhelm this House with numbers, but to confront us with the brutal reality they represent. Each figure we cite serves a purpose. They help us understand the scale of the suffering in Ukraine, the enormity of what is at stake. But we must never let statistics blind us to the truth behind them, because these are people, people like us, parents trying to protect their children, elderly, refusing to abandon their homes.

They built young people who only ever asked for the chance to live in peace, lives full of hope and routine, interrupted and devastated by barbaric war. They did not choose. Yet they fight. So as we consider these numbers today, let us remember the Ukrainians whose stories we cannot fully capture, and let that guide the seriousness of our debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not only an assault on a sovereign nation, it is an assault on democracy itself and a flagrant violation of international law.

Yet despite this brutal aggression, I know Ukraine remains unyielding in its fight for freedom. When I visited Ukraine in October, I witnessed the resilience of a nation at war. I was told that just hours after bombs tear through towns and cities, shattered buildings are boarded up, not simply to hide the destruction, but so that children, families and ordinary citizens can wake the next morning and try as best they can to live their lives striving for normality in the shadow of war. Madam Deputy Speaker, every day the world is witness to military vehicles rolling through towns and cities, missiles striking innocent civilians and drones patrolling the skies with the intent to kill both military and civilian personnel.

This is a war without morality, driven not by principle, but by hunger for territory and the attempted annihilation of Ukrainian identity. Amid the rubble, the grief and the dust lies another silent and enduring threat. When I was in Ukraine, I saw firsthand the immense challenge of explosive ordnance contamination. Ukraine is now the most heavily contaminated country on Earth, with 139,000km² polluted by unexploded ordnance. This is a nation that once fed much of Europe. Before 2022, 71% of Ukraine's land was agricultural and more than half of it arable, the highest proportion of any European country.

But today farmers cannot work their land. Their fields, once the breadbasket of Europe, have become battlefields. And in one extreme case, I learned of a farmer going out to farm his land in the tractor while his son was on the lookout at the side, shooting down drones to protect him. Fathers are so desperate to reclaim their livelihoods, they try to clear the land themselves with horrific consequences and children, tragically unaware, pick up unexploded ordnance, believing them to be toys. Save the Children's recent blast injury report cites that more than 3000 children have been killed or injured by explosive weapons in Ukraine since 2022, with a number of children maimed surging by 70% in just one year, from 339 in 20 3 to 570 7 in 24.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there can be no greater tragedy and no greater moral failing than a war in which innocent and vulnerable our children become its casualties. Madam Deputy Speaker, the cost of explosive ordnance is not only human. A joint report by Ukraine's Ministry of Economy and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change estimates that landmine contamination is costing Ukraine an estimated 11.2 billion USD annually, equivalent to 5.6% of its pre-war GDP. And what further exacerbates this issue is Russia's errant use of anti-personnel mines.

Human Rights Watch reported that Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of anti-personnel mines since its full scale invasion of Ukraine began in Ukraine. I was shown the Pom three. This device is barbaric. Once delivered and deployed, the mine operates on the seismic principle, which means once it detects a human footstep, it will detonate. These mines can't tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and Russia don't intend them to. Madam Deputy Speaker, innocent civilians are at risk from mines.

They can't even see the Ottawa Treaty, which Russia is not party to, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons and requires action to be taken to prevent and address their long term effects. In recent months, five European states have formally withdrawn from the convention entirely, and in July Ukraine communicated its intention to a suspension. Countries including Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have formally objected to this suspension, while others are still considering such steps. This risk seriously undermining the convention's object and purpose, as well as broader international humanitarian law instruments, by suggesting states can opt out of humanitarian obligations during war.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand unequivocally with Ukraine and I recognise there are no easy decisions when states confront the terrible reality of war. But I remain deeply concerned that any step away from international conventions risks further harm to civilians. And, as Mine Action Group themselves have warned, international humanitarian law like the Ottawa Treaty, is designed precisely for times like these. International law is not a luxury for peace. It is the foundation of humanity. Amid conflict, the UK must lead in its commitment to international law and uphold the standards the world will depend on in future conflicts.

Madam Deputy Speaker, alongside sustained international pressure, we must also look to our own responsibilities with Global Mine Action Programme funding due to end in 2026, the government should commit to allocating a proportion of the UK's demining assistance through the MoD Budget and recognise eligible mine action activity as contributing towards relevant defence spending targets. Given the ever dwindling humanitarian funds within the FCDO, utilising the MoD Budget would safeguard continuity beyond 2026 and maintain the operational tempo necessary to confront the largest explosive ordnance contamination Europe has faced since the Second World War, and I hope the Minister will address this later.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Surrey stands with Ukraine is an amazing charity in my constituency. This charity provides medical aid and supports physical and mental rehabilitation for Ukrainians. They've told me about the urgent need for a register of trusted UK Ukrainian humanitarian aid organisations to enable instant credibility as an organisation that has received medical kit from government organisations and private companies. But being on a trusted list would empower more businesses to come forward and support their work. So far, they've shipped an incredible 168 vans, obeyed 4 million in medical aid and a long reach ladder fire engine called Dina, and 250 generators to communities in Ukraine.

Anything this government can do to empower businesses to offer support and individuals to donate would make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people affected by this war. Madam Deputy Speaker, while we wait for the bated breath with bated breath for peace plan that delivers for Ukraine, this government must continue to support Ukrainians. The proposed Ukraine UK health collaboration would help vital services such as Superhumans Clinic, which offers free prosthetics and reconstruction to children, civilians and military personnel affected by this conflict.

When I was in Ukraine, I met Zakhar Belikov, a former member of the Ukrainian Special Forces. Zakhar had been warning civilians to stay away from mined areas when his helicopter came under fire. He lost both his legs and arm and suffered severe facial injuries. Zakhar dedicates his time to supporting new IPS who are arriving at the clinic, telling them that everything will be okay. His hope, his courage, his optimism, his refusal to be broken and his will to never give in to the Russians is something I will never forget.

He left a deep impression on all of us who met him. The health partnership would also deliver experience, knowledge, relationships and greatly support UK conflict preparedness and NHS resilience to related shocks and mass casualty incidents. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive across Europe and even more bold in their quest for knowledge. The former leader of Reform Wales was recently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

jailed for accepting bribes to help Sure. Yeah. Thank you for giving us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you for giving us and I thank the hon. Member for giving way. And that. Former leader. Of reform UK was a constituent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of reform UK was a constituent of mine, and we have been calling on the Prime Minister for an independent review and an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigation into Russian interference into our democracy. Do wholeheartedly. Agree with that. And thank her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree with that. And thank her for intervening on this really important point, because in 2020, delayed report into Russian interference in the UK led to the Foreign Secretary to tell the House that is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked government documents. This trend of Russian interference is only increasing. Yesterday, as reading a report from Globsec on how Russia is using criminality as a tool of hybrid warfare in Europe.

And if members haven't already read this, then I urge you to do so. The brazen and dangerous act from the endangered the lives of RAF pilots and shows the lengths to which Putin will go to to ascertain his military power and undermine Britain's defence. Tomorrow is too late. Today. This government must act further. It must stand up to Putins belligerence and seize a £30 million in frozen Russian assets across the UK and funnel them to Ukraine's defence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the highest hopes for a peace deal, but I am concerned about Trump's deal.

The president is treating this deal as if it's a business transaction, throwing out the international diplomacy rulebook and ignoring history. Trump's plans would displace thousands, rip territory from Ukraine and weaken Ukraine's military capability. With Putin rejecting the latest peace proposal, the stakes are even higher now than ever before. There can be no deal that impedes on Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia lined up its troops at the border and launched an illegal invasion. There was no provocation by Ukraine.

The UK must lead in its robust defence for Ukraine. In any peace plan that now occurs, a peace plan for Ukraine cannot weaken its defence capabilities, and wrapping up a peace plan for Ukraine cannot cede territory to Russia. A peace plan for Ukraine cannot refuse NATO membership for Ukraine. Putin has already said he's ready for war with Europe. And as we speak, Russia is provoking a maritime ships, attacking our cybersecurity and destroying undersea cables. Ukraine has already experienced what happens when it is weakened, when it's forced to give up its nuclear weapons.

Let's ensure this doesn't happen again. Madam Deputy Speaker, it may have been 1379 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, but it's also 1379 days of solidarity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.
15:48
Julian Lewis Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
Sir. Julian Lewis. >> And one of the advantages of being called at a late stage of the debate is that I can put my hand on my heart and truthfully say that every single speech in this debate so far has been outstandingly good. so far has been outstandingly good. I've agreed with virtually every word of every one of them, and looking at the calibre of the remaining people, including all three representatives on the front bench, I have every confidence that that standard will be maintained to the end.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, a former occupant of your chair used to give courses in good public speaking techniques. And what he always said was that if you wished your speech to have any useful impact after the event, it should not contain more than one or at most, and that stretching it to key points. So here is my one key point, and I'm delighted to say that it's been touched upon by, amongst others, the hon. Lady for Llanelli very effectively, and that is this any settlement that does not have a military presence on the ground of unoccupied Ukraine, that is from the country or countries offering a security guarantee, will be a disaster.

And I ask you to consider, for example, Europe at the end of the Second World War, where the tripartite alliance had largely broken down and Stalin was in occupation of Eastern Europe, and, of course, the eastern half of Germany, which his troops had conquered. And the West was in occupation. In the case of West Germany, certainly literally in occupation of the remainder of the European continent. Now, what would have happened, knowing what we know now about the nature of Soviet communism, if instead of the victorious Western allies maintaining a very large military presence in occupied western Germany, they had said, right, we're going to demilitarise this, we're going to clear out, but we're going to give some security guarantees to the West German politicians who will follow on that.

If any trouble happens, we'll stand by them. The only thing that stopped a conflict breaking out between the Soviet occupying forces and the Western world was the fact that right up against the dividing line between Soviet dominated eastern Germany and the rest of Germany, there were Western Allied troops, and it would be impossible for the Soviet forces to move against those troops without immediately, or to move against West Germany without immediately triggering a major military counter-action.

Now, I've often said previously, and I make no apology for saying again, that it's worth looking at the two halves of the 20th century. In the first half of the 20th century, we had two global conflicts, two world wars. In the second half of the 20th century, despite the intense ideological and indeed military rivalry between the communist world and the democratic Western world, we had no global conflict, we had no Third World War. And I put that down to two factors.

One factor was unprecedented, namely the nuclear balance of terror. But that was not enough to stop all forms of conflict, because it is possible for conventional conflicts to go ahead under the threshold of the nuclear balance without necessarily triggering Armageddon. That's why you have to have strong conventional deterrent forces, too. So what was the other factor in preventing the Cold War becoming the Third World War? And it's quite clear it was the most successful alliance in history. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

And it grieves me to say that thanks to some of the occupants of high office in our allied United States capital at the moment, and I mean capital with an A at the end, not an O, thanks to that, the future of the NATO alliance and therefore the future, frankly, of world peace is hanging by a thread here. It was the chief staff officer and the representative on the wartime Chiefs of Staff Committee of Winston Churchill, General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became the first Secretary general of NATO.

And he is credited with having made the rather pithy but nevertheless very accurate observation that the purpose of the Alliance at the time that it was founded was threefold to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down. Now, that third element, fortunately became redundant as West Germany developed into a democracy so quickly, in fact, that in May 1955, ten years virtually to the day from the surrender on Lüneburg Heath of the Nazis to General Montgomery, Germany itself was admitted to the NATO alliance.

Now I ask people again to take another counterfactual look at history. If the Kaiser had known in 1914 that if he invaded neutral Belgium, he would immediately have been at war with the United States of America? Would he have done it? I think the answer is no. If Hitler had known in 1939 that if he invaded Poland, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? And I think the answer very probably is no to that as well.

And therefore, the secret to keeping the peace in the world is to keep America engaged with the security of Europe. Now, America is going through a phase at the moment, which seems to be hinged on a number of individual personalities who hold power in that great democracy, with the approval, apparently, of a majority of the electorate, where that commitment of America to European and thus world security is in doubt. I say that this is the chance for Europeans, whether inside the EU or like us outside the EU, to show that we can do our bit.

We have to keep the show on the road until America once again stands up for the policy of the second half of the 20th century, which stopped the Third World War, rather than reverting to its policies in the first half of the 20th century of isolationism and standing by, which caused two global conflicts that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could themselves have been prevented. Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to speak in this debate. And can I first of all this debate. And can I first of all congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and and North Essex for setting the scene incredibly well and and like the hon. Member, spoke beforehand, all the speeches have been incredible and the ones that will follow will be equally good as will follow will be equally good as they are ones. And we're here for a purpose.

It's been good to hear the comments of other members this far. We're almost four years into the war in Ukraine and continue to hear of the devastation impacting people in Ukraine. I want to focus today on one specific issue. We're very aware of the devastation. I want to speak about those people who Russian soldiers who have carried out atrocities and accountability. As for their war crimes that I want to speak on, I said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex yesterday when I was talking to him, that that would be my subject matter for today as well.

And it's a reminder of the vicious attacks that the people of Ukraine have been subject to, and how this government, in conjunction with the US, must do more to seek peace and support those most in need. I don't doubt whatsoever, Madam Speaker, the commitment of the of our government and our Prime Minister and and the Labour Party, that's never in doubt, never in doubt. And this House is united in support of Ukraine. I think back to 2022 and the earliest months after the war started.

I remember the efforts of of everybody's constituency when it came to, to filling bags and bags of clothes and blankets, hot scarfs, wash items, etc. etc. to be sent to Ukraine. I remember well, Madam Chair, the the efforts of all the churches collectively as well, to ensure that they, when they organise their lorries worth of donations to support the people of Ukraine after the attacks inflicted by Russia. Those of us are those who lost their homes, their workplaces and their livelihoods, and the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Poland for some sort of safety.

I had an opportunity one time to go and meet some of them. And the desperation, the loneliness and the desolation of the of the those who were displaced, I think was something I remember many, many times, the pictures and the videos that were released of the attacks were heartbreaking. And I, for one, won't forget those. I don't think anyone will. I remember one of the attacks early on when the the the. The the column of, of armour and transport going towards Kyiv was held up on the road and it was a US in Northern Ireland.

And I know the Minister knows it well, for he's been there so many times. Let's say nylons, a the shoulder held weapons, those are the ones that held up the advance of the Russians. So, so this, this country, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have already committed themselves in many ways to to do that. And the extra money given by government to the defence sector has enabled 200 more jobs to happen in Northern Ireland, in the defence sector in especially.

But I just want to mention about about crimes against those and I remember the story where as the Russians advanced, they came upon a forest house. They they shot the husband who was trying to make sure nothing would happen to his wife. And then they violated her. And the wee boy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stockton West it all. Is typically giving a very impassioned speech. And I think impassioned speech. And I think that the point he's getting to is, is about the horrific nature of the is about the horrific nature of the aggression against Ukrainian children by Russia. And this is something that we've seen in many something that we've seen in many different ways. We literally last week had a screening of We Are Home, showing Ukraine to remember to be displaced within Ukraine, having to leave their homes because of the Russians.

We all know about the Russians abducting Ukrainian children. Does he agree with me that we need to see the strongest possible action on returning those children from Russia, and in terms of prosecuting people in the international courts?
16:01
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
For for his intervention? Yes, I >> For for his intervention? Yes, I do very much believe that the need for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is not here. I wish it was here is not here. I wish it was here because she's been a valiant speaker in this House for to bring back the 30,000 children who were kidnapped and and some of them in Russian, and there Roz Savage them. They're trying to make them Russians and then have them fight for Russia against Ukraine.

It's obscene. It really does bother me greatly. I the reason why that case is I have no idea what the person's name was or the family. But I remember the case, incidentally, and I was just thinking of that wee boy who whose mother was being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

violated and and her screams. Bootle North Antrim Gedling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bootle North Antrim Gedling. I'm very grateful to the hon. Gentleman he mentioned just before the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, and she was good enough to organise an extraordinary enough to organise an extraordinary showing of a film recently called children of the fire in one of the upstairs committee rooms here that upstairs committee rooms here that explained in detail and through very personal stories, the devastation that children have faced during this, this conflict. And we had the privilege of meeting some of the children, some of whom had been previously abducted and had been previously abducted and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And we all appreciate and understand that that that horror that children have to endure. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, he and I were one of the first in the house to wear of the first in the house to wear the Ukraine ribbon, which I've worn every day since, by the way, and I'll wear it until the war is over and I may even wear it beyond that when the war is over, as a sign of solidarity for them as well.

But I will always stand here to as others to plead their case. And those sanctions from Putin can ever stop me doing that. The UK UN human rights monitoring, the reporting shows some 50,000 total civilian casualties they killed or injured since February 22nd, with thousands of verified civilian deaths. Many have also reported that the death toll could be significantly higher, and I suspect I won't prove me, prove me wrong, but I suspect it probably is due to the lack of reporting.

Roughly 5 to 6 million people registered as refugees abroad, with a further 3.5 million internally displaced within Ukraine. The human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine states has since February 20th 4th of February 2020, there have been hundreds of cases of conflict related sexual violence. Girls as young as eight, women as old as 80, violated by Russian monsters who think they can do whatever they want. I tell you, I want to see justice for those families and everyone. So when the war ends, part of that, this, this peace that comes has to be accountability for the actions of those who have murdered and killed across Ukraine.

The Ukrainian ombudsman refers to 292 cases of sexual violence. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, how many have went unrecorded? I remember we all remember the the case of Bakhmut Bournemouth East in northern Ukraine. The whenever the Russians were sent, retreated or left or were forced out and they they found a grave, a mass grave where there's over 200 men, women and children who just happened to be Ukrainians. And the Russians thought they could murder them. Accountability. I tell you what I want to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability for that. I'm happy to give way. I'd just like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he's noticed that Gentleman if he's noticed that point. 26 of the Witkoff 28 point point. 26 of the Witkoff 28 point plan is a general amnesty for everyone, which means that whoever committed the most atrocious war crimes would never be held accountable at all. Okay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountable at all. Okay. I did notice that. And and I was very clear, the hon. Gentleman to myself and everyone in this House that we're not going to ever sign up to that because that these people think they get away with it. Of course, being a Christian, I know that they will suffer in the next world and they'll be they'll be damnation for them. But I want to see him getting in this world,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and they can get in the next world as well. Yeah, but. Double whammy. Yeah, yeah. Double double indemnity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Double double indemnity. The abuses, including torture, sexual torture and humiliation, sexual violence. There's videos sexual violence. There's videos going about where where Russian soldiers filmed themselves soldiers filmed themselves torturing, cutting the limbs and in some cases, private parts of their some cases, private parts of their anatomy off as part of their torture. And then they, then they, they show it around all their friends as if it's something to be proud of. I tell you what, I honestly, I don't think so.

It's time to make them accountable for it all. Yeah, I just say this churches across the eastern Ukraine as well, and Donetsk and this church is destroyed. There's pastors of the Baptist church. I happen to be a member of the Baptist church who have went missing. Madam Deputy Speaker in the early years of the war, there hasn't been any account of where they are. They've disappeared. There's accountability. So if it disappeared from their job of pastoring churches, then what has happened to them? I suggest that the Russians have been involved in that as well.

No accountability. The the nightly attacks, others have referred to it on, on on apartment blocks, on civilians, on children, on women, on civilian targets, not military targets. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to to that in his introduction and, and maybe the thinking behind it. But there has to be there has to be Madam Deputy Speaker accountability for all the things that are happening. It's horrifying to think about, about how how this had happened and and the reality of the situation.

According to Institute of Religious Freedom, by early 2023, at least 495 religious buildings have been destroyed, damaged or because of war. And by late 2023, the total religious sites. In fact, that has grown to 630. There's a very systematic campaign by Russian soldiers and by Putin himself to to go against the churches, the evangelical and the Ukrainian Orthodox churches right across Ukraine, the APPG of freedom of religious belief that that that I chair of has undertaken some incredible work on this matter and that all religions and communities can be representative damages affected.

Orthodox churches, Protestant churches, prayer houses, Jehovah's Witness, Kingdom halls, Catholic churches, mosques, synagogues and others submit a systematic campaign by Russia against religious churches and freedom of belief, which we all represent. And I conclude with this Madam Chair I'm very conscious of time, so I apologise for this and look towards the United States of America for greater intervention. President Trump done great when it came to Israel. Nobody can can deny that he that he was probably the the motivator and the mover for that.

But it doesn't seem to be doing the same thing with Russia because his bias is very clear. So after five hours of talks yesterday between Putin and Trump's senior negotiator were still no further forward as there was no breakthrough on securing a peace deal. It's time for President Trump to join the the EU and the European countries and NATO and ensure that Putin is forced to the table of peace.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Clive Jones. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank the Member for Harwich and North Essex for bringing this very important debate bringing this very important debate to us today. The debate is an opportunity for the House to opportunity for the House to contend, to condemn the evil actions of Putin in his illegal actions of Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine, and it is also another opportunity for us to assert our strong support for President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people. Our support is even more important now, as it is clear that President Trump's support is constantly wavering.

It is so sad that President Trump is ready to once again sell out Ukraine and its people and agree a
16:09
Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
carve up of land with President Putin. This is a Putin who openly Putin. This is a Putin who openly says he is ready for war with NATO residents in Wokingham write to me residents in Wokingham write to me regularly, expressing their disgust at Putin and at Trump, and call on at Putin and at Trump, and call on the government to do more to support Ukraine. It is painfully support Ukraine. It is painfully obvious that we cannot rely on Trump to defend European freedoms, and it is for that reason that the government must continue to focus on defending British territory and playing a leading role within with our European neighbours to defend Europe from the Russians, and we must build trust with Europe.

It is in our national interest. It is also in their interest that they work with us. The fact that I'm sure is not lost on many Europeans. Our government must continue to offer support to President Zelenskyy, along with France, Germany and NATO, and join him in future negotiations. Negotiations with President Trump so Europe can show a strong and united front against the Russian aggressor, and against any bullying tactics from President Trump, who now so often looks more like an appeaser.

From the 1930s, rather than an important leader within the most successful alliance that has defended our freedoms in the West, which includes the USA for much of the last 30 years. I'm hoping that the Minister will be rejecting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

joint plan of Putin and Trump, and continuing to stand up for Ukraine. Thank you. Dear Gilmour.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dear Gilmour. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I was in Ukraine. In. September with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

September with. Colleagues on the opposite benches. I was the lone liberal in a government delegation against what seemed to be mountainous odds. The Ukrainians have defied a superpower Ukrainians have defied a superpower that's unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction in war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl. But Ukraine, Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival. Some wish to muddy the waters on this, as if it wasn't clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are.

The Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine's future, its children, who've been swallowed up into re-education camps where they face psychological torment and indoctrination, a process of de ukrainianization. Some estimates say up to 40,000 children have suffered this fate. This is rancid. This is wicked. It is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people. Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight.

A glance at any 20th century history book will tell you that. But we in the West could have gone harder, faster. Western governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what Western weapons systems could and could not be sent. All the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling weapons systems that were deemed too provocative, too escalation inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The front line is a horrifying meat grinder, a graveyard on the very edge of our continent.

It was Churchill who said you cannot reason with a tiger when your mouth is. Your head is in its mouth. Today, Ukraine is on the front line, not by choice but by the accident of geography. But I don't believe Putin will stop at Ukraine. Ukraine today, somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his
16:14
Rachel Gilmour Portrait Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched the Russian tanks on our television Russian tanks on our television screens roll through. Georgia asked the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania asked the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, who both departed from their long standing departed from their long standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask accession into the NATO club. Ask the poles, who've ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming and are not prepared to take any chances.

This has all come in response to the Kremlin's war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre rattling. Anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learnt the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine's independence as a provocation. Some act of NATO encroachment or poking the Russian bear? There is a very simple reason for ex Eastern Bloc countries tilting west. It is because we are free. We are not societies and those who criticise the regime go missing.

Where dissent ends in disappearance. While many hailed Trump's return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table. Thus far, any hints of Russian overtures have been vanishingly hollow during that furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing. Indeed, the noises coming out of the White House particularly troubling. It truly felt as though the president of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery, branding Ukraine's elected wartime leader a dictator was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of acerbity.

And as Washington's dance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, speak softly and carry a big stick. The problem here, though, is that Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, but his stick or other such euphemistic accoutrement seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest Memorandum, and I remind the administration in the White House that the United States was a signatory to, among other things, this agreement represented the commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty, to rewrite history, or to conveniently forget, would be to bend to despotism.

Let us not overlook the broader picture here. Two other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience, and ability to respond decisively and in a coordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts, a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China's assertiveness around Taiwan has no correlation whatsoever, the way they have behaved with Hong Kong? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy very close to home indeed, a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital, which could serve as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

British. Soil. Espionage, sabotage, coercion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Espionage, sabotage, coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans. The stakes could not be Koreans. The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march the international order, established post 1945 hangs in the established post 1945 hangs in the balance. I'm going to finish. Sorry. And we risk returning to a brutish, And we risk returning to a brutish, brutish, bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace.

But appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war. It is the acceptance, acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. It cannot be on the aggressors terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without justice, there is no peace. Salway Ukraine. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Doctor Al Pinkerton. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex for securing this very important debate? securing this very important debate? There have been praise and plaudits enough of all of the speeches across this House. They have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I'm grateful to to all of them. It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once in a generation threat to European security.

For far too long, he's been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. And while the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost, the fullest cost of this war has been borne by the people of Ukraine. The atrocities committed, the suffering of Ukrainian families. They are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses. Today in Ukraine, there is active hand to hand combat.

The military lines are active and volatile. Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment, critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported over 14,000 civilians
16:19
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is over 46,000 killed and toll is over 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost? This is not lives need to be lost? This is not a war that began in 2022 with Russia's full scale invasion. It Russia's full scale invasion. It began in 2014. As we know, with the illegal seizure of Crimea, that annexation set the stage for the violence, the brutality and the the and the inhumanity we see today.

Russia's aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed, the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations. And the most harrowing horror of all, as we've heard several times today, the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children, at least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically, evilly abduction and exploitation as the most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed and crossed again.

This vile human injustice is yet another cost. Ukraine has had to bear. Against this backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back. And let me be absolutely clear, Trump's original 28 point proposal was not a peace deal. It was a horrific geopolitical compromise, a foul capitulation that would only serve to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality, limit Ukraine's ability to defend itself, ban NATO deployments, lock Ukraine out of NATO, recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, lift sanctions on Russia, invite Russia back into the G8 and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days.

This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not peace, not even close. This rewards and legitimates Russia's decade long aggression, and it signals to every authoritarian regime around the world watching that conquest works. Yes, peace talks have taken place and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine's defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line.

Third, there can be no reward for Putin, no G7, no G20, no rehabilitation into the international community. And finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. Because if lands are ceded, one question echoes loudly what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and seizing territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic. This is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar a Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv.

It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards, rebuild its infrastructure, rebuild its communities, rebuild its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine's right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions free from the long arm of Russia and Putin. And this moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine. It's about rebuilding European security.

Russian aggression has made one truth clear Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has shown itself, regrettably, to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada leaving Europe exposed. This is a strategic reality we cannot ignore.

Multi-polarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to coordinate defence, procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role. We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy.

And to that I would add Europe's collective security, defence, resilience, military, industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge. Yes, it requires political courage. But the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible petition participation in safe, deepen cooperation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security, and those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge.

We are stronger together. Madam Deputy Speaker, if we fail to act now, we will be judged as by history, as the generation that allowed these atrocities to take place, that allowed invasion and occupation by violence, to redraw Europe and reshape the future. And the generation who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom of liberty, democracy and the international rules based order. And so, in conclusion, I just say we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight.

Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.
16:26
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Hear, hear! >> Shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge. >> Yay! >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I begin by congratulating And can I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Harwich and North Essex, for securing this and North Essex, for securing this important debate together with his co-signatories, the chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley and my right hon. Friend for Maldon. All four are longstanding stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine.

I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation. Amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin. Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting, the bloody slaughter of civilians and a military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since World War two. No one wants this more or deserves this more than the people of Ukraine.

But we, when we say such a peace must be a lasting peace, it is because the long term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the government in Kyiv.

The reasons we stand by that position, why we stand in total solidarity with Ukraine, are both moral and practical. Morally, to us, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor. Putin's Russia, which invaded a free and sovereign democracy, contrary contrary to those who have echoed Putin's own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated. But by what my hon. Friend for, Harwich and North Essex said in his excellent speech, as the inherent nature of the Russian regime, its rejection of our democratic values, and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine's independence.

On the practical side of the argument, we also see that supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence. Checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the government's decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia's invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine's armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe. Now, the devil's advocate might argue, if morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, surely that speaks to seeking a compromise which may be painful for Ukraine, but unavoidable if it is to see an end to the fighting? Surely they might argue, Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms.

If there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To which I would make the argument, as I've done from the outset, the most important reason, morally and practically for us as a nation, why we should all be cautious about welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal. It is simply that if Russia is seen to gain from its flagrant aggression, then we will send a message emboldening all our potential strategic adversaries. Ultimately, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies.

But with Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly then can be done? Well, first, despite Putin's cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts must be used to support Ukraine, and we'd be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU that we heard earlier from the Security Minister and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime.

So on the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide 90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. So further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley in his excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach, and what legal solutions is the government currently pursuing, so that we can move beyond just using the profits from the sovereign assets? And will we prioritise mobiling those assets for the immediate war effort? Thirdly, and you know, echoing the comments of the hon.

Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire and others, that we are at war, as he said, and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham about Putin's comments this week, where he said he is ready for war with Europe. Reminding ourselves of that, we ask about our own readiness. Madam Deputy Speaker. So on the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed no less than by Lord Robertson, the author of the SDR, yesterday questioning how seriously the Chancellor really takes the need to increase defence spending, can I ask him a specific question? In what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? This is a crucial question.

So turning to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate, and the hon. Member for Strangford spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the very reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war forced an unprovoked fashion on the people of Ukraine. My hon. Friend for Gainsborough, I thought, made an excellent point when he said, surely it is in the economic domain where in the long term we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the West and the hon.

Lady for Tiverton and Minehead. In a brilliant speech, if I may say, alongside the hon. Lady for Washington and Gateshead South, they boast, both compensated for the absence of the hon. Lady for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, who, of course, has led this amazing campaign by reminding us, along with other colleagues, about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. And I join the hon. Lady for Washington in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved. I thought that was a very, very good point.

Now, my right hon. Friend for Chingford and Woodford Green asked an interesting question is, of course, entirely hypothetical as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course, it gave up all in good trust in the Budapest Memorandum memorandum. Now, I wonder if he is aware my right hon. Friend for Chingford, that in July 2016 the historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the new then Prime Minister, Theresa May, from our former colleague Andrew Slough, was to ask exactly the same question, but he was asking it after the annexation of the Crimea.

And it's a question that we must still ask. And I think it was answered brilliantly, if I may say, by my hon. Friend for new New Forest East who has cared about these matters for a long time, where he reminded us that there was no Third World War, there were conflicts elsewhere, but we didn't have a repeat because of the deterrent that the two sides had. And I think the conclusion we take from that is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest in our own deterrent, despite the fact it is extremely expensive.

Madam speaker, the hon. Lady for Llanelli along those lines asked, I think the very important question of security guarantees, and I hope the Minister will will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved. If there were to be a lasting peace. The gentleman, Macclesfield, said that he feels that 2020 6th May be the decisive year of the war. I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive one way or the other, and as such it's quite clear we have to continue to provide all possible support, military and so on.

And the hon. Lady for Epsom and Ewell, who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the front bench, I may say, made the very good point about unexploded ordnance. It's not just the threat of poses to civilians, but as she said, to to farming and food production. So many excellent speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a real privilege to join them today. And so, to conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare.

And one way we can do this is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by UQ Systems, a cutting edge Ukrainian drone company which I visited recently and committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It's a reminder that our two nations deepening cooperation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front to look into the future.

With the 100 year partnership first proposed under our under our government. But the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin's despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as morally responsible for the death of a British citizen on our on our home soil as a result of nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously, morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted without provocation on the people of Ukraine.

As I say, it is a shared threat. So we support the government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians. And I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine, sent from this chamber today provides some comfort to their people amidst the horror of war.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy. Madam Speaker. And first of all, with great thanks to the hon. Member from Harwell, North Essex, for pulling this debate together and listening to the truly outstanding speeches and contributions from all speeches and contributions from all members of all sides of the House today. I would like to actually today. I would like to actually begin by just paying tribute, not necessarily to us, but to the brave men and women of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who are day in, day out, fighting for national survival.

The fighting for freedom. They're
16:36
Al Carns Portrait Al Carns MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for Veterans) (Birmingham Selly Oak, Labour)
-
-
fighting for justice, and they're fighting for the right to self-determination. And I believe there is no more honourable thing there is no more honourable thing to be doing today in this House. We have sent a clear and resounding message to Vladimir Putin. No matter how you try and justify your illegal war in Ukraine, no matter illegal war in Ukraine, no matter how you blame other countries for conflict that you alone are responsible for, and no matter how you think you can intimidate Europe you think you can intimidate Europe with drone incursions, spy ships and reckless activity, we see you.

We know exactly what you're up to. And as my hon. Friend, the Security Minister has just updated the House. We have seen the consequences of Putin's reckless and despicable activity here on the British mainland. Dawn Sturgess needless, needless death was an unspeakable tragedy and will forever be a reminder of Russia's reckless aggression. And that is why today my hon. Friend has announced to the House sweeping measures to include sanctions on the entire GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency and 11 actors behind Russian state sponsored activity.

The UK will. It will always stand up to Putin's brutal regime and call out his murderous machine for what it is, and that is why we are united in our determination to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve a just and lasting peace that the people of Ukraine fully deserve to keep tightening international economic sanctions on our economy, and to keep working with our partners to protect Europe from the threats you pose. And I'd like to thank members on all sides for their contributions, and I'd like to reflect on some of the comments made today and some of the themes.

The hon. Member from South Suffolk mentioned many valuable points, and I also think they retire. The retired hon. Member from New Forest East mentioned really useful, not necessarily acronym, but saying around NATO we may want to think about the negotiations of similar keeping the US in keeping the Ukraine at its very centre and keeping Europe focussed. And I think when we talk about the diplomatic points that were mentioned, this is where I personally believe the government has driven and had a leading role in ensuring that the the 28 point plan is relevant.

Has Ukraine in its very centre, has Europe or pushing together in a unified manner and a government? And our Prime Minister has done a fantastic job in doing that. When we talk about assets, and I will come on to talk a bit more detail later on, I am quite confident by the end of the year that we will hopefully collectively with Europe, unlocked a huge amount of assets to just apply more pressure on Russia and fund Ukrainians defence and on our own readiness.

Just for clarity, by 2027 we will be spending 2.6% on defence and. The hon. Member from Harwell, North Essex, mentioned that the war in Ukraine has spread and in some cases there are arguments being made throughout the House that we are at war. I would argue that the war in Ukraine is geographically constrained. I'd argue the conflict is not. And we see that. Moving across and around all of the conventional themes around war, specifically in the cyber domain, in the influence domain right here in the United Kingdom, and of course, in the political domain, with funding of political parties to cause division strife across the political divide.

We also talked about whether Ukraine was losing. I am a firm believer that the strategic level, Ukraine and NATO are absolutely on the front foot. Sweden and Finland have become part of the greatest defence alliance the world has ever seen. Russia has taken a million casualties and it's just worth thinking about that. A million casualties, that is almost the population of some of the eastern Baltic states. It's more casualties than America took in the entire Second World War. We've isolated, in a lot of cases, Russia from the West.

Its economy is under significant pressure. And just this year it has taken 380,000 casualties on the front line.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to him and for his response to this debate, and I know his personal commitment to these issues personal commitment to these issues is very strong indeed. But can I just take him back to the point he just take him back to the point he makes? He pulls back from the idea that we're already in a kind of war that we're already in a kind of war with Russia in in the NATO countries. I got to tell him there countries.

I got to tell him there is a tendency to try and sanitise the severity of the threats we face. And could I ask him, how effective does he think the government's conversation with the British population about the threats we face? How successful does he think this is? Because a lot of us feel that we're not seeing it at all. The government is not leading this conversation. Indeed, it's almost being shut down because the pressures of domestic politics and the lack of support from the public for having such a conversation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

makes this very difficult. Could you comment on that? Because it was in the Strategic Defence Review? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'd like thank the hon. Member for his contribution. It absolutely was front and centre of the Strategic Defence Review. And there'll be a couple of announcements coming in the next couple of weeks of how we hope to change the narrative and better change the narrative and better explain threats or crisis that take take place away from our shores and how they impact us here in the UK how they impact us here in the UK in a relatable manner. A small example, although attribution and where it came from is still to be understood.

But the 1.5 bailout for Land Rover Jaguar Land Rover, for example, is half the two child benefit cap for a year. That relatable statistic suddenly hammers home to your individual in all of our constituencies, who may not be focussed on international policy but understand the ramifications for the way we live here. Energy prices, the cost of food one of the biggest impacts on the cost of living caused by the war in Ukraine. More people plunge into poverty across the globe because of the war in Ukraine.

I think we need to make more of a conscious effort collectively to describe these threats and how they resonate here and globally in a more forceful manner, so people understand why taking an active stance in some of these conflicts is equally as important, not only for the countries involved, but for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Here we also mentioned whether early on, within your fantastic opening speech about NATO and whether we're we're ready, there's another description that's required when we talk about the UK and our ability and readiness to defend that.

We are part of NATO. And statistically, when you look at the scale of NATO forces available, we outnumber Russia by a significant amount, whether that is in air forces, whether it's in the maritime or, of course, the land domain. And I actually agree with your comments about the remarkable unity that Europe and the UK has shown when engaging with the 28 point peace plan, and in some cases, rejecting it and changing it to make sure Ukraine is at the very centre.

And I think European and UK leadership has been second to none in that space. There is one element that has resonated across all sides of the benches, and that's the issue about abducted children. I was saying to the hon. Member from Washington and Gateshead South importantly, the member who can't make it here today, but the hon. Friend from Paisley and Renfrewshire South and the hon. Member from Strangford all mentioned the impact on families and children in particular. This is not new, it is part of Russian doctrine.

It was used in Afghanistan. It's used in every conflict of where they harbour the children. They move them to Russia for re-education and indoctrination and then they bring them back. It's an appalling abduction of Ukrainian citizens, as we're seeing in Russia, on a scale that is described by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab as the largest wartime child abduction since World War two. Absolutely shocking and despicable. Now, the UK has raised this issue at the UN and the organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and I pay tribute to the efforts of the hon.

Members for Washington and Gateshead South in highlighting those OSCE officials in Russian custody as Dmitri Shabanov, Maksim Petrov and Vadim Gold. We've also committed 2.8 million to help Ukrainian children come back, and we are an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children. Throughout and since the beginning of September, the pilot tracing mechanism has already identified over 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within a temporary occupied territories. I'd also like to come back to the hon.

Member from Chingford and Woodford Green. I agree with your view on Zelenskyy, his leadership, his courage, his determination and his conviction is an example not only to the Ukrainians but to the world of how a state that in some cases is dwarfed by Russia has stood up against the one of the biggest militaries in the world. And I also agree in being relatively self-critical of the West in some institutional arrogance about defence technology. And this links into the point made about Ukraine spec as well.

There are false lessons from Ukraine, but there are many more real ones that we need to adhere to, learn and integrate into our armed forces. In particular the integration of uncrewed systems, data and electronic warfare. And something as we look into the defence investment plan will be in there throughout. It's also just to be clear, the 28 point peace plan we did not agree with, and we've worked very hard to change that, to make Ukraine at the very centre of it, to look what is acceptable.

And I'll discuss later on some of the implications of that. Hopefully, the hon. Member from Epsom and Ewell brings up a really good point about unexploded ordnance and the use of landmines in the conflict. There are millions of landmines now, rendering large swathes of Ukraine unaccessible to farmers or families that once owned the land. It is going to be a generational problem to solve, and it's something we all need to collectively, both sides of the House, in all parties and deal with as we move forward.

Our support to Ukraine, from my perspective, is unshakeable. The Father of the House, the retired hon. Member from Gainsborough and Llanelli, if I pronounce that right, are really clear that from my perspective that we're doing the most we can do when we support Ukraine, that's over spending 4.5 billion, which is more than we spent on military support to Ukraine. It's leading the Ud-cg, which has already delivered and harnessed £50 billion worth of support to Ukraine, and to sort of bring that into tangibles.

That's 5 million rounds of ammunition ranging to 60,000 rounds of artillery all the way through to 100,000 drones this year alone and 140 lightweight missiles. There's much more to do. Defence industry is powering up across Europe, and I think actually we're waking the sleeping tiger in Europe when we look at both our defence industrial base and our society resilience to dealing with this conflict. I also think that the constant threats, Madam Deputy Speaker and the Hyperbowl from Vladimir Putin is a direct consequence of significant pressure.

And I also think it's him having to live with the moral indignation of being responsible for over 1 million casualties and the devastation of large swathes of Ukraine. But as the hon. Member from Gainsborough Gainsborough highlighted, I personally do not think there is division within the UK. We are unified across party. I do not think there is division in Europe, in particularly the large players in this space, and I believe that we have unity when looking at the 28 point plan and putting Ukraine at the very centre of that negotiation, and I would say that Ukraine must keep fighting and the UK are with them throughout.

Now. The hon. Member from Harwich and North Essex, Essex, Leeds Central and Headingley and Llanelli all mentioned and many others mentioned frozen assets. We support the continued pressure on Russian assets and and the economic tentacles that continue to fuel this illegal and barbaric war across Ukraine, and we must increase and put pressure on Russia. It's worth noting that we have clamped down on this war machine and the economic support mechanism. We've already sanctioned over 2900 people and companies and across us and our allies, we've already put in place £450 billion worth of sanctions, which is the equivalent to two years worth of fighting.

Now we're moving forward with plans to use the full value of a mobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We welcome the European Commission's action just this week, which we're hoping to find out soon, to bring forward concrete plans to meet Ukraine's urgent, urgent financial needs which will support the defence of the nation. I look forward to hearing that hopefully by the end of of this year, I will thank him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've I raise a point that I've just literally been told about that just literally been told about that is the German Chancellor. There's a debate in the Bundestag right now about the sanctions regime. And about the sanctions regime. And also the German Chancellor has given up other visits in the last given up other visits in the last 24 hours to go to Belgium to try and persuade the Belgians to agree to do this. And there's pressure, to do this.

And there's pressure, and I've literally been asked if I would ask the Minister whether he would say that this is a very worthwhile visit, and that the British government supports the intention to try and also get Belgium to enter with the lion's share of the Euroclear funds, which would make an enormous difference

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to what Ukraine can be supported by. Yeah. Thank the hon. Member. I was in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member. I was in Germany just last week and I left Germany and I muttered that Germany Germany and I muttered that Germany is back and I think Germany going to Belgium to help unlock a significant amount of resource for significant amount of resource for Ukraine can can be nothing other than a good thing. The we also than a good thing. The we also mentioned a variety of different individuals in the House, mentioned the increase in hybrid conflict, the conventional war that Russia is waging is the most barbaric.

We have seen. Deputy Madam Speaker, since, I would argue World War one or World War two, but nevertheless, Europe and the West must accept this attritional force on force. Game of checkers approach is accompanied by a sophisticated chess match, which was mentioned earlier by several individuals, the consequences of which are equally as deadly. I believe they are seeking and probing to find weaknesses in our security and our critical national infrastructure. The manoeuvring and flanking to change opinions both in social media, political parties and their cohering, and coercing to circumnavigate sanctions at every single opportunity.

And they're doing that with like minded autocratic regimes. So we must work doubly hard to identify, expose, deter and, if necessary, have the capability to defeat those threats should they prevail. The individual, the hon. Member from Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, I would like to say I would disagree with the timidity that you mentioned and the lack of leadership. I actually believe the UK and the foreign policy space, in conjunction with our European allies, have helped the Americans come to a more workable solution and put the Ukrainians right at the very heart of that.

And I believe the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership in doing so. And I also believe that we are seen still as leading this fight. And I look across the bench to the other side, whether it be Storm Shadow challenger, collectively, we have led on this from a UK perspective and I don't I don't think that we are we're lacking in any way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's I will. Julian Lewis one way. In which we could. Continue to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In which we could. Continue to lead would be to give a very firm commitment that if the front lines are indeed frozen, that a coalition of the willing would actually have military assets at the invitation military assets at the invitation of unoccupied Ukraine on the ground there, so that there could be no question but that a future attack would trigger a response from that coalition. Otherwise, any security

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guarantee isn't worth the paper on which it's printed. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. And once again, when we talk about leadership, we when we talk about leadership, we have led over 30 countries in the coalition of the willing to design safe seas, safe skies, secure safe seas, safe skies, secure borders, and from overlooking the plans into that, that we have a plans into that, that we have a capability. It's well thought through, it's well planned, and it will be ready to go if required upon us.

The reality is a secure Europe needs a strong and sovereign Ukraine and Ukraine must have credible, credible security guarantees if it's to defend itself. And it's been mentioned by many people here today, that is why we've led the coalition, are willing and be in no doubt. We are ready to deploy and deliver our commitments should the peace be negotiated and allow us to do so. We continue to put 3 billion a year, 4.5 billion this year, and we will continue to play that leadership role within the Ukraine Defence Contact Group.

Early on was mentioned and it was rightly mentioned that precaution is not fallen yet. The Ukrainians are holding a valiant defence of that town. It's worth mentioning when we talk about tactical success or failure. Russia has advanced only 15km, equivalent to four metres a day over the last year, and they've taken 170,000 casualties to fight its way into Pokrovsk. And that is World War Two scale of casualties. Russia has suffered over a million casualties to gain only around 1% of Ukraine territory, which I think brings it home.

The impact of that conflict now, day after day, for almost four years, the Ukrainians have fought with incredible courage, determination and ingenuity. The UK and Europe are now standing together more so than ever before. And Putin's continue. Aggression binds us closer together. We are collectively spending more on defence than at any time since the Cold War, where more joint exercising, more joint planning, more joint capability development. Because Ukraine is at the forefront of European security, if Putin opts for a long overdue ceasefire, we will continue to lead the coalition willing to establish credible deterrence in Ukraine.

And if that is not forthcoming, we will continue working with allies to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by upping military support, upping the pressure in Putin's war machine. The new hon. Member from Tiverton and Minehead gave a great speech that quoted Churchill. So may I finish on one? Also, when I look back upon the perils we overcame across the great waves, the gallant ship has sailed. We will not fear the tempest. Let it roar, let it rage. Ukraine will come through.
16:56
Bernard Jenkin Portrait Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Harwich and North Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Sir. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And within the last few minutes, I read that President Zelenskyy is on a state visit to Dublin. But he's arriving. Plane was buzzed by four mysterious military grade drones. And this is what we're up against. And there isn't sufficient awareness of this. The fact that this chamber is sparsely populated this afternoon suggests this whole debate is yet to get into the mainstream of our politics and our national discourse. So I do emphasise again, the government has yet to deliver its national conversation that it promised in its Strategic Defence review.

I recognise the efforts that people in the defence community are making and that includes Ministers, but involving the whole of government and the whole of the opposition and the whole of politics is what is required. Madam Deputy Speaker, what I hoped this debate would do would demonstrate the unity that's been shown across the House today. And I do thank every colleague for their contribution, including those from all sides of the House and to all those who have signed the motion.

In addition, who could not be here today. The motion was intended to be a clear statement of our national intent, and I imagine it will go through without a vote so that the signal will be sent to the world about what this country believes and what this country believes must be done and must be achieved. But I come back to the point we need to underline our will and to signal our that the force of the purpose, of our intent, if we're to achieve what we want to achieve and to lead our allies from the front, I believe the United Kingdom is capable of doing that is to some extent doing its best to achieve that, but that other countries are looking for us to take a stronger lead and to set the best example in line with the achievements of our history and our values.

I'm very grateful that this debate has taken place. It's been an honour for me to lead it and I beg to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, on a point of order. Smith. I just wanted to raise the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to raise the point because many in that house may not realise it, but about your role in all of this, that you're not all of this, that you're not allowed to speak about this and you sit in the chair, but you have visited Ukraine with myself and others. You have been a stalwart champion for all that we've been debating today, and I just wanted to make sure this House recognises

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to make sure this House recognises your incredible attention to this and support. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I would like to take this opportunity to like to take this opportunity to thank all members here today in speaking in support of Ukraine and speaking in support of Ukraine and making such important speeches here. The question is, as on the Order The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I left. This House to now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn, Mr. Connor Rand chairman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chairman. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I applied for this debate today. So that I could raise. The case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The case. Of Paula Leeson on behalf of her family. I should start by reassuring all parties that this is reassuring all parties that this is no longer a live criminal investigation. And as well as having spoken about this case previously in the chamber, all the
17:00
None Portrait Adjournment: Support for victims' families in cases of domestic violence
-

details contained within have been widely reported in the media. Madam widely reported in the media. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leeson family believe that Paula was killed by her then husband, Donald Macpherson, in 2019, and that Mr. Macpherson is in 2019, and that Mr. Macpherson is currently a free man. Is, they believe, a damning indictment of a justice system that has badly justice system that has badly failed them. I want to place on record my view that the Leesons have not had the justice that they deserve, and that lessons must be learned when prosecuting other acts of domestic violence and when supporting victims family members.

Before getting into the details of this tragic case, I want to start by paying tribute to the Leeson family, particularly Neville Leeson, Paula's brother. My office has been supporting Neville in his mission to get justice for Paula since I was elected, and I cannot begin to imagine the pain he has endured since Paula's death. Whenever I have spoken to him, I am struck by his love for Paula, his dedication to pursuing justice for his sister, but also his unwavering dignity in the face of such hardship.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Paula's case is complex, and some of the details are, quite frankly, hard to believe, so I will do my best to summarise them now in 2019, Paula, an otherwise healthy woman, died fully clothed in a shallow pool while on holiday in Denmark with her then husband, Donald Macpherson. Despite Paula having 13 separate injuries on her body. An initial investigation from the Danish police accepted Mr. Macpherson's version of events, that he woke from a nap to find Paula unconscious in the pool, and that he then failed in his attempts to resuscitate her.

These attempts, he claimed, were the cause of bruising around her neck. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the hours after Paula's death, Mr. Macpherson, a convicted conman, was withdrawing money from their joint account to pay off significant financial debts. And we
17:02
Connor Rand Portrait Adjournment: Support for victims' families in cases of domestic violence Mr Connor Rand MP (Altrincham and Sale West, Labour)
-
-
now also know that prior to her death, Mr. Macpherson took out multiple fraudulent life insurance policies on Paula without her policies on Paula without her knowledge. Upon her repatriation to the United Kingdom, Greater Manchester Police opened a criminal investigation into Paula's death, and in March 2021, that case went to criminal court. The judge presiding over the case decided that because it couldn't be ruled out completely, that the injuries to Paula were not from rescue or resuscitation attempts, he had no choice but to stop the trial at the halfway point and instruct the jury to issue a not guilty verdict.

After just two weeks. The Leesons were understandably devastated by this verdict, but they did not give up. They pursued a civil claim against Donald Macpherson in the High Court to prevent him from claiming the life insurance policies he had taken out on Paula, and in September 2024, the judge presiding over the civil case concluded that it was his firm view that Donald Macpherson deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula Leeson by compressing her neck in an armlock, rendering her unconscious and causing her to drown.

Crucially, the civil trial heard evidence not presented in the criminal trial, which included evidence from a pathologist who said and I quote. It was difficult to envisage how the extent of the bruising to Paula could be caused during the attempts to resuscitate her alone. There was also evidence from the Fitbit Paula was wearing when she died that demonstrated a sharp rise in her heart rate, consistent with an adrenaline response to a violent attack. The Fitbit then showed a decline in heart rate thereafter, consistent with her being rendered unconscious, drowning and dying, and the timing of this spike and decline in heart rate directly contradicted Mr.

McPherson's timeline of events. Following the verdict in the civil trial, the Leesons pursued a criminal retrial. This was a long and arduous process in which the Leesons experienced unimaginable stress and uncertainty. In September, the Director of Public Prosecutions declined the request for a criminal retrial, which was a devastating blow to the Leesons from which they have not recovered. In what the Director of Public Prosecutions admitted was an incredibly difficult decision. He made his decision using parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

To put it simply, these parameters meant he was only able to grant a retrial if there was new and compelling evidence, and if it was in the public interest for the application to proceed. The DPP concluded that neither the Fitbit evidence nor the pathology evidence were new, and this is because the Fitbit evidence was available to the prosecution in the initial criminal trial, but it was not used because they felt it would not advance their case, and similarly, the prosecution did not instruct the pathologist mentioned to present evidence at the criminal trial, despite having the option to do so.

Evidence from Donald McPherson's laptop showing deleted searches on both drowning and murder were also not deemed compelling. New evidence of guilt because it could not be conclusively proven when these searches were made. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leesons believe the prosecution made a significant error in not using the Fitbit or pathologist evidence in their initial criminal trial, and they believe that this error has now prevented the DPP from granting a retrial that they believe could give them justice for Paula, and I am inclined to agree with them.

So my question for the Minister is to ask if we can look at some flexibility within the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. So a potential mistake from prosecution at an initial trial does not then rule out the possibility of a retrial ever being granted. Can the bar that must be met to have a retrial be reassessed? In this context, the Leesons understandably believe that the parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act are now preventing it, doing the very thing it was designed for.

I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and that Paula's case is in many ways unique, but it would bring great comfort to the family if the Minister and the government could look at this specific issue. Paula's case, in a wider context, and see what lessons can be learned. And I'll end Madam Deputy Speaker by sharing what Neville said to me yesterday. And I quote once again, we find ourselves alone, having to fight for justice for Paula because of the failures of the criminal justice system and a Criminal Justice Act 2003, which works very hard to help the criminal over the victims and their families.

Neither Paula or my family are responsible for all the failures of the criminal justice system, for Paula, and yet we are expected to endure the consequences of their failures for the rest of our lives. Is Paula's life worth less than anyone else's life? It shouldn't be this way. I agree it shouldn't. And if this is the consequence of our current legislative framework and settlement, and then I say to the Minister that the current framework and the parameters it sets do not feel right to me.

I sincerely hope there is something we can do to bring the Lisa Smart some comfort after the horrific ordeal they've endured, and I hope that bringing this debate to the floor of the House, and the fact it will be a matter of public record forever, will be of some small comfort to them to Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend, the Member I thank my hon. Friend, the Member for Altrincham and Sale West on securing this important debate this evening, and I'd like to start by, evening, and I'd like to start by, of course, sending my sympathies to the family of Paula Leeson and simply respond to Neville, who spoke in this chamber through his MP and state through you, Madam MP and state through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Neville, he's not alone.

He has a fine champion in his Member of Parliament who has brought this issue to the House. I can reassure him and the House that I am seized of this issue, and will certainly be looking at all the issues raised in the hon. Member's speech, the tragedy that the Leeson
17:10
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
family have suffered. It is simply unimaginable and they continue to campaign in her memory with campaign in her memory with extraordinary dignity and courage. And I commend them and their MP. My hon. Friend, for bringing this matter to the government's attention. They and he will no doubt be aware the legal decision doubt be aware the legal decision which is at the heart of their particular case, is a matter for the CPS, which is rightly the CPS, which is rightly independent of government.

And of course, members will be aware that I'm unable to comment on the details of that specific decision by the DPP, but I am very happy and indeed I'm keen to meet with my hon. Friend's constituents to discuss this case in more detail if they would find that helpful. And I have made inquiries this afternoon, and I'm also informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions would also be happy. Indeed. Keen to meet with his constituents to discuss the case in more detail, the 2003 Criminal Justice Act clearly has to strike a balance between ensuring there is finality in criminal proceedings.

But of course, at the same time as the act attempts to do, offer a recourse to look again when it is appropriate. And I'm very happy to have those conversations and look again at whether that legislation strikes the right balance. But before I continue and go on to speak about wider government initiatives to assist victims of domestic violence and abuse, I do want to again, on record, repeat my desire on behalf of the government to send my deepest condolences to all those who knew and loved Paula Leeson, and that the justice system has seemingly confounded their pain.

And their suffering is deeply regretful, and I assure them that I will look into any aspect of our system to make sure that this cannot happen again. And as I've already said, I'm aware that the DPP has been in touch with the family and is very happy to meet again to discuss the details of this case. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me be abundantly clear on the issue. More generally, this government is committed to putting victims at the heart of the justice system, especially when it comes to confronting the scourge of violence against women and girls.

Working with Home Office colleagues, we at the Ministry of Justice will always keep victims at the forefront of our mind, investing in more support, reforming our justice system to ensure justice is served and served expeditiously, and clamping down on the tools which too often allow those who abuse women and girls to thrive. When the history of this government is written, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will speak of the incredible work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley and Pontypridd on the Violence against Women and Girls strategy.

Ambitious but practical, reforming the fundamental injustices too many victims face in our law and order system. Protecting those women and girls who need protection. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that domestic abuse and violence that has been suffered by or allegedly suffered by the Leeson family has an impact on entire families, not just the direct victims. So I want to reassure my hon. Friend and Leeson family about just some of the initiatives that this government is taking to support victims of domestic abuse.

We know that Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises the profound impact domestic abuse can have on children. Section three makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse. This is an important measure which makes it easier for children to access support, such as mental health services. Domestic abuse can have a lifelong impact on victims, victims and where appropriate, their families need vital support to help them cope and rebuild their lives and to engage with the criminal justice system.

Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is a key part of this government's mission to half of violence against women and girls. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years, the biggest investment in victim support services on record will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year. Over the course of this Parliament, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery to ensure that these vital services can continue to offer victims the support they need.

We know that many police and crime commissioners use the funding that we are giving to commission specific support for victims and their families in their areas. Some areas use wider sources of funding and work in collaboration with local partners such as South Yorkshire, Cleveland and Essex, Essex Police and Crime commissioners, who have commissioned outreach work in schools with child victims of domestic abuse. Police and crime commissioners also have a role at the current roll to fund vital victim support services, such as the Independent Domestic Violence Advisors, that provide emotional and practical support to victims of domestic abuse.

Earlier this year, we published statutory guidance on Idva Independent Domestic Violence Advisers, which aims to improve the consistency of support delivered to victims and raise the profile of the Idva role. We recognise the important work of police and police and crime commissioners and mayors to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, ensuring ongoing support to victims and future governance arrangements will be a key priority for this government. The MoJ has also commissioned national services, such as the 24 over seven live chat service, which can be accessed anonymously and provides 24 over seven support to victims of all crimes, and the My Support Space platform, which provides informative guides for victims and those supporting them in the tragic case of bereavement by homicide following domestic abuse.

The National Homicide Service, delivered by Victim Support can provide emotional, practical, specialist advocacy and peer support. We are also taking steps to improve the justice system's response to domestic abuse and violence. From the first time someone calls the police to court all the way through to the way that perpetrators are managed after sentence, which is the issue that my hon. Friend has brought to the House. We've introduced domestic abuse specialists in 909 call centres in selected areas so that when a victim calls, the police, specialists can support first responders to properly and rigorously assess the risk and make sure there is an appropriate response.

We are also creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing for the sentencing Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament. This helps prison and probation services manage offenders effectively, ensure victims are better supported, and we're taking action to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse and their children are better protected in the family courts. We're expanding the pathfinder courts, which are helping to ensure that more children's voices are heard and victims are better supported. Under the Pathfinder model, the proportion of children seen by social worker increases from 30% to 80%.

This means their wishes and feelings can be ascertained directly in a manner of their choosing. Tackling domestic abuse is an important right across government, and the Home Office has also invested a further £19 million to provide vital support to victims of violence against women and girls. This includes over 6 million for the national helpline supporting victims of domestic abuse, honour based abuse, revenge porn and stalking and £450,000 to provide additional advocacy to families who have been bereaved by domestic homicide, as well as suicides and unexpected deaths that have taken place following domestic abuse.

I hope my remarks setting out some of the broad policy agenda that this government is pursuing has reassured those in the House, and perhaps those watching, that this government takes this issue particularly seriously. We are absolutely committed to making sure that there is the right support, help and protections in place for victims of domestic abuse and violence and their families. I once again want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for raising this particular case, which he has raised in the House repeatedly since he was elected last summer, and raises complex as he accepts issues around our criminal justice system.

And those are ones that I will continue to look into. And I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, where I started sending my profound condolences to those who have lost loved ones connected to today's debate, and commending all those who fight and work for change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House is now adjourned. As many as are of is now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. The ayes have it. Order, order! Stand out!
09:00
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page