War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

12:13:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine. I have been working on Ukraine with many colleagues in all parts of the House for a considerable time—we have shared that work. The reality in this Chamber, which may mark us out slightly from other countries, is that we have been completely united in our support for Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, who are fighting for their freedom as we have had to do in the past. We therefore recognise their sacrifices and the risk that they have taken. To anybody who assumes that that is of no relevance, I say that the only relevant issue that pervades this debate is that we should always be on the side of those who believe in freedom and democracy. That is what we exist for. I recently came back from another trip to Ukraine. I have done a few trips there, helped by a charity called HopeFull. What it has done is quite remarkable and is another example of how people in Britain see things sometimes slightly differently from the rest of the world. When Russia invaded Ukraine and there was a serious danger of it taking Kyiv in those early weeks, the charity—which had been working in Scotland, in the area around Dundee, helping to support people in difficulty and in poorer circumstances—upped sticks and decided that its real cause was now to help those fleeing from the Russians at the border of Poland, which it did. In fact, the charity turned up two weeks earlier than even Oxfam managed, simply by getting trucks and driving across. That is a very British way of doing things. Eventually the charity crossed over the border, and over the past three years it has supplied many people, organisations, towns and cities with food. The way in which it has done that is to take pizzas in pizza trucks to feed them.

The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he and I were recently cooking those pizzas close to the front. That charity has fed more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in that time, using charitable money and support from other countries, which is quite remarkable. The charity has now turned its attention to the other huge issue of combat stress and the disaster post-war that will haunt Ukrainians, for those who will suffer internally and externally, and I will come to that in a few minutes. I am therefore proud that people from the charity are in the Gallery today to watch the debate— I know that we should not normally refer to the Gallery, but in this instance it is quite relevant. Of its own accord, the charity has launched a rehabilitation programme in Ukraine, where it is trying to set up treatment for those with serious combat stress, and then trying to multiply that out by teaching other veterans to help people through programmes all across Ukraine. We have a lot to learn from Ukraine on the scale of that and from what they are seeing at the moment, and the figures are absolutely staggering. That addresses the psychological and physical needs and the moral injuries, which are huge—on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war. It is worth looking at a couple of pieces on this subject. Apart from combat stress, the scale of the damage is quite interesting. There are 5 million veterans in Ukraine. Some 50,000 of those veterans and young people now need prosthetics. I will repeat that figure—50,000 Ukrainians are waiting to get prosthetics. They have lost legs and arms through the mines, the shells and the shellfire. Civilians have been treated just like soldiers; they have been attacked by the Russians, who bombard hospitals. I have been to hospitals—the military hospital in Kharkiv, which I visited, was shelled regularly and deliberately. Who shells hospitals deliberately? They did. On my last visit, I visited a wonderful children’s hospital in Kyiv. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) may have been with me on that visit. The children’s hospital had received a direct hit from a ballistic missile. We do not get misfires on ballistic missiles; they are targeted to within a yard of their destination point. That was deliberate, and it tried to blow apart the work that the hospital was doing to help children suffering from cancer and all the ailments of war. That is the real horror of how Russia has fought this war. The very fact that it fought the war and invaded Ukraine is bad enough, but it has not stuck to all the usual rules that apply to those who fight. Civilians should be left out of it as far as possible, but Russia targets them. I went to the prosthetics labs to see this, and we in this country have a lot to learn from the Ukrainians. They are making advances in prosthetics that we simply could not have believed was feasible. I say to the Government that we really need to be sending people over there to look at what they are doing and bring it back, because it could be applied to civilian injuries in this country. All of the work that the charity HopeFull is doing is aimed at helping those people, and I salute it for that. There are those who say that Ukraine was somehow guilty of causing the war. I have been to Ukraine with other Members, and one need only see the sheer brutality of what has been happening on the ground to recognise how wrong such statements are. Russia’s aggression was not caused by anybody else; it was caused by Russia’s greed, its avarice, and its wrong-headed idea that it can recreate Greater Russia along the old Soviet Union lines. That is what is driving this war. That is what has led to probably over 800,000 dead and injured Russians, whose families will never see them again. Many, of course, will never see their bodies, because Russia systematically cremates them, so that there will not be a series of funerals in Russia, which could cause problems at home—that shows the cynicism of the country. We therefore need to remind everybody—we did not think that we did—that Ukraine is fighting a war of defence, not of aggression. It is Russia that has created the problem. Because of all the things that have been going on and milling around in the air, and all the rows that have been taking place, I also want to say that we need to take a pace back. This is not about pointing fingers at anybody; it is about trying to correct some of what has been said. I have to say straight off that peace is not just the absence of war—if it is just the absence of war, it becomes a ceasefire; an intolerable ceasefire that will break down. For peace to be durable and long-lasting, we need it to contain freedom and justice. There can be no real peace without justice for those who have been fighting for their country and for peace. That has to apply to us in NATO—in America and in Europe. We need to recognise that there can be no peace unless there is justice in that peace for those who have suffered most.

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Factually, the article 5 mutual defence clause of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once in its history. That was by the United States after 9/11, when President Bush ruled that America had been attacked and NATO in Europe—particularly Britain—came to its aid. Does my right hon. Friend think it is worth bearing that in mind as these very important discussions take place in Washington?

Of course it is. Article 5 has been the reason that western Europe has been able to grow and settle, and America has also been able to pursue its own ends because of the mutual defence pact that exists between us. I remember that Sir Tony Blair, who was the Prime Minister at that stage, did not waste any time; he came out immediately to support America, so much so that he was able to get into the debate that took place in the Congress and was welcomed as a friend, which was quite right. The reality is that the UK was the first to push for article 5 to be invoked, and George Robertson was the head of NATO at the time and moved it for the first time. That was very much the right thing to do, and that is what underpins this. Before I continue, I want to come back to some of the after-effects. I went to see those who are looking after, and are responsible for, prisoners of war in Kyiv. What is fascinating is that the abuses that are taking place in Russia trash the Geneva convention on support for prisoners of war. Russia spends its time moving Ukrainian prisoners of war around and does not allow the Red Cross full access at any stage. That is against the convention, and the Red Cross has complained—although I do not think it has said it loudly enough—that some Ukrainian prisoners of war are being used as human shields. Some are being used to clear mines in certain areas, which is also against the rules. We also know that in a number of cases, after serious interrogation of those prisoners of war, which is also illegal, their families in Ukraine are being bullied and threatened. They are told that unless they start spying or carrying out damaging acts in Ukraine, their loved one—their husband, son or daughter—in the prisoner of war camp, if such a thing exists, will be tortured and dealt with. This is going on quite regularly now and has been discovered by the Ukrainians. It is illegal under the Geneva convention, and I urge the Government to speak seriously to the Red Cross about making a much more public statement about how prisoners of war are being treated, because it really is quite shocking. There is a lack of accountability on this and the Red Cross needs to do much more. We must not underestimate the fact that there has been a change of regime in the United States, and that President Trump has made it very clear that he wants the war to end and that we have to drive to that. I think all of us in this House would support that position; we want to see an end to war. In fact, the Ukrainians want to see an end to war. Nobody wants to carry on fighting if there is a possibility of a good peace deal that, as I have said, contains justice and freedom for the Ukrainians. However, President Trump sees this as a sideshow; he says that he is more focused on China, Taiwan and other issues, and I think he wants to make savings on the United States’ spending in some of these areas, which is reasonable. However, the problem is that, for all our support for Ukraine, the reason why this war has gone on for three years is that we, the allies, quite honestly have dragged our feet on supplying the weapons and equipment that Ukraine needed from day one. In fact, there was a period in 2023 when Russia was on the rack and having real problems. It was short of munitions, it had lost territory to the Ukrainians—certainly in the east, around Kharkiv—and that was the moment at which Ukraine might well have been able to deal properly with Russia and push it back. Strangely enough, at that stage two things seem to have happened. First, I do not believe that the attack on Israel by Hamas was just a stand-alone item; I think that Iran, China and others had realised that Russia needed a distraction. The Americans, of course, immediately moved to support Israel—which is what they will do—and supplied arms to the Israelis. I was in the Congress around that time, looking to see whether America could get the money through. Some of the Republicans did not agree with the Bill and were blocking it. We did manage to persuade a few and they did push it forward, but my point is that they said, “The war in Israel is our war; Ukraine is your war, not ours; and we are keenly concerned about Taiwan.” The point I made to those Republicans, which I make again now, is that, in reality, we cannot separate Taiwan from Ukraine, or in a way from Israel. My personal view is that China’s hand is in all of this, and that distraction—that moving of equipment—has meant that Russia has been able to regain its strength and reach a rapprochement with North Korea. Interestingly enough, the scale of weapons that North Korea is now supplying is breathtaking—I think that well over 5 million artillery shells have been supplied since it signed the agreement with Russia. It now has thousands of troops in Russia who are defending the Russian position, and it is planning to supply even more weapons and missiles. This is a chain of totalitarian states that is working to support each other, and we are losing on this, because we ourselves do not focus on that linkage between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. I give one small warning. It is something the Americans need to face, and I hope that the Government will raise it with them. It is simply this: Russia in reply is giving significant technology to the North Koreans, particularly for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The security services here know about that, but it is a serious and significant shift. If the North Koreans have that technology, they will be able to take their nuclear weapons out to sea, which will bring all the American continent directly under target from those missiles. That will change the whole nature of the Pacific in terms of how we see geostrategic defence. It is a major change, and Russia has been giving the North Koreans that technology. It would be useful for the Government to say that this matter is not separable. Ukraine is the reason for that move. The road to Taiwan runs right through Ukraine, and we cannot and must not separate them. I make the simple point that when we speak about the money, it is a huge amount. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) will want to speak on this, but the reality is that we have had debates before on the huge amounts of money we have sitting here. Those are assets belonging to Russians—not just the oligarchs, but also the state. Some $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen within the G7 and the EU. Some $25 billion of Central Bank of Russia reserves are frozen in the UK alone. That is managed by Euroclear, and there is Euroclear money in Canada and other countries. The Government said the other day that they are prepared to use the money earned from that capital for Ukraine. I argue that if they are to use the money earned from the capital, they also have a right to use the capital. We should not just freeze the capital sitting in the banks, but seize it and use it for reparations, damage repair and the work that is necessary. I think we would see a major change immediately.

Can the right hon. Member explain why there seems to be a certain reluctance among western leaders to use this capital—the $300 billion or so of Russian state assets in western banks? It could be powerful as part of potential peace negotiations.

I agree. I can understand that reluctance. I think it is twofold. Those who have financial services markets are worried that if they leap out and do this without full agreement, all those other countries will say, “That is the last time we will ever invest money in that capital market. We will move it to the other countries that do not do that.” I can understand from the Government’s standpoint that it has to be agreed across at least the G7, as its members controls most of those capital markets. That would mean there would not be any country for an oligarch or totalitarian leader to go to. We have had a long time to get this right. Canada has made the strongest statement of all. I am told that America was okay under the last Administration. I am not sure now, but I would hope that President Trump realises this money is there. We should make this agreement as fast as possible. There can be no peace deal without money attached to it, and that money is necessary for Ukraine and must be used for Ukraine, and it is a huge sum. If we think we can use the earnings from the capital, we can use the capital too, because there is no definition or delineation between them. If we own the earnings, we own the capital.

The right hon. Gentleman and I have organised debates on this topic in the past. Does he share my view that we now need to get a lot faster in seizing this money, not only to pay for the munitions needed to win the war, but crucially, then to win the peace in Ukraine, making good the horrific scale of damage that Russia has inflicted on that great country?

I cannot put a piece of paper between the two of us. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He now has the capability to push the Government over this issue through his Select Committee. Whatever he chooses to do, I assure him that Opposition Members will support him in that pursuit. We need to get these decisions made now, because that will put pressure on Russia. If we make the decision to seize this money, Russia will then be under pressure to reach a reasonable agreement, because the Russians do not want to lose all this money in the meantime. There is a whole line of pressure that we should be bringing to bear on the Russians. We have allowed certain things to take place, and I do not blame just this Government, because it also happened under the last Government. The Foreign Office is always slightly reluctant to pursue sanctions with quite the aggressive nature that I would want. We recognise that. Everything has always got to be, “Well, Minister, you know, we must take into consideration a huge number of factors here, such as, ‘Why, when and who?’ These need papers, Minister.” I would say to them, “Forget the papers, let’s get to the facts.” The fact is that we have been allowing a shadow fleet carrying liquefied natural gas to come from Russia—even in the past few months—and deliver to the UK and other countries. How can it do that? The answer is simple, and I have raised this with the Government previously. The Americans have stepped in and said that any country that takes this gas will be sanctioned, and that stopped it overnight, but we could have stopped it, because we have the major marine insurers in this country. It was British companies that were insuring this shadow fleet to take Russian gas elsewhere. In what world do people sit there, watching that, and string out questions about what they should do? All we had to do was to say that we would sanction any marine insurer that insured one of those vessels. That would have been the end of it, because the marine insurer market is here in the UK. It would have killed that practice stone dead. America has now moved on this, and we can see some of these ships anchored off such places as India and even China, because they dare not take the gas, because of the sanctions. I urge the Government to drive their civil servants to be quicker, faster and more determined to follow the money and to stop it. As I say, that is not a criticism alone of the present Government; it is also a criticism of the Government of my party that was in power before.

There are many things we have to address in this debate, one of which is the atrocities that the Russian forces carried out against Ukrainians where they butchered, maimed, raped, abused and burned alive. Those things cannot be forgotten about, because the families still want justice. They want those who carried those atrocities out to be accountable. As this process of peace moves forward, that justice has to be part of the peace process, as it was in Northern Ireland.

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That justice will take time, but part of the point that I made is that we cannot have a peace, if it is a peace without justice. Justice has to prevail, because if it does not, we encourage everyone else to think, “Whatever we do, we will get away with it next time, because they do not have the courage to pursue the justice angle of peace.” We know that, and we have known that over the past 60 or 70 years. It is what the Nuremberg trials were all about, where the idea was for the first time to pursue the aggressors. That stands in the hon. Gentleman’s case. I served in Northern Ireland, as he knows, and I lost good friends. I still wonder what happened to them, even to this day. Justice for Ukraine will take a long while, and I accept that. The most interesting thing about the sanctions is that some of the LNG shipments were done by UK firms. I see that Shell was involved, which made it peculiar why we did not step in earlier. I will bring my speech to a close, because I know that others wish to speak. The problem is that there is an incorrect view and assumption about the importance of defending Ukraine that has got lost in the back-and-forth row that took place over the past week and a half. The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory that he may or may not have at the moment will somehow appease him and satisfy his requirements is completely wrong. I note that in the telephone call between President Trump and Putin, that is what President Trump said was important. The truth is that Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB. He is not interested in territory; he is interested in sovereignty, which is a key difference.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. I am originally from West Germany, as most people know, and I remind everybody that I would not be here without the US presence in Germany. Is it not a shame that, despite living memory, people seem to have forgotten the powerful status of the US in western Europe? We need to remind the American President of that.

I think President Trump is being reminded of that now in America, because arguments are taking place about this issue, but I do not think that he has forgotten. What we have to get lined up is the real nature of what Putin wants. It is not territory, but sovereignty. We know that he has always wanted to recreate the full borders of the old Soviet Union in a greater Russia. The war with Ukraine is not about getting 20% of its territory. For him, it is about getting all of Ukraine. If we have a peace deal that is not stable, he will be back. He will build up his armed forces, which he can do quite quickly now with the support of countries like North Korea, and he will be back in double-quick time. Who is to say that Ukraine will be in any fit state to be able to defend itself? It was only able to defend itself because in the period between the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and the war, we and the Americans set out about training and arming Ukrainian troops in a way that made them much better when the Russians came in the next time round, which is why they did not take Kyiv and were driven back. That was because we had got ahead of the game with the Ukrainians, who had much better armed forces than they did when Russia walked into Crimea. The reality for us is that there need to be guarantees on anything that happens, and I do not think that we can separate the Americans from the guarantees. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) says, America is the ultimate guarantor at the end of the day. By the way, I agree with the Americans that the west has ridden on the coat tails of the United States for far too long—we have been guilty of that. We have lived a life that has allowed us to say, “We’ll claim that defence spending is this amount,” but it is not really. That is one of the reasons why President Trump is angry about the idea that the Americans should be expected to take on this matter, so we have to step up. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has started the process, and I wish him all the best in Washington, but increased defence spending absolutely has to happen. The last time we spoke, I pointed out to him that we faced the greatest threat that we have ever faced when the Soviet Union put SS-20 missiles in Europe. It was Reagan and Thatcher, supported by Helmut Kohl and others, who helped lead western Europe to take the tough decision to put Pershing and cruise missiles in order to counter the threat. That was a brave decision by the leadership, and it centred on the UK and the US. The Prime Minister needs to remind President Trump that when the UK and the US come together for a just cause, the world is a safer place. When we are divided, it is less safe—I do not care what anybody else says. That relationship is critical to peace and justice in the world, and I hope that he succeeds in achieving that. We know that President Putin is keen only on sovereignty, and the reality is that this is critical for our understanding of what peace would amount to. We must not lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is important. It is important to the Americans in a way that sometimes I do not think they fully understand. I spoke earlier about the road to Taiwan and the threats to Taiwan. The war in Ukraine has damaged the global economy, at a cost of about $1 trillion, but any seizure of Taiwan would cost the economy nearer $10 trillion. To those who say, “Why should we in this country be worried about Taiwan?”, I say that 72% of everything produced in the world today is made in the area around Taiwan. People cannot tell me that Taiwan is not as important as Kent is to the United Kingdom—it is exactly the same. Why does the road to Taiwan run through Ukraine? It is because if we fail Ukraine and it gets a terrible deal, China will look at the situation and say, “Do you know what? They’re never going to step in here, because it’s too far away. They won’t do it—they never do. They fell out of Afghanistan. They didn’t do anything when Crimea was taken. They’ve given in completely over Ukraine, and they will do the same over Taiwan.” That is why the road goes to Taiwan, and we will be left behind, because we will not have taken the right decision. I hope the Prime Minister reminds President Trump that if we fail on Ukraine, it will open up the world again to the rule of totalitarian states, which will come again and again. As Churchill said, the “bitter cup…will be proffered to us” again and again. Every time we fail, and every time we do not stand up for those who struggle for freedom, democracy or justice, they will take that and move on. We have learned this lesson so many times, but we seem to forget it and have to learn it again. We must stand with the brave Ukrainian men and women, who have lost so much and are going to lose even more. If we are not with them and do not find a way for Ukraine to remain a free nation of free people and of choice, we are not worth the thousands of years of experience that we have gained from the fights that we have put up previously. All will become naught, because totalitarianism will rule the day.

Order. As you can see, quite a few people wish to contribute, so I will have to put in place a time limit of five minutes to begin with.

12:46:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and his team for securing this important debate. I know that he has long been a champion of Ukraine’s fight against Russia. Members on both sides of the House have loudly supported the Ukrainian cause and have made excellent contributions in debates prior to today, and I look forward to hearing their contributions in this debate. I know that many Members have recently returned from the country and have seen at first hand the horror that has been inflicted on the Ukrainian people. Having visited the country in September, I vividly remember my experience. The cardiology hospital in Kyiv had been hit while children were on the operating table. I visited the cellar of a school in Chernihiv oblast, where over 300 villagers, including women and children, were rounded up and held captive in March 2022. Valery, a former captive held at the school, will forever be haunted by what he saw and experienced. Over 100 people were stuffed into a room so crowded that people were gasping for air, including a baby who was less than two months old. I asked Valery how he had the strength to go back there and revisit the site with us. He said that the story had to be told, and that people needed to understand the Russian soldiers’ lack of humanity. That school will forever be a marker of the Russians’ brief occupation of the village. It is remarkable that three years after the start of the full-scale invasion, civilians can still sit in cafés and restaurants in Ukrainian cities, where life appears normal—that is, until the air raid siren sounds. It is a haunting reminder that the Ukrainians are sacrificing a great deal not just for themselves but for us, our values and our freedoms. Regardless of whether it is our predecessors standing with Churchill or the creation of NATO under the stewardship of Ernest Bevin, the Labour party’s record on defence has stood the test of time. I am so proud to live in a country that has stood up and stood tall in the face of Russian tyranny and imperialism—not only through supporting the Ukrainian military, but through our welcoming those fleeing the war. The United Kingdom has welcomed over 218,000 people who fled the conflict through the Ukraine family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. In the east midlands, we have taken in 8,739 Ukrainians, with my local authority of Amber Valley welcoming nearly 250. I do not want to spend more time restating the words and sentiments of those across this House who are supporting Ukraine. I am sure that many on the frontlines are not paying much attention to our platitudes and tributes while waves of Russian assaults pummel them, and nor will those in cities sheltering from what, only a few days ago, was the largest drone attack of the war be comforted by words alone. No matter how beautiful our rhetoric, Ukrainians do not sleep any better at night for those words. I welcome the decision to bring forward the 2.5% spending commitment to 2027, and this money cannot come soon enough for the people I met in Ukraine. I also welcome the further money allocated to our intelligence agencies to protect this country from the various threats Russia poses, including cyber-attacks. I welcome the Government leading the way, whether with the latest round of sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned that—or the Defence Secretary chairing the Ukraine defence contact group at NATO a few weeks ago. There is of course much more that we can do, and I urge the Government to consider how the abducted children, who were also mentioned, can be returned from Russia.

12:51:00

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for calling this debate. I was very pleased to support his application to the Backbench Business Committee. Before I start the speech that I have written, I want to say something about the Ukrainian people. No one, least of all Vladimir Putin when he launched his illegal invasion three years ago, understood what they were taking on with the Ukrainian people. With their spirit, ingenuity and incredible ability to innovate and make the most of every single asset at their disposal, they have faced up to a new form of warfare. At the same time, they have faced not only the old school of tanks, trenches and almost hand-to-hand combat but the high tech of drones, digital and modern equipment. It shows beyond doubt—a cautionary tale for others who may be thinking of invading a sovereign nation—how far people will go and how hard they will fight for their friends, neighbours and families, and how desperately they will defend their homeland, independence, language and identity. We should all take a moment to reflect on that, and we should pay tribute to them for their incredible bravery. I also pay tribute to the British people, who have reacted to this dreadful situation with so much warmth, and of course to the Government. Our Government and the Opposition were united, and we acted very swiftly in the first days of the unprovoked and illegal invasion. Prime Minister Johnson led from the front in his defence of Ukraine, and of the Ukrainians’ right to sovereignty and independence. He set the pace for other European countries to follow, and he had the backing of the British people, who care about this. We care about this in my area of Gosport because we have skin in the game. It is an area with a very proud history of serving our armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy. It was so typical of the generosity of spirit of Gosport people that so many Ukrainians made Gosport their home. I must declare an interest, because one of those homes was, and still is, mine. I saw the Russian tanks rolling into Donbas and towards Kyiv, and I could not stand by and do nothing, so my husband and I joined the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I have never spoken publicly about that before. Gosport welcomed over 300 Ukrainians to our area, and a few weeks after we signed up to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, my family and I were boosted by two women. They are still with us, and I now refer to them as my Ukrainian wife and my Ukrainian daughter. They and many others have been in the UK for almost three years.

Many of the refugees that the hon. Lady describes have three-year visas, but those visas are running out. Is she worried, as I am, that the Government need to look at the extension scheme, and ensure that all the Ukrainians we have welcomed have the ability to plan for the long term?

It is almost as if the hon. Member had read what I wrote on my bit of paper. It is miraculous. I want to know her lottery numbers for next week. She is exactly right. My own Ukrainian family —and I call them family, because they are now part of my family—have made lives for themselves in this country, and they have become an asset to our community. In the event of a sustainable peace deal, Ukraine will of course want and need its brightest and best to return to rebuild the country, but so many of them simply do not have anything to go back to, such is the devastation that has been wrought by Russia in destroying 167,000 civilian buildings. UNESCO says that almost 500 cultural sites have also been lost as a result of Russia’s attempt to erase Ukrainian heritage, and so many of the communities that Ukrainians have fled just will not be the same. They will not have anything to go back to, and they will miss the familiar landmarks, meeting places and, most importantly and most sadly, the people they wanted to go back to.

On the point that the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made about visas for Ukrainian refugees, do they recognise that the Government have already extended the visa scheme by 18 months? That decision was made this month, and it has been welcomed at least by the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency.

Yes, that is very welcome. A lot of people from the Ukrainian community want certainty about what to expect and about the security of the world around them. To follow on from an earlier comment, we hear a lot about planning for the war, but I want to know a little more about the Government’s planning for the peace and working towards a day when many Ukrainians will be able to return to their home country. What about those here under the scheme who have made homes, relationships and jobs here and are contributing to the economies and communities in which they live? Will they be able to stay indefinitely? People are beginning to ask that question, and as much as we understand that Ukraine will want its brightest and best back, there are some who simply do not have anything to go back to. To conclude, contrary to the messaging coming out of the Munich security conference, there are values that we all share as European countries, which we must now pay to defend. However, we must not just use words; we must show action and we must show solidarity. I suppose I want to give the Minister, who I know cares about this very deeply, the opportunity to affirm the Government’s commitment that, as the geopolitical weathers change, our dedication as a nation—and as a Government and an Opposition—to Ukraine, its incredible and indefatigable people, and their democratically elected President, will never waver.

12:58:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for calling this debate. I was proud to support his application. I was with him on the trip to Ukraine a few weeks ago, with that fantastic charity, HopeFull, which he mentioned. If someone had told me a year ago, “A year later you will be stood with the Conservative Sir Iain Duncan Smith in the snow, cooking pizzas, in Ukraine,” I would never have believed them. It was a fascinating visit and an important one. The visit highlighted the cross-party nature of the support for Ukraine that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—I will call her my hon. Friend—has pointed out. It is so important, particularly in comparison with other countries. There is also a role for Back Benchers across the parties to put pressure on our respective Front Benchers to ensure that we work together on this issue into the future. We are marking the three-year point of this absolutely terrible war, started by Vladimir Putin. It is an illegal war, and one of brutality and barbarism, and a conflict in which Ukraine is literally fighting for its life—for its existence as a free and independent nation state. However, as the first line of the national anthem of Ukraine says: “The glory and freedom of Ukraine have not yet perished”, despite the best efforts of the dictator Vladimir Putin. We heard earlier about the scale of the war and the destruction it has wrought. We have heard about the hundreds of thousands of deaths of young men and women on all sides of the conflict; the thousands of civilians—women, girls and boys—killed and the many millions injured; and the almost 7 million Ukrainian refugees, and many more internally displaced people. The longer they are away from their home, the less likely it is that they will return. Civilian casualties rose by 30% in the last year of the war. Russia has increased its use of aerial bombs, drones, missiles and loitering munitions. We heard about the Ukrainian hospital in Kyiv—their version of Great Ormond Street hospital—which has been visited by many hon. Members. What kind of a regime deliberately targets a hospital? Landmines now contaminate 139,000 sq km of Ukraine, posing a real risk to civilians and the future of the country. In the last 12 months, there were 306 attacks on medical facilities and 576 attacks on schools—nearly double the number in the previous year. We talked about the rules of war not being followed by Vladimir Putin’s armed forces. Disgracefully, the UN has recorded an alarming spike in the number of Ukrainian soldiers executed by Russian armed forces. There are credible allegations of at least 81 executed in the past six months. People made reference to Ukrainian prisoners of war who are subjected to appalling crimes—torture, sexual violence, and much, much more. Then there are the children. Vladimir Putin faces a warrant from the International Criminal Court for abducting thousands of children. The Yale School of Public Health humanitarian research lab says, conservatively, that there are at least 6,000 children held at camps in Russia at the moment. There has also been the incredible spectre of North Korean troops fighting on this continent for a terrible dictatorship. I want to talk—very briefly, because time is short—about the security guarantees that Ukraine needs. As the discussion about peace in Ukraine develops, one of my concerns is the way that Vladimir Putin suggests that there should be limits on the Ukrainian armed forces after a peace. The best security guarantee is the one operating at the moment: a well-equipped, well-armed Ukrainian armed force—the brave men and women of Ukraine who have held back Vladimir Putin’s evil army. The first principle in any discussion of security guarantees or peace is “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. A further principle in those negotiations has to be the need to understand the character of the man we are dealing with. He is a compulsive liar who breaks his word at every opportunity. That is why the guarantees are so incredibly important. After Munich, and the destabilising comments made by some characters in foreign Governments, it is natural to be cautious in this place. We should be hard-headed, and should talk realistically about what Britain needs to do.

Does the hon. Gentleman find it ironic that the conference at Munich seemed like the shadow of a previous conference at Munich, at which the Sudetenland was given away, and which made it certain that the second world war would take place? Does he think that we may end up in the same position, if we are not careful?

I do. One interesting thing to note after Munich and recent discussions is that some of this stuff is not new. The United States has been telling Europe to pay for its own defence and to step up for many, many years. If the commitment to 2%, made in Wales in 2014, had been kept by all the countries that signed up to it, we would have spent another £800 billion on our collective defence since that time. Countries need to step up and ensure that they meet their commitments. We need to be realistic about our role. We are a leading European partner, a leading member of NATO, and a leading ally of the United States. I worry that in the past two weeks, some people have been very quick to throw out 80 years of important transatlantic alliance, but it is crucial for the security of this country, and the security of our continent.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Does he agree that talking about the end of NATO is a very dangerous way of putting things? We in Europe cannot continue with NATO without the United States in it, and it is important to remind the United States of that.

I completely agree, and that is why I have been reassured by the Government talking about our having a NATO-first defence policy; the Prime Minister reaffirmed that this week. Given all the drama in the past couple of weeks, it has been reassuring to see the steady hand and leadership that the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Government as a whole have shown on these issues. They have reacted calmly and coolly to the challenge that has been posed. Yesterday we saw the whole House give the Prime Minister its good wishes, and offer him good luck with his urgent task of convincing President Trump of the importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe. There is also the very important link, referred to earlier, with dictatorships across the world; we should not allow the principle of “might is right” to succeed, because then we go down a very dangerous road indeed. When this country was fighting for its life—there is a dangerous tendency for British politicians to always refer back to that time; I am going to fall into that trap—Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s great personal friend, was here in the UK. He gave a speech in Glasgow, to reassure Churchill in those dark days of December 1940, which he finished with a quote from the Book of Ruth: “‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people…’ Even to the end.” That should be the attitude of Britain, Europe and the United States to Ukraine—solidarity, unyielding support, and remembering that the glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished.

13:05:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate, and for giving me the opportunity to support it. The third anniversary of Russia’s latest full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a point at which we must all reflect not just on the war, but on what is at stake for all of us. Last week, I attended a gathering in my constituency, where I met Ukrainians who, I am happy to say, have found a home in Lewes and across Sussex. Many of them arrived in the UK fleeing war, but they have done far more than rebuild their life. They have formed support networks, kept Ukrainian culture alive—their singing is really beautiful— and sent aid back home, including Christmas presents for children in Ukrainian hospitals, children whose lives have been shattered by Russian bombs. I often think of the children still in Ukraine, children just like mine. Three years ago, they would have gone to school in the morning, come home and played with their friends and siblings, had a bit of dinner and gone to bed, only to be woken up in the night by air raid sirens and their parents rushing them to underground bomb shelters, where they will have listened to Russian missiles smash into their homes above their heads. That is the reality of this war for innocent people—families and children whose only crime was living in a country that Putin decided to target. As we can all see, Ukrainian resistance has been nothing short of heroic. For three years, against the odds, the Ukrainian people have proudly stood their ground, fighting not just for their own freedom, but for the kind of world we all want to live in. Britain must be clear: we stand with Ukraine. From day one, the UK has not only provided military aid and training, but put economic pressure on Russia. British families have opened their homes to Ukrainian refugees. Today, however, the west’s commitment is being tested in ways I never thought I would witness. With President Trump peddling Russian propaganda directly from the White House, the future of US support is uncertain. Let me be clear: if America wavers, then Britain and Europe must step up. That entails action, not just words. Ukraine must have the necessary weapons, economic support and long-term investment to not only survive, but win. That means going even further, defrosting and seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets stashed in London, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere, and converting them into a financial lifeline for Ukraine. The threat is not limited to Ukraine. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned Taiwan and how heavily that part of the world is affected by this situation, but I draw attention to Russia’s hybrid warfare closer to home. It is targeting and destabilising countries such as Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Belarus. Kremlin-backed elites such as Belarus dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko and Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili are working to undermine democracy and pull their countries back into Moscow’s orbit. Britain cannot allow Putin’s cronies to operate unchecked. We must follow the US and the European Parliament in sanctioning those enabling his war machine. If Putin is allowed to win in Ukraine, he will not stop there. He will redraw Europe’s borders by force, and other tyrants will be watching. This is not just about defending Ukraine’s sovereignty; it is about defending the liberal, rules-based international order that safeguards us all, an order our nation helped to build to constrain great powers from exploiting the less powerful by, for instance, extracting valuable raw materials at the point of a gun. Some say Britain should step back, abandon our allies and retreat from global leadership, but history will judge the choices we make now. Do we appease aggression, or do we stand firm in the face of tyranny? As previously mentioned, we all wish the Prime Minister well in his discussions on these issues with the US President today. There is no middle ground: either we let Putin tighten his grip on Europe, or we push back. Looking to the future, any peace deal must be just that, and not a temporary ceasefire that allows Putin’s forces to rest, rearm and go again. It must be backed with real security guarantees and clearly state that Russia started this war, and that it bears responsibility for the consequences. Some speak about picking sides in the new geopolitical landscape, but there is only one side that the UK can back: the side of freedom, the rule of law and the liberal international order—the side that reflects the values of this country and, I believe, this House. So, as I said, there is no middle ground: either we let Putin tighten his grip on Europe, or we push back. We must push back by arming Ukraine, crippling Russia’s war economy and standing unwavering in our commitment to Ukraine’s victory, because its fight is our fight, too. This is a battle for freedom and justice, and a battle we cannot afford to lose.

13:10:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing forward this debate. I am happy to support it. Like some colleagues in the Chamber, I spent Sunday evening in an underground bomb shelter in Kyiv as Russia launched a massive drone attack on the city and many others across Ukraine. While it was a terrifying experience, I was proud to join the UK’s cross-party delegation to Ukraine to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion. It is, of course, a grim milestone in a conflict that has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians and displaced many, many more. As the only female MP on the delegation, it would be remiss of me not to tell the House about the vital role that Ukrainian women are playing in this conflict. As James Brown once said, it’s a man’s world, but it would be nothing without a woman. Strength and bravery take many forms, and Ukrainian women have shown extraordinary resilience in not just defending Ukraine against Russian aggression, but rebuilding a nation that refuses to be broken. As the House will know, when Russian forces invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, President Zelensky ordered that all able-bodied men aged 18 to 60 were to remain in the country to bolster Ukraine’s defences, but Ukrainian women also stepped up. Today, more than 50,000 women are signed up to the Ukrainian army. One in 10 of those women holds a senior position, and more than 4,000 are engaged directly in frontline combat. This week, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the women who have served on the frontline. There was no mandatory conscription for Ukrainian women, meaning that every single woman who has signed up has done so voluntarily, driven by their immovable resolve to defend their home. However, women are also playing a vital role off the battlefield, and have been vital in sustaining the economy against Putin’s war machine. Ukraine has changed the law so that women can fill labour gaps in mining, transportation, logistics and agriculture, ensuring those critical sectors continue to function in the face of bombardment and destruction from Putin’s forces. Today, one in every two new businesses started in Ukraine is started by a woman. I met women this week who are camped out in drone factories, making the kit that is being sent to the frontline. Ukrainian women are doing all this while many of them have lost their fathers, brothers and husbands.

The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. There are times in this place when it is very difficult to keep one’s composure when speaking—she is doing a fantastic job. All our hearts go out to those Ukrainian people, and they certainly deserve all our support.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. While those Ukrainian women are fighting and sustaining their country, they are also the mothers to the 19,546 children who have been kidnapped by Russia. I want to tell the House why the fourth point of President Zelensky’s peace formula is so vital to ensuring a just end to this war. When Russian forces invaded the eastern oblasts in Ukraine, they deported and forcibly removed children from Ukraine to Russia. This is genocide in international law as we know it. In one case, a child only eight months old was taken by Russian forces. His new name and date of birth are unknown. Russia has consistently denied the existence of this child and thousands of others. Some of these children end up in Russia’s youth military, conscripted to fight a war against the country they were born in. This is a war crime. Before any ceasefire, the 19,546 stolen children of Ukraine must be returned home. Talk of tanks, bullets, drones and machine guns is unlikely to move the minds of people who live so far from Ukraine. It is the stories of the women who are playing an essential role in this war that will move those minds—it is their story, their fight for survival and their fight for the values of democracy that we in this House hold so dear, and must support with all our might. Slava Ukraini.

13:16:00

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and saluting him for the incredible work he has done in leading on this issue. As always, it is hugely heartening to see so many colleagues from across the House in the Chamber. It serves as a timely reminder of the united approach that we have taken on this issue and of our resolute and undiminished support for the Ukrainian people. In my constituency, we have welcomed many Ukrainian families, and I am always touched and moved by their stories of resilience in the face of the greatest hardship. Many Members have spoken before me—not just in this debate, but through the course of the week—about the importance of the Government’s welcome announcement of increased defence spending and the need for our allies also to step up to the plate. While I do not intend to repeat those arguments today, I will add that we alone do not determine our defence spending: it is our enemies too, but it is also our allies. With the United States announcing a potential step back from their support for Ukraine, it is clear that we as a nation have an overriding obligation not only to Ukraine but to our citizens and the wider world to step up and keep Putin’s war machine at bay. If we fail to do so, we will be opening the gates to totalitarian regimes across the world. The reality is that the United Kingdom has armed forces that are fit for peace. However, over the past eight months or so, we have entered a much more dangerous arena, and we need to be ready for any outcome. In the time available to me, I want to raise two further points. First, I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on the increasingly pressing need to release the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid the Ukrainian Government in the rebuilding of their country. Secondly, I want to pick up on my right hon. Friend’s comments about what we can and must learn as an armed forces from this conflict and from the heroic efforts of the Ukrainian military, with many making the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the sovereignty of their country. The war has shown a clear shift in the nature of warfare and in the nature of each serving person’s working realities. War is now in a much more hybrid state, fought not only in traditional land and maritime realms, but back in bases in remote locations, yet we still follow traditional medical guidelines setting out who can serve and who does not have the opportunity to do so. This where I feel we can learn from Ukraine, which, very early on in the conflict, amended and adjusted many of the medical requirements for its serving personnel. In our military, there is often a mindset of “soldier first”, which may well exempt someone who has suffered a knee injury while playing sport at school, anyone with Raynaud’s phenomenon, for example, or anyone wearing glasses over a certain prescription. Rather than making a generic medical exemption list for the whole force, I invite the Minister at least to consider tailoring the medical requirements to the position being applied for. For example, what are the chances of a person’s glasses being blown off if they are operating from a chair in a drone centre hundreds of miles away? What is the reality of an intelligence officer in a remote location looking at satellite information losing the feeling in their fingers due to the cold because of Raynaud’s phenomenon? What are the chances of a Royal Navy dental officer not being able to complete a check-up because of pain in his knee? We need to be much more flexible. Although I accept that there is a certain degree of hyperbole in my argument, the point I am making is a serious one. If we are to turn the tide on our recruitment policy and difficulties in this country, we need to tailor the medical requirements to the specific role. We must become more versatile and adaptive as a fighting force—like our friends in Ukraine. As a country, we are often guilty of preparing for the war that we have had, rather than the war that we will face in the future. As we reflect on the three years since Putin’s illegal invasion, I say to the Government that we should not waste any more time or waste what we have learned at the cost of so many thousand Ukrainian lives.

13:21:00

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate and all those who have spoken today. It was Václav Havel who said that the best defence against tyranny is to live in truth. On this third anniversary, we have the opportunity to repeat some truths to this House—that Ukraine is a democracy, that democracies need defending, and that the best way to defend democracies is for democratic nations to come together with a unity of purpose around our values. We should not have to remind the world that Ukraine is a democracy, but some have impugned that. We in this House know that, at times, all democracies face challenges. Let us be honest, this country once had to suspend elections during the height of world war two. Gosh, I am even old enough to remember when thousands of people invaded the United States Congress because they wanted to overturn a democratic election and nullify the result and the election of President Biden. Let us send a clear message from this House that we do not regard President Zelensky as a dictator. We regard him as a hero of democracy, and we in the west should have his back. We must also remember that, at times, democracies will need defending, especially against dictators —especially when it comes to Russia. President Zelensky is on the frontline of an effort to re-contain Russia on behalf of us all. Russia is a country that invades its neighbours time and time again. It has been invading its neighbours since the days of Ivan the Terrible. It has invaded its neighbours on eight different occasions since 1945—on average, that is once every decade since the end of the second world war. Faced with that threat, why on earth would we make concessions now? Some 700,000 people have been lost in this war in Russia. Russia now faces a NATO that is bigger and stronger. Russia will run out of T-80 tanks in April, and it has lost more artillery systems in the past year than in the previous two years put together. Russia, at the height of the war, controlled 19.6% of Ukrainian territory; today, it controls 19.2%. In the face of that weakness, why on earth would we make concessions now to those who want to make Russia great again? We should confront them with strength, not weakness, because that is how peace is secured. Finally, it is vital for us across the west to unite around our values, to celebrate those values and not to attack each other. I am worried that what began as political improvisation in the United States has now become, under the new President, a political project. I am worried that some of the noises that I hear sound like the report that Thucydides made of the Athenian threat all those centuries ago, which is that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. In this country, we know how that story ends. When we talk about the rules-based order, we do not mean the rules of the poker table, or even the rules that we set out at the end of world war two. We believe not simply in a rules-based order, but in a rights-based order. The rights that ensure our freedom were enshrined in the UN’s universal declaration of human rights at the end of world war two and in the Council of Europe’s European convention on human rights, co-authored by this country, based on Churchill’s great vision of a great charter. Those are the rights that we should be celebrating, because they mean freedom for all of us. Those rights, values and freedoms must be defended with strength, so the Prime Minister’s decision to increase defence spending was right. This House will need reassurance that that money can be well spent, but, crucially, given the cuts that are to be made to the aid budget, we must think hard, creatively and quickly about how we now lead a great multilateral effort to increase the amount of aid spending around the world. We need to think in this 80th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions about how we reinvent the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for new times, so that they are bigger and better in the world to come. That is the way that we become evangelists for the rights that are now being defended so valiantly by Ukrainian forces on the continent of Europe.

13:26:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate. I recognise that, quite rightly, the debate has focused on our responsibility to support Ukraine’s war effort against Putin’s unprovoked and illegal attack in Ukraine, but I wish to talk about our continued commitment to Ukrainians here, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) both mentioned. Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, more than 218,000 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK under the Ukraine family and sponsorship schemes. I am incredibly proud of my constituency of Chichester, which has taken more Ukrainian refugees than any other city in this country, and those refugees have now become a valued part of our community. Now more than ever, we must stand firmly with our Ukrainian friends, both in defending their sovereign territory and in ensuring that those who are here can live safely and comfortably. The original visa scheme, as the Minister will know, was for three years, and with the three-year anniversary being marked this week, many visas are now expiring. The Government have asked Ukrainians to apply for the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which will extend their visa for a further 18 months. However, they are allowed to apply for that extension scheme only when their visa has 28 days or fewer left on it. This is causing myriad difficulties for that community, including in their ability to renew employment contracts, extend leases or set up new leases on rented accommodation, or commit to education opportunities. I had the opportunity to visit Bishop Luffa school in Chichester last month, and met a group of Ukrainian students, who have not only become well-liked by staff and students, but have excelled in their studies and are expected to finish their A-levels with high grades across the board in subjects such as mathematics and the sciences. Those students are the doctors and the scientists of the future, yet there is no clear direction from the Department for Education on how they should pursue higher education—be it via the same routes as their UK counterparts with whom they have studied, as refugees, or as international students. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Education and I hope that there will be clearer guidance in the near future for students who are desperate to study in the UK.

I have spoken to many Ukrainian families who have made their homes in Glastonbury and Somerton after fleeing Russian aggression in Ukraine. Many of them are concerned about the decision to exclude time spent in the UK under the long residence route, which is different from other schemes and could be subject to costly legal challenges. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about this?

Absolutely, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the fact that the time spent here is not counting towards the right to remain or settled status. As the hon. Member for Gosport mentioned, these families have found homes and built communities here in the UK, and they just want to know either way what will happen to them in the future. The young people I was speaking about are often cared for by one parent or by grandparents, while their other family members defend Ukraine’s sovereignty. Some families have reported that estate agents are requesting from these single-parent Ukrainian families a six-month up-front rental deposit. That is untenable across the country, but especially in areas such as Chichester, where the average one-bedroom flat is £1,200 a month. Employers are also asking for proof of visa status, which is causing families additional stress when they are waiting for a visa decision, sometimes just days before their visa expires. For those Ukrainians on zero-hours contracts, it is directly impacting their ability to earn money to contribute to UK society and provide a safe home for them and their dependants. If the Ukrainians were given a 90-day window before their visas expired, as originally proposed by the Home Office, rather than the very short timeframe they are being given, the situation could be vastly improved. I thank Opora, the UK charity supporting Ukrainians here in the UK, for all the support that it is giving those families who are navigating what can often be a complicated, convoluted and long process of reapplying for these schemes, and for taking the time to brief me properly on the situation that these families find themselves in. Today’s debate will rightly be dominated by what we can do for Ukraine and our steadfast support across the house, but I hope that the Minister is working closely with his Home Office colleagues so that, while we support the brave Ukrainians who are heroically defending their country, we can also continue to support the community of Ukrainians here in the UK.

13:31:00

Yesterday I read through a speech I made three years ago, in which I said: “Ukrainians and President Zelensky have displayed the highest level of bravery in the face of brutal Russian aggression. In the eyes of Vladimir Putin, Ukrainians have made an unforgivable choice: they decided to be an independent and democratic country. Like all dictators, Putin is terrified of losing power”— that did not fit with this plan of a great Russia again. My speech continued: “Ukrainians have made their choice. They want to be a European country. They want to become a member of NATO. They want to be free to make their own choices. Make no mistake, Ukrainians are fighting this war on behalf of all of us who are part of the free and democratic world.” I then said: “We must support them as if the future of our country and our way of life depends on it, because quite frankly, it does.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 833-834.] The world is watching the conflict. The dictators of the world have become emboldened over the past decade, in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Russia will push further, with Moldova seemingly next. My speech went on to urge more action, as Ukraine was asking for help, and each day decisions were being deliberated. That should have been done much more quickly. As was said earlier, we are not fighting this properly. The world is not together. It is a big issue—it is not just a fight between two countries. It is Russia. It is Putin. He is an evil man. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, he is KGB. I thank the right hon. Member for his wonderful opening speech. Putin is inhuman. North Korea is involved in this. China, Iran and North Korea are all working together on this. It has been planned. I agree entirely with what was said earlier. I was with some North Koreans here on Tuesday night. They are fighting—they have 100,000 at Russia’s disposal in Ukraine. When they are killed or maimed, their faces and hands are burned off so that they cannot be recognised as North Koreans. That is how evil Putin is. In 2014, Putin took Crimea without any consequences. He orchestrated the bombings that resulted in the deaths of 300 of his own people, to start a war to take power. He had his political rivals shot for opposing war. He approved poisoning on British soil, resulting in the death of a British citizen. He pre-recorded his declaration of war on Ukraine, after which he pretended to be open to diplomacy. Putin will not stop. He cannot be appeased. I understand why NATO could not get directly involved yet, short of that, we should have been doing absolutely everything at a much speedier pace. I do not point a finger of blame at anyone, but we are not looking at this as seriously as we should. This is as much a calamity as 1945. Last week, the world was shocked. To quote Will Hutton in The Observer on Sunday: “The spilled Ukrainian blood counted for nothing” as the elected president of the United States openly sided with Russia “to achieve a peace that can only reward it for its unilateral aggression. As profoundly, the US president has launched a new era in which might is right, ‘strong’ men carve up the globe, and international law and multilateral institutions are eviscerated. Nor, as the former head of MI6 Alex Younger told BBC’s Newsnight, is there any going back.” Our thoughts and support are with our Prime Minister, especially today. We wish him every success in his discussions later today. We all have to step up and be absolutely united. We have to grow up, if I may say so. We are talking about things, but we should be looking at other things now. We are at war. It is so very important for the world.

13:36:00

We in Reform stand united with the whole House in support of Ukraine and all brave Ukrainians against the monstrous tyranny of that most evil villain, Putin.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have not even warmed up! I will make a little more progress. Just over 13 months ago, I made a donation to acquire a 4x4 pick-up truck and to fill it with first aid supplies, and I drove it with other volunteers to Ukraine to give it to those brave soldiers on the frontline. I remember meeting the extraordinary technicians who were making the drones, including brilliant, bright children who were helping to develop new drone technology. Tragically, I stood in a cemetery and watched mums weep over the graves of their sons. That cemetery has almost doubled in size in just 12 months. The maxim of peace through strength has stood the test of time—in history, today and in future. That is why in our contract at the election we had 2.5% of GDP on defence spending within three years, and 3% within six years. That is why we supported the Prime Minister earlier this week when he made those same commitments. I hope that that 3% will be a firm commitment within five or six years. Peace through strength is vital. As others have said, we all want peace, not least the brave Ukrainians. It must be right to try for a peace deal, however difficult. Most wars and conflicts end up in some form of negotiation —however difficult, tough or tense.

Given how the hon. Gentleman started his speech, does he agree with the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is probably not in Clacton right now, who said in 2014 that Vladimir Putin was the global leader he most admired?

Putin is a vile dictator. We all know that. My leader has also confirmed that Putin is the aggressor in this war. I was just moving on, in the time allotted, to the issue of how we get to a durable peace.

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s personal position, but can he explain why the leader of his party thought that the priority for President Zelensky should be to set a timetable for elections, given that Winston Churchill, when facing a dictator, did not hold elections because we were under martial law?

The point about elections is a good one, because any peace deal can only work if it has the support and involvement of all Ukrainians. In the second world war, we had elections in the summer of 1945, before the war had ended, which was completely appropriate then. At some point the Ukrainians will need to be involved in supporting a peace deal, if we get there. A peace deal, however, is only durable—it only works—if it endures. That means we need the security guarantees to ensure that the aggressor will never, ever attack again. It is those security guarantees that we must focus on, all be involved in and ensure that they are a strong, robust deterrent. If we get those security guarantees right, hopefully Putin and Russia will never try such a monstrous activity and invasion ever again.

13:40:00

I, too, like many hon. Friends and Members across the House, returned from Ukraine only last night, after the monstrous 24-hour journey. I am mentally and physically exhausted after the experiences, and I cannot sum up in five minutes what I experienced—I could talk about it for days, really. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and the UK Friends of Ukraine and B4NZ—Bankers for Net Zero—for the visit they organised. It was truly fantastic to be there, but also deeply emotional. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Ukrainian people; for their stoicism and resolve in getting through this illegal war. They just keep functioning as though it is normal life. The buildings get bombed but they do not just leave them crumbled on the ground; they rebuild them. The soldiers injured on the frontline are in hospital, but telling us they want to get back there as soon as possible. Those are the ingredients for a country that is set to take on Putin and set to win this war. I experienced two nights in an air raid shelter. The first night was with my hon. Friends. It was a little bit scary, but there was a sense of camaraderie between everyone there. I stayed on an extra night because I was heading up to Chernihiv the following day to meet the people up there. That night I was in the shelter alone, during which there was a lot of time to reflect, including on what was going on outside. The more the night went on, the more fearful I became, especially when I heard that there were not just drones but missiles potentially flying around above my head. The Ukrainians go through that every night and have been for three years. A massive mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder issue is developing among Ukrainian citizens, and we need to be there and ready to support them when they come through the conflict. It will be a really big issue for the country. Up in Chernihiv, I had a chance to meet people who were on the frontline with Belarus and Russia. Every single day, they are impacted by the war in ways that we cannot imagine. I met the governor, who had some statistics prepared in a presentation of how many buildings have been destroyed this year, how many people have been injured and how many have been killed. He said to me, “Oh, I am sorry, that statistic is wrong, because another building was destroyed this morning and another three people were killed.” It is constantly changing. The greatest message I got from Ukraine and its people is that they are incredibly grateful for the support that the United Kingdom has given them since day one and continues to give them today. They see us as the leader in the support to get them through this conflict, and that came from so many Ukrainians. This war is real. I witnessed that for myself, as did my hon. Friends, with bombed out buildings everywhere and air raids taking place. That was really brought home to me on the day in Lviv, which is not massively impacted as it is close to the western border with Europe, but where there is a cemetery full of soldiers just from the city. We walked to the back of that cemetery, where there were three graves that had been filled, with three people from Lviv buried that morning. There were three further open graves that three more men from Lviv were about to go into that afternoon. That is the reality of this war, and that is why we have to continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people. They are relying on us. We have to be stoic. Slava Ukraini.

13:45:00

I want to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for providing us with this platform to show the House at its best, coming together in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. It is a chance for us to stand together in solidarity. Three years ago, the world watched in horror as Russian forces launched their brutal, full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. The images of tanks rolling across the border and the shelling of innocent civilians will remain seared into our minds forever. Yet, despite the Kremlin’s relentless aggression, the Ukrainian people have shown extraordinary courage, determination and resilience, and we have shared some of those stories in here today. They continue to fight not just for their homeland, but for the principles that underpin our own security here: democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law. I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023. Each visit left a very deep impression on me. In 2021, I had the honour of standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. When I returned in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I am a board member—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—the contrast was stark. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones in the conflict. Their resilience was, and still is, unwavering; their determination is undimmed. It is that spirit of theirs that must continue to guide us in this place in our response. The UK has led the way in supporting Ukraine. The previous Conservative Government were among the first to provide advanced weaponry, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision weapons and air defence systems. We played a key role in training Ukrainian troops and co-ordinating international military aid, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid until the decade’s end. However, that support must continue to ensure Ukraine has the weapons and the strategic backing needed to defeat Russian aggression. Let us be clear: this is not just about helping Ukraine. This is about our own national security. Russia’s actions represent the most blatant breach of sovereignty and territorial integrity seen in Europe since the second world war. If we falter in the face of that aggression, we invite further instability. We know that Putin’s ambitions do not stop at Ukraine’s borders. The threat that he poses to NATO allies, including in the Baltic region, is real and growing. That is why I welcome the Government’s decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. That is an important step, albeit overdue, and I commend the Government for recognising, as my party does, that our security requires sustained investment. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the power of people-to-people solidarity, as my right hon. Friend for Chingford and Romford West—I hope I got that right. [Interruption.] I am being prompted that it is Chingford and Woodford Green.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would be upset by that.

He would be, actually.

He is ever present.

Always present, isn’t he? The UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme has provided sanctuary to thousands of Ukrainians fleeing war. I pay tribute to the British families who have opened their homes, including those in my constituency, and the communities that have welcomed them with open arms. Their kindness reflects the very best of our country. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider some sort of recognition scheme or way of thanking those families at the appropriate time for their kindness and generosity. This week, as we mark this grim anniversary, we must ensure that those displaced by war continue to receive the support they need, both here and in Ukraine. We must remain resolute in holding Russia accountable, and our response must be unwavering, ensuring that we tackle all aspects of Russian aggression. Let’s be clear: Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand by Ukraine today, we strengthen our own security for the future. If we falter, we embolden aggressors everywhere.

13:50:00

As Members have said, a number of us were in Ukraine at the end of last week, and four days ago we were sat in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the Ukrainian military worked to clear the sky of drones. Kyiv is a beautiful European city—one of the great cities of Europe—filled with a freedom-loving, well-educated population that are committed to liberating their country, and it is a place no different from our own. We were there as one of a 16-strong delegation to the Yalta European strategy conference. Never before in the history of that conference has that city come under bombardment while European parliamentarians were present, so great did Russia consider the risk of killing members of a NATO country. Something has changed, and we all know what it is. We need to wake up. For most of America’s history, the country has been isolationist. After the first world war, it retreated back into isolationism. After the second, it would have done so were it not for the cold war. Since the end of the cold war, September 11 brought George W Bush back into the world, having been elected on a programme of isolationism. All three Democratic Presidents since the end of the cold war have in part retreated from international affairs. That is the default status of America, and we have to wake up to that reality—it is not about a single American President. This is about the future of Europe. It is about the fact that we no longer can rely on an American security guarantee. Were we living in peaceful times, that would be worrying enough, but the fact is that Europe is at war. The arguments against appeasement have already been well made, and we know that if Ukraine falls, it would be a NATO country next and, in all possibility, a general nuclear war as part of Putin’s quest to rebuild the Russian empire. We must accept the reality that we are at war—a cold war, but a war none the less. Neutral countries do not attack UK infrastructure or test UK airspace and territorial waters. Neutral countries do not release nerve agents into the streets of Salisbury, or openly discuss in the papers, as they are doing now, that the Americans have given them licence to bomb London. Those are the actions of an enemy state. Since the announcement on Tuesday, which I greatly agree with, I have received correspondence from constituents expressing concerns about the cuts to international aid. I want to be frank that many more painful decisions will follow if we are to do what is necessary to ensure the defence of our country against an enemy power. We must mobilise. With no American security guarantee, the only choice is a European security guarantee, of which the UK must play a central role. For us, this will be a mobilisation not of men and women, for the most part. If we must replace the total manpower of the US military, that number—one million—already exists within the Ukrainian armed forces. Ukraine does not need the people; they are already on Europe’s frontlines holding back the enemy. They need our combined economic and intellectual power across the continent dedicated to our collective victory. Speaking with those in Ukraine, not only politicians, soldiers and analysts, but the everyday residents who we met along our travels, they are determined to go on fighting however long it takes—alone if they must, hand to hand if totally necessary. We cannot allow things to come to that. Three years into the combat, why do Ukrainians still want for bullets and shells? Why do they struggle to access sufficient electronic countermeasures? Why are we training soldiers in batches in the UK and have not set up colleges in Ukraine to train them en masse? If Putin was standing on the French coast, would we have not resolved this in months, if not weeks? We are at war. It is a war we can and must win. To do that, we must be prepared to do whatever it takes, starting today. Slava Ukraini.

13:55:00

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his outstanding and comprehensive speech. Many people have died in this war so far, and United Nations figures suggest that at least 12,654 civilians have lost their lives and over 27,000 have been injured, with nearly 147,000 war crimes committed and 167,000 civilian buildings destroyed by Russia since the full-scale invasion began. Of course, the true death toll is likely to be far higher, as Ukraine and international bodies do not have access to Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine or areas on the frontline, most particularly the city of Mariupol, which was largely destroyed in the brutal Russian siege. This is a tragedy that cannot continue, and yet amid so much darkness, a chink of light is how this war has shown the very best of our nation: our generosity towards Ukraine and how we have welcomed refugees and worked internationally to get co-operation against Russia. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils have gone a long way to welcome and help refugees, and many families have hosted them, enabled by the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The village of North Moreton, with a population of just 350, has hosted dozens of people, earning significant media coverage for its generosity. Many families have also been hosted in the small village of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell. I want to give an example of the journey faced by one of those families. A mother and her two children, aged 17 and six when they came, had already fled Donetsk in 2014 in the first Russian aggression against Ukraine and then yet again in 2022 to the United Kingdom. The 17-year-old subsequently managed to get a place at the University of Nottingham and has started his studies. The mother took her six-year-old back to Ukraine last April, having missed her husband so much, and their UK host family are still in regular contact with her and her son. In Didcot, Stanislav of the Help Ukraine Group Support, or HUGS, has collected enormous amounts of clothing, toiletries, tools and many other items and has sent huge pallets over to Ukraine. One place that received them was the Place of Kindness shelter for displaced families in Chernivtsi, which has helped shelter over 2,000 families, 147 orphans and 72 critically ill children. The same organisation collected and donated laptops to the Reading-based Ukrainian School Lastivka to enable children to get online and gain IT literacy. I want to say a little about why I care so much about the Ukraine war, beyond the obvious reasons. I have a Polish mother, and Poland is a country that has also hugely suffered under Russian oppression in the past and retains a genuine fear of that nation to this day. This war matters to Ukraine and to Europe, but it also matters specifically to us. We hoped that Russia would stop after its 2008 invasion of Georgia—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after annexing Crimea in 2014—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after years of war in the Donbas—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after its brutal bombing of Syria in support of dictator Bashar al-Assad in the late 2010s—it did not. It is important that we learn from that and ensure that any peace we do have does not further embolden Russia. Where do we go from here? Well, our communities and councils need long-term support to continue hosting refugees and looking after Ukrainians. Many hon. Members have already made eloquent remarks about that. We all want peace, but it has to be on Ukraine’s terms. There is so much talk at the moment of peace guarantees. We should remember that there have been such guarantees before—under the 1994 Budapest memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for supposed guarantees of its peace—so we cannot have cheap talk of guarantees now; we need to learn why previous ones did not work. Of course, we need European defence co-operation and investment in our armed forces. Many hon. Members have been optimistic that the United States will not turn permanently away from Europe, but in case that optimism is misplaced, we need to build up our defence forces and co-operate across Europe, using frozen Russian assets, so that we have the high-quality and competent defence force that our continent needs. This war has brought huge suffering to the people of Ukraine, destroying communities, separating families and orphaning children. However, it has also shown the human spirit of justice, compassion and kindness to be a great unifying force. We must now work with our European allies to secure the freedom and prosperity of Ukraine and our continent.

14:01:00

Keeping our nation safe and preserving Ukraine for the future means showing Putin that we and our European allies have the resolve and the resources to defeat him. Showing him that we would win any war is the best way to prevent a wider conflict. Winning wars is a matter of resources being converted to fighting forces. We lost the first battles of world war two, but we won by converting our greater resources; Lincoln did the same during the American civil war. So it is now; we must reduce Russian resources and prepare ourselves. Russia’s economy is straining at the seams. Putin’s demand for war matériel is outstripping the ability of his economy to supply it; the official inflation rate stands at 10%, and we may possibly be talking about double that; three quarters of Russian firms face staff shortages; Putin is losing tanks three times more quickly than he can replace them; and his national wealth fund has been halved. However, Russia is still out-producing us in shells and fighting forces, and its armed forces will reach 1.5 million personnel. Russia can rebuild, and Putin will rebuild and come back, so we can and must do more to reduce Russia’s resources. First, we must seize central bank assets, rather than allowing Putin to use them to rebuild his fighting forces. Secondly, we must strengthen the oil price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of attestation documents. Thirdly, we need stronger export controls to stop western goods ending up in Russian tanks. That is what we can do right now. Deterring Putin and defeating Putin are one and the same. Our economic power is greater: NATO’s GDP in Europe is 12 times greater than Putin’s in Russia. Converting that economic power into fighting forces is what we must do next. Prosperity means nothing if we do not have the forces to defend it, so, yes, this is about the percentage that we spend on defence, but for Europe as a whole it is also about so much more than that: long-term orders to build production capacity, securing strategic inputs such as steel, and the ability to scale rapidly if we must. If we do face war, we must be prepared for it. Fighting a total war—converting an entire nation’s production to maximise fighting forces—is a problem that none of us has ever known, but that could be the economic problem before us: maximising the production of war, guns, tanks, drones. The rough outline of the answer is this: we must figure out national income, decide the maximum portion that can be allocated to war matériel production, and use taxes from those who can most afford them to transfer what is needed to the Government. If demand runs ahead of supply, it will lead to inflation. That means rationing consumption for more investment. Investment will have to go towards war matériel, so capital controls must be in place. We need import controls, and quotas to ensure that inputs such as steel are going towards war matériel. We must prepare for a financial world without lend-lease. Those are the preparations that the Treasury should be making. We could not foresee the financial crisis or the pandemic, but we can foresee a greater war in Europe. These are the times in which we live. In the darkest days of our struggle against fascism, John Maynard Keynes wrote: “A reluctance to face the full magnitude of our task and overcome it is a coward’s part. Yet the nation is not in this mood and only asks to be told what is necessary.” That is where the British people are—a nation that remembers its finest hour—but where are we in this House? Are we preparing for the worst, so that we can prevent it? Are we showing that we will convert our far greater resources in order to protect Europe and ourselves? Are we ready to do what we must? Those are the questions before us.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that, as I want to get as many Members in as I can, I will immediately bring the time limit on speeches down to four minutes—and it may go lower.

14:06:00

I thank the other hon. Members who took part in the visit to Ukraine for their powerful speeches. I share their emotions about the visit. Last Saturday was particularly emotional for me because I visited a recovery centre for wounded soldiers in Ukraine. I met a soldier called Volodymyr, who had lost both his legs in a drone strike on his vehicle. His comrades had tried to rescue him four times, but each time they were turned back by drone attacks. His tourniquets held and, after nine hours, they eventually got him out. His spirit was unbroken. Hearing his story and seeing his courage was inspiring. We in Parliament and the British armed forces have enormous respect for everything that the Ukrainian armed forces have achieved. Ukrainians continue to make an enormous sacrifice, yet every Ukrainian I met told me that they do not want Trump’s proposed ceasefire. They want to fight on, because they are fighting to win. Their choice to fight, and our choice to support their fight, is not warmongering; rather, it is the choice to save lives. Putin breaks ceasefires. He will regroup, attack again and kill even more. The only acceptable terms are those under which Ukraine is victorious. Russia is vulnerable now; in the past six months, it has failed to retake its territory in Kursk, and has suffered over 200,000 casualties to advance just 50 km in eastern Ukraine—4,000 casualties per kilometre —largely because Ukraine is out-producing it in drones. Ukraine has a clear path to victory. European NATO GDP alone is 10 times the size of Russia’s. However, we are not converting that economic strength into military power. Russia is still spending $40 billion more annually on the war than Ukraine and her western allies. If we close that gap and exceed that spend by seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, Ukraine will win. Trump’s proposed ceasefire would free up 750,000 battle-hardened Russian troops, who could crash into the Baltic states and achieve Putin’s dream of restoring the Soviet Union. It is far better to defeat Russia in Ukraine than end up directly at war. We cannot trust Trump to defend Ukraine, and we cannot trust him to defend us, so we must rearm. With article 5 in doubt, the smaller democracies, including the United Kingdom and Ukraine, must consider a new western alliance that is strong enough for us to defend ourselves together. It was particularly moving to see Volodymyr because his sacrifice is also on our behalf. In fact, many Ukrainians reminded me that they were comparing their sacrifice to our sacrifice in 1940, when it was our country’s responsibility to defend democracy during our darkest hour. We would do well to remember that legacy as we consider the fate of not just Ukraine but the free world.

14:10:00

It is a pleasure to take part in such a well-informed and passionate debate. Three years on from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the courage of the Ukrainian people is an inspiration to all of us. I was at the Munich security conference, where it felt like the world changed around us, and significant consequences flow from it. It is clear that any settlement negotiated solely between Trump and Putin would not be a dignified and secure peace for Ukraine. As democratically elected President Zelensky has said, there can be no peace in Ukraine without Ukraine, and no peace in Europe without Europe. European leaders, including our Prime Minister and our Parliament, rightfully stand in full solidarity with him. With its war machine in full swing, we know that Russia would not stop with Ukraine, given the opportunity, and we must be clear that this is about security for the UK, too. Our Prime Minister is doing vital work in Washington DC today, with that in mind. The dramatic divergence of US and European approaches really matters, and we have to be clear about how many other countries now have an interest in Ukraine. With 12,000 North Korean troops on the frontline, Iranian drones being used and technology being provided by China, we are not just up against Russia in Ukraine; this is about a group of states that are seeking to disrupt an already fractured global order. Securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine has become the defining test of who our allies are in the world, and how far we are willing to go to defend the values of freedom, democracy and sovereignty that unite us. The last three years have seen 2,236 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine—the most ever recorded by the World Health Organisation in a conflict. These attacks have increased in the last year and now occur almost daily.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when this conflict ends, we must examine closely the potential use of chemical weapons by Vladimir Putin during this conflict, as he has previously used them in Syria and other conflicts? Some of us who were on the trip that has been discussed saw that at first hand in hospitals.

I absolutely agree; accountability is essential. More than a decade ago, Putin tested the tactic of attacking hospitals in his operations in Syria, and the world stood by. The message about impunity spread, and we have subsequently seen the same tactics used by other forces in Gaza and Sudan, and now by Putin in Ukraine. Children should never be targeted in war, and the International Criminal Court has an arrest warrant out for Putin for his deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. The stability and prosperity that we have enjoyed in our part of the world for the last 80 years cannot be taken for granted. It was fought for, literally. Democracy does not just happen. We have to want it, value it, work to keep it and protect it, and we have much work to do in that regard. In my previous work in war zones across the world, I often returned home with the sense that conflict and disaster can happen anywhere. That is why we need to support our global institutions now more than ever—institutions such as the United Nations, and the framework of international law put in place after world war two. If we value those achievements, we must uphold and protect them. Our Government are absolutely right to increase defence spending rapidly. I have seen too many times as a former aid worker what happens when Governments fail in their most basic duty: keeping their country safe. Of course, funding this increase in defence spending through the aid budget is painful, and I say to those in the international development community in this country and elsewhere that I and others feel the pain. Given the scale of external threats, we should all understand that further painful decisions of a different kind may come in the future. I end by paying tribute to the Ukrainian refugees I met in Kirkcaldy in my constituency a few weeks ago. We owe it to those refugees, and to all who have fought for Ukraine, the UK and Europe’s freedom, to now do whatever it takes to defend our shared freedom and security.

14:15:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate, although I do not know about the image I will have forever of him baking pizzas in the snow. I rise today in support of the people of Ukraine. They have seen their nation invaded and devastated by bombing, their children kidnapped, their mothers and sisters raped and many of their homes, hospitals and schools completely destroyed. In Leicester, like in the rest of this country, we have a tradition of standing up for the oppressed, the bullied and the underdog. During world war two, RAF Leicester East—now Leicester airport—was home to the US 82nd Airborne Division, which played a major role in D-day and the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. Britain has shown its compassion since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) articulated perfectly. The British people have stood firmly and resolutely beside the Ukrainian people, and one reason for that is our nation’s tradition of standing up for the underdog. Russia invaded Ukraine in the belief that Ukraine was weak and vulnerable, and that it would roll over and play dead while Putin took its land, identity and resources. What he discovered was that Ukraine is an underdog that bites back, and the British people have wholeheartedly identified with its bulldog spirit. The Ukrainian people have won our hearts and our loyalty. Their determination to fight on and to protect their homes, their families and their culture has been painful to watch, but any nation that can so effectively fight Putin’s military might deserves our unwavering support and the support of our supposed allies. What may be even harder to watch in the coming months and years is the UK and other European countries having a taste of what many smaller countries have experienced for generations: a new world order where the largest powers decide to redraw the map or steal minerals and other natural resources at the stroke of a pen, with the smaller countries facing menacing threats of much worse if they do not comply; a new world order where those who pardon insurrectionists, who try to overturn the result of a democratic election and who to this day do not accept the result of the 2020 US elections have the cheek to lecture long-standing European countries on the imperfect nature of their democracy. Our country must stand against this new gangster world dominated by a few bros in ivory, or even gold, towers, who trade the world’s smaller nations between themselves like property on a Monopoly board. That is why, despite Ukraine’s troubled past, its fight is our fight, and we must work with our European partners to ensure it wins, regardless of the threats from Washington, Moscow, Pyongyang or even Beijing. Who would have thought that the future President of those brave soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Leicester would align himself with today’s equivalent fascists, rather than with the nations and people who fought to defeat that particular evil? When Ukraine wins, the new world order that the few gangster bros are trying to establish will fail. That is why supporting Ukraine is so important and why European democracies have to step up and ensure they win.

14:19:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate. He spoke powerfully and passionately, and with knowledge. Imperialism is violent and tragic, dividing communities, separating families, and leading to untold death and destruction. That has been the grim reality for the Ukrainian people for the last three years. I witnessed it at first hand in March 2022, when I travelled to the Ukrainian border with Romania to personally deliver essential items generously donated by the people of Ilford. I witnessed the haunting scenes of women and children walking across the border into Romania with nothing but the clothes on their backs at 4 am, with the temperature south of minus 10º. I saw that while Putin’s aggression has attempted to shatter communities and sow division, the Ukrainian people have remained united, and have shown incredible resilience, strength and perseverance. Like many of my constituents, I was born in India, and my parents lived most of their lives in India and what is now Pakistan. My family, my neighbours and the people of Ilford South well understand the consequences of imperialism—the scars left by wars of aggression, the theft of agency and denial of self-determination—which is why, when the invasion began, thousands of local people in Ilford stood with Ukraine and donated so much that we had to hire vans and appeal for additional drivers to get the donations to the border. This week’s sombre anniversary is a reminder of the suffering in Ukraine, the tragedy of imperialism and the necessity of taking a stand—of doing what is right, and confronting aggression head-on. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary announced the largest package of sanctions against Russia since 2022. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced an unprecedented increase in defence spending, the biggest sustained increase since the end of the cold war. We know the evils of imperialism, and we have learned from history that appeasing aggressors does not work. We will not stand by and allow the continued assault on a democratic nation. This House must remain united in its support for right over wrong. We will always stand with Ukraine.

14:22:00

It is intolerable that the violence and bloodshed of Putin’s illegal invasion, the waking nightmare of Russian aggression wrought upon the Ukrainian people, has worn on for three ghastly years. At the weekend I joined local residents, including the Ukrainian families who have found safe haven in our community, at a service of remembrance in Bishop’s Stortford, organised by the Bishop’s Stortford Ukrainian Guests Support Group. It was impossible not to be deeply moved as we stood for a minute’s silence to remember all those who have lost their lives and suffered throughout this war, united in our shared hope that we will not have to meet again to mark a fourth year of violence in 2026. I want to pay tribute to all of those in Hertford and Stortford who have shown their support for Ukrainian families in our community, and those who have gathered in recent days to pay tribute to the Ukrainian people in places including Bishop’s Stortford and Sawbridgeworth. It is a powerful reminder that in Hertford and Stortford, as across the country, we stand firmly with the Ukrainian people in their time of need. The Ukrainian people stand resolutely against Russian aggression and brutality, and our support for them must be unwavering. Now is the time to redouble our support for Ukraine. Successive British Governments have led on this, the defining moral issue of our time, and our solidarity with Ukraine bridges political divides in the House. It is right that the Prime Minister now leads the international call for Ukrainian sovereignty, a long-term, secure future for its people, and a meaningful seat at the table in any future negotiation: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. I welcome the landmark 100-year partnership with Ukraine to deepen security ties and build an enduring partnership for future generations, and the action that the Government are taking to step up and speed up our support for Ukraine at this critical moment. However, in a world that is more insecure and more unstable than at any time in recent decades, it is right that we do more to strengthen our security at home, and right that the Prime Minister has announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. I recognise that this decision comes with difficult but necessary sacrifices, and I hope that in the coming years the Government will chart a course towards restoring spending on international aid as soon as fiscal circumstances allow, alongside increased defence spending. Their first priority, however, must be to safeguard the British people at home in the face of what is a once-in-a-generation moment for the world, and I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement this week. Finally, I wish to put on record my admiration for the spirit and bravery of the Ukrainian people, who have endured so much—and will no doubt endure more— not just since 2022 but over the course of many years of unacceptable Russian aggression. For those Ukrainian families who have found safety in our community, I hope for a future when they are free to choose to return to rebuild homes in a peaceful, secure Ukraine, or, if they wish, to remain in Hertford and Stortford, where they will always, always be welcome.

14:25:00

I commend and thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for setting the scene so well, and for his passion for this subject. In all the years I have known him in the Chamber—he has been here much longer than me—he has always been a stalwart, and I thank him for that. I think we all owe him a debt. I do not much like bullies, and Putin is clearly a bully. Now that there is a bigger boy in the playground, with President Trump of the United States entering the play, Putin seems prepared to make changes and the rules are changing. Of course that is to be welcomed, but I have a real and abiding concern that memories will be deliberately short. I have a real concern that as we strive for peace—as we should—we will minimise the atrocities that the people of Ukraine have suffered over these three years, and that cannot be allowed to happen. My mind is immediately drawn to Bucha, and while I have no desire to stir up anger and anguish, we need to ensure that we remember who and what we are dealing with, and why it is essential that our support for Ukraine is as unwavering today, during any brokerage of peace, as it was during those first few days of war. Human Rights Watch researchers who worked in Bucha between 4 and 10 April, just days after Russian forces withdrew from the area, found extensive evidence of summary executions, other unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture, all of which would constitute war crimes and potential crimes against humanity. Those who sanctioned this behaviour are those with whom we deal now, and this must remain in our minds. We need accountability, so that those who carried out atrocities will be made responsible for their brutality. Girls as young as eight and women as old as 80 have been raped and abused. Russian crimes against humanity must be taken to the International Criminal Court, which must make those responsible accountable in whatever way it can. If only the death penalty were still in place, I would certainly seek that for them. In Northern Ireland we dealt with the bare face of evil for too many years. We saw hatred overcome basic humanity as mothers and children were blown to pieces in a fish shop on a Saturday afternoon by Irish republican terrorists. No cause can justify that. We saw the face of evil when people were burned alive with a napalm-like substance in the La Mon restaurant in my constituency. We saw the face of evil when people were massacred in churches. All that reminds me very much of the atrocities suffered by the people of Ukraine as I look back on the last three years. I lived through those things in my lifetime, and they remain with me. It grieves me that that face of evil is still at work, and that such atrocities and disregard for human life—for women and children—have been replicated in Ukraine. They were replicated in Bucha as women and children were murdered. In February, the body of a Ukrainian Orthodox priest was found in the streets of Kalanchak, in Russian-occupied Kherson. According to his bishop, Russian military forces had “tortured Fr Stepan to death”. That is the Russians, and they must be held accountable for their brutality. We hear of such evil deeds being repeated throughout Ukraine. Again, my intention is not to drag up these matters in order to cease the striving for peace; I believe that peace is needed, but I also believe that accountability is needed, and that while we work for peace we cannot allow the trauma of this war to fade into insignificance. These crimes matter and those families deserve not to be forgotten. My thoughts now, on the third anniversary of this dreadful war, are as they ever were: that we stand with Ukraine; that we must fulfil our moral duty to them in war, or indeed in peace; and that there must be no doubt that the hand of friendship of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains firmly extended to those families in Ukraine at this time and in all the days ahead.

14:30:00

A pile of dark brown mud next to a hole in the ground; a hole framed by planks of wood covered tightly in smooth, matt-black sheeting; four rough wooden handles jammed in as the mud hardens around them, with invisible silver shovels buried beneath—a pile of mud and four shovels in the sharp, harsh, dry cold of Lviv: that is the image that I have had in my mind for every waking minute of every day since Saturday morning. It is the picture of a newly dug grave in the cemetery of heroes in Lviv, Ukraine, as mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). For me, that image encapsulated the four-day trip from which I and other MPs from across the House returned earlier this week. It might sound an unusual thing to say, but this graveside was not simply one of sorrow, nor just of pride, nor just of memory; it was one of defiance and resolve. That image encapsulates for me the emotions of all of the people of Ukraine. They have taken the punishment dished out by a criminal dictator-bully for three years. They have not only withstood the daily bombardments, but thrived underneath their air defence umbrella. In a position where every day represents a struggle for survival to the next, Ukraine has been able not only to fight and reach the next day, but to plan for a prosperous future. In health, education, technology, cyber-security, the scaling of innovation and in culture, the Ukrainian people are shaping their long-term future even as they take to shelters every night. This is not just “Keep calm and carry on”; this is “Keep calm, win the present and build the future.” The Ukrainian people want peace—of course they do—but they will not accept peace at any price. We asked over and over again, “What message do you want us to deliver back to our country and our Parliament?” The answer was always this, something so simple and obvious that it is hard to believe it has to be restated: “Russia has conducted an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine—Russia is the aggressor; Ukraine the victim.” We have had 20 years of warnings, from the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 to the first invasions of Ukraine and the public poisonings in Salisbury, and then finally the full-scale invasion of our ally.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Russia’s past behaviour, with Putin seeming to sign up to agreements but then not following them, is precisely why security guarantees for Ukraine’s future are so important?

I could not agree more. I grew up in Berlin during the cold war and could hear Russian artillery and helicopters practising on a live firing range, so that has always been present since I was very young. We must not misunderstand the gravity of this moment. Geopolitical stability and security will be the defining issue for this generation and this Parliament. It is incumbent on us to do whatever it takes to keep British people safe at home and abroad and to support our allies. That is why I fully welcome and endorse the decision this week by the Prime Minister on defence spending increases. However, as I argued in this House in December, 2.5% and even 3% should be seen as a floor for our defence spending, not the ceiling. This Government have already taken one difficult decision and there may well be more to take in the future. I suspect that before long the Government may conclude that they must go even further or faster, or both. If they do so, they will have my full and total support. That is not to crave the spending; it is to accept the reality of the world we live in, not the world as we would wish it to be. While the public clearly support the increased spending on defence, it is incumbent on all of us in the House to ensure that the reality of the danger and threat that this country faces is brought home, as is the fact that this might mean even tougher decisions very soon. While a war in Ukraine might feel abstract, as I saw over the past few days, that war can very quickly come to these shores, and in a variety of ways. The mission of all sides of this House is to maintain that unity and communicate that reality and to bring the public with us on a long-term journey that will be difficult. With the 100-year partnership agreement signed by this Government, we have the foundation of a long-term relationship with a country with which we share so much, and with which we are standing shoulder to shoulder. On that foundation we can build a lasting peace. I want to end with a quote by JFK. In the same speech in which he called for peace “not merely…in our time, but peace for all time” he said: “There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula… Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.” Ukraine has taken several of those many acts and the UK is one of the many nations. It is incumbent on us to continue acting until we find the peace we all seek.

14:35:00

Ukraine is a country that never sought war. As we speak today in this House, people who were once administrators, chefs and mechanics are sacrificing their lives on the frontlines to protect their homes and families. It has been a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear some of the speeches from hon. Members who have been in Ukraine over the last week and have told their stories so powerfully; I thank them for doing that. The people of Ukraine have, over the past three years, defied the odds at every turn and have a President unmatched in his bravery. President Zelensky looked down a smartphone in February 2022, stared down Putin’s war machine and pledged to defend the right of his sovereign country to exist and the right of his people to be free. He has done so ever since. Successive Prime Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and been absolutely right to offer British military and financial aid. The fight to protect Ukraine is a fight for democracy and for our shared values. For three years this cause has bound together Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States, but there is no doubt that we have reached a crossroads, a moment in time that will shape the future of Ukraine and Europe. On 14 February, the vice-president of the United States made his keynote address at the Munich security conference. He said: “The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia…what I worry about is the threat from within: the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” It was a very sad and serious spectacle: a US vice-president seeming to downplay the significance of Putin’s aggression in Europe—aggression that, as we have heard today, has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, with millions more driven from their homes. If his primary concern really is freedom of speech and expression, he would do well to look closer to home. Just this week, journalists from Reuters and Huffington Post were denied access to the first Cabinet meeting of the new US Administration. What I worry about is an agenda that claims to champion free speech but is actually seeking to promote favourable speech. Those are two very different concepts. The words of the vice-president served as confirmation that a period of US history is ending. The Republican party of Eisenhower and Reagan is sleeping. It may well wake again in time, but for now it lies dormant. In Kyiv, Brussels, Paris, Berlin and here in London, we have to respond to the world as it now is. A peace deal fully supported by the United States and Ukraine and Europe must of course remain the central objective, and our Prime Minister is absolutely right to pursue it. However, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told the House, a deal cannot just mean the absence of war. Peace is what the people of Ukraine deserve, but we must never countenance a settlement that is not agreed to by President Zelensky. Returning to Munich, there was one sentence in the speech of Vice-President Vance that I could endorse: “To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice.” On that, he is right. Our citizens do have wisdom. In the United Kingdom, they have the wisdom to look to the history of our continent and see the danger of failing to stand up to aggressors until it is too late. They know that now is the time to make our voices heard, and to say loudly and in unison that we stand with Ukraine.

14:39:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate and for his bravery in going as far as Kharkiv. I admire his work and advocacy. I associate myself with everything that hon. Members have said, especially about the bravery of the men and women of Ukraine, who are standing up to Putin every day and fighting not just for their own freedom, but for our freedom. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and I have just come back from a week in Ukraine, where we had an opportunity to speak to a number of MPs, Ministers, industry leaders and those in civil society. I will focus remarks on the need for drone technology, which is paramount to us winning in Ukraine. As many hon. Members have said, we face an existential crisis. The increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is important, but it is vital that we get beyond that, to 3% and more. From my trip last week and from my previous visit, it is clear that Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine’s borders. If Ukraine falls, then NATO countries, and Baltic countries in particular, are in the firing line. It is important that our constituents understand that this war is not about other people; it is a war about us as well. Turning to drone technology, in a meeting with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, I was told: “Ukraine needs a fleet of drones that possess the same characteristics as the Kalashnikov.” What he meant by that, as was reflected back to me by the chair of the Ukrainian Economic Affairs Committee, Dmytro Natalukha MP, who I know other hon. Members have met, was that Ukraine needs something like a Kalashnikov—a flying Kalashnikov, if you will—because it is standard issue, easy to manufacture, reliant on available common parts and comparatively cheap. Such technology alone will not match the existential crisis we all face, but it could play a vital role in the war. However, in order to get such technology, the drone sector needs to be able to access UK capital. We need more joint ventures between our defence companies in the UK and Ukrainian defence companies. I want to underline why these drones are so important. There are now many different types of drones. There are massive drones, like the ones the Iranians are unfortunately supplying to Putin’s forces, such as the Shahed drone. When I was in Ukraine, I spent some time in a bunker because at one point there were 50 Shahed drones overhead. There are also drones that are necessary to hold Ukrainian positions and to help the Ukrainians to advance. As the security adviser and expert James Rushton, whom I had the opportunity to meet while I was in Ukraine, told me, small recon drones such as the DJI Mavic are the difference between an entire platoon of Ukrainian troops surviving or not. They can help the Ukrainians to know if the Russians are coming over the horizon, so they can get away in good time. The converse is true, as they can also help the Ukrainians to hold positions and to advance. It is important that we get to a place where we are able to provide more capital to Ukrainian companies, to help them with the parts they need and, collectively with European allies, to help them produce some standard and cheaper types of drones, as they will be vital in the war.

14:43:00

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others for securing the debate, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. Many excellent and learned points have been made. There has been a real show of unity from the House and we can all be proud of the debate today. Three years ago, peace was broken. The world woke up to something we hoped we would never see again—full-scale war in our backyard. Russian tanks were rolling into Europe, across Ukraine’s borders; missiles were lighting up the sky and the fire of war ripping through homes. There was complete and utter destruction of harmony and innocence, with people grabbing whatever they could and fleeing for their lives. Russian forces had brutally invaded their sovereign neighbour. Putin, the dictator, thought this would be over in weeks, yet because of the tenacity, fight, bravery and leadership of Ukraine and Zelensky, here we are three years on. Today Ukraine is still fighting, and not just for its land but for its survival. It has been said many times before but I will say it again: if Russia stops, this war is over; if Ukraine stops, it loses everything. So today, before anything else, we pause to honour those who have paid the highest price; the parents who have buried their children; the soldiers who kissed their loved ones goodbye, not knowing if they would ever return; and the civilians who once lived in peaceful villages, now reduced to rubble. Millions have been displaced, hundreds of thousands have been killed, and schools and hospitals have been destroyed in targeted ballistic missile strikes, among other acts of terror and war. People have endured torture, execution and sexual violence, they have had their children snatched and sent to Russia, and there have been horrors that we in Britain would struggle even to imagine, never mind put into words. Yet despite all that, the flame of hope for a free nation, Ukraine, not just stands but fights and refuses to surrender or be footnote in the history of the brutal expansionism of that barbaric, mad tyrant in Moscow. We all like to think that in that scenario we would do the same, and that we would kiss our loved ones goodbye and fight for our country, our families and our way of life. Ukrainians have been doing that now for three years, through smoke, rubble and fire, and attack after attack. They have stood up and said to Putin, “Not us— not Ukraine.” It is in honour of that bravery, spirit and flame of hope that we must proclaim: to not an inch of Ukraine is Russia entitled; not a metre of Ukraine belongs to Russia; not a mile of Ukraine is in Russia’s sphere of influence by divine right. That air, that soil, those people and those children are Ukrainian. We stand with them today and every day, for democracy, for freedom, for sovereignty, for decency, and for the world that we want to believe in—no surrender, no appeasement, no deals without Ukraine at the table. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

14:46:00

I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for granting and leading the debate. Three years ago, we watched as missiles rained down on Ukraine from Kharkiv to Lviv, damaging even the Holocaust memorial at Babyn Yar. Anyone who has stood in that space will share the sense of revulsion at that desecration. A motorised column, reported to be some 40 miles long, advanced on Kyiv and its advance groups left a horror of murder in their wake. This was the terrible return of unrestricted industrial warfare to Europe for the first time since 1945. The goal must be stated bluntly: the Russian state seeks the destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian national identity. The proof of that assertion can be found in bodies that were laid out in Izium, Bucha and Kherson, and, I fear, in many other places whose names are not known to us and that only liberation will identify. When we think back to February 2022, we must remember the hope that could quickly be found among the despair. A small Ukrainian force defeated the Russians at Hostomel airport, and on such a fine margin, the nation may have been saved. The actions of successive UK Governments and the unity of this House have, as many other hon. Members have said, been essential to that Ukrainian struggle for liberty. Out of war have come new bonds of family and friendship. I pay tribute to the members of the British armed forces who have trained Ukrainians and to the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham—they have learned from us, and, as was said earlier, we have learned from them. I also pay tribute to all those who have acted as hosts as part of the wider support network for Ukrainian refugees. One of the most valuable things we can do in this place is repeat Ukrainian voices. I will quote one—that of Ivanna Khrapko, the youth chair of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine, who it has been my pleasure to come to know over the last couple of years. Ahead of a TUC vote some 18 months ago, she said: “Of course we want peace, more than anything. But we want a just peace, without occupiers in our country.” As Oleksandra Matviichuk, the head of the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine, which holds a Nobel peace prize, said: “Peace cannot be reached by a country under attack laying down its arms, that would not be peace but occupation.” I hope that message—so eloquently articulated by Ukrainians, who know the Russian regime better than anyone—is heard by all those currently making decisions about Ukraine’s future. I cannot go into detail in the very short amount of time available, but the issues identified by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown- Fuller) with regard to the Ukraine permission extension scheme have been heard in my constituency as well, and I hope that Ministers are monitoring those concerns closely. I close by echoing one last Ukrainian voice—that of Taras Shevchenko, who wrote in a poem almost 200 years ago, also under Russian occupation: Oh bury me, then rise you up And break your heavy chains And water with the tyrants’ blood The freedom you have gained And in the great new family, The family of the free, With softly spoken, kindly word Remember also me. The words ring true today. If one message is to go from this House today, I hope it is this: our nation’s support for the Ukrainian cause is constant, not passing. We remember Ukraine, and we will stand with Ukraine and with our Ukrainian friends to the end—to the very end—and to the hoped-for day, as hard as the path may now be to imagine, when all Ukraine will be free.

14:50:00

In the short period of time I have, I will say this: we face a critical moment for our nation, for Europe and for the world. Now is the time to uphold our values and to encourage our allies to do the same. That means concrete steps here and now to protect and defend Ukraine, as well as lasting agreements to ensure its security into the future. While this feels like a dark phase for European security, it is not the first time that we who believe in co-operation and the importance of alliances have had to argue the case with those who favour a more transactional, zero-sum approach to international relations. We must hearten ourselves that we have won the argument before, including with our American friends, and we must appeal to the noblest instincts of that great nation. We are now at a hinge in history—perhaps the most dangerous one since the cold war—because at stake is not just the erasure of a nation, but the weakening of the international rules-based system and the transatlantic military alliance that have, in combination, underpinned European security since world war two. Even the concept of truth is being challenged, but I will not rehearse those points; we all know that there is a truth, and we must defend it. We must not allow great powers to trade Ukraine’s future like a pawn in a game of chess, because at stake is the principle that bullies must not prosper in our world. If they do, other nations will be next. Indeed, the former British Prime Minister whose bust sits in the Oval Office once said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The Baltic states understand that. I strongly welcome the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in reasserting our values and our commitment to increase defence spending and contemplate putting peacekeeping troops on the ground. We must defend the right of any country to defend itself against invasion by its neighbour, but Ukraine is not just any country; it is a beacon for those who value freedom. In its bravery and sacrifice, it is upholding the concept of not just its own, but every nation’s sovereignty. It is defending the international rules-based system, international law, freedom, democracy, human rights and, yes, us. We must remind our friends around the world that intelligent self-interest and upholding moral values are synonymous. If we do that, Ukraine will live on, the rules-based system will live on and, ultimately, a world that values and defends freedom and democracy against those who threaten them will live on.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

14:53:00

While I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, it is one that we all hoped we would never have to have, but I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing it. For more than three years, the brave people of Ukraine have heroically defended their country against a full-scale invasion, defying Putin’s expectations and showing the world their courage, resilience and unwavering determination. They have reminded us all of what is at stake: the right of a sovereign nation to choose its destiny, free from coercion and tyranny. Today, we are at a pivotal moment, with our Prime Minister in the US. This is a moment that will determine the future of our continent for generations to come. Now more than ever, we must stand firmly in support of our Ukrainian friends, resist Trump’s dangerous flirtation with a deal that rewards Russian aggression, and work with our European allies to defend freedom and democracy. The UK must act decisively. That starts with working with our European allies to unleash the £40 billion-worth of Russian assets currently sitting idle in banks, in order to give Ukraine a critical boost at this critical moment. The UN General Assembly has recognised Russia’s obligation to make reparations for this illegal war, yet history shows us that Russia will never voluntarily pay those reparations. By redirecting these funds to Ukraine, we are not undermining the rule of law, but upholding it. Some fear that seizing those assets sets a dangerous precedent. I argue the opposite—it sets a necessary precedent. It tells the world that the international community will act decisively against those who wage unprovoked wars of aggression. It is only right that those assets are repurposed for military aid, humanitarian support and rebuilding efforts. Any negotiations about Ukraine’s security must involve Ukraine itself. This war is about Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its fate cannot be decided in backroom deals between Washington and Moscow. I cautiously welcome reports that the White House is engaging respectfully with Kyiv, but this commitment must extend beyond words. There can be no ceasefire or security negotiations without Ukraine at the table; anything less would be an insult to the sacrifices made by its people and a betrayal of the values we claim to uphold. Supporting Ukraine means more than military aid alone. It requires long-term investment in defence manufacturing, joint procurement with Ukrainian companies, and a recognition that Ukraine’s innovation in defence technology, robotics, artificial intelligence and prosthetics is unparalleled globally. The UK should actively support and invest in those sectors, helping to strengthen Ukraine’s economy while also bolstering our own security and technological capabilities. We must also stand with Ukrainian veterans and refugees. More than 250,000 Ukrainians now call the UK home, and many of those who arrived here in 2022 will soon need to apply for visa extensions under the Ukraine permission extension scheme. While that scheme grants those Ukrainians an 18-month extension, it provides no certainty about their long-term future. We must ensure that Ukrainians in the UK have clarity about their right to remain, while understanding that so many of them will return to their country once the war is over. If the US retreats from its role in global security, Europe must step up, and Britain should lead. The Government’s pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 is welcome, and we hope it will mean a reversal of the Conservative party’s short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops, but we must go further. Given the increasingly volatile global landscape, the UK needs to plan to further increase defence spending. Now is not the time to play politics. The Government should recognise this and host cross-party talks to discuss a pathway to 3% as soon as possible. However, we must fund this increased defence spending in the right way. At a time when Ukraine’s economy has contracted by nearly 30% and its reconstruction needs are estimated at nearly $500 billion, it is incomprehensible that the UK has chosen to cut its international aid budget to fund the increase in defence. Slashing funding for global development while increasing defence spending is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The UK’s soft power is a vital tool in this fight, and we must restore our aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income, ensuring that our support for Ukraine does not come at the cost of abandoning other vulnerable nations. Defence, after all, is based on defence, diplomacy and development. The Liberal Democrats have set out how an increase in defence spending could be fairly funded by increasing taxes on social media firms and other tech giants, but the Government have chosen to finance it by cutting the international aid budget. This is a dangerous mistake; weakening the UK’s global influence will only play into the hands of Russia and China. We must also lead discussions about the creation of a European rearmament bank. Led by the UK and other like-minded European NATO allies, such a bank would allow us to collectively increase defence spending further and faster by raising additional private capital. That model would mean a more stable long-term financing system, enabling the defence industry to innovate and increase production capacity. The question is not whether we act, but what happens if we do not. Failing to stand with Ukraine will embolden Putin, undermine NATO and threaten European security. Three years into this war, the stakes could not be higher. We must take bold action to stand up for democracy, for our allies in Ukraine and eastern Europe, and for our own security.

I call the shadow Minister.

14:59:00

It is an honour to have the opportunity to mark the grim milestone that is the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for calling this debate, and I pay tribute to all the brilliant speeches we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Above all, though, I pay tribute to the people of Ukraine. Without any provocation whatsoever, Ukraine has suffered vast casualties and a national trauma beyond our wildest imaginings, all forced on it by an aggressive dictator and bully. If we ask ourselves why this war has happened, surely Lord Acton had the explanation, when he famously said back in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There is a reason why Putin can murder on our streets, threaten nuclear war, harass our maritime and airspace, invade free nations, do away with his political opponents and care not a jot for a casualty rate in his own forces of more than 1,000 a day. It is because he is not constrained by the checks and balances of a democracy that holds him to account. He has absolute power, and he has used it destructively, regardless of the impact on his own people, let alone the people of Ukraine. Putin’s motive is the motive of so many despots and dictators down the centuries: power lust and hunger for conquest. He externalises his nation’s problems, which his corrupt oligarchy can never solve, and that ultimately leads to internal economic hardship and pain for all, bar him and his close elite. I am incredibly proud of the support that we gave in government to Ukraine; we provided the weapons to help it avoid an early capitulation, which would have been truly disastrous for Ukraine and the free world. In opposition, we have continued to stand resolutely with Ukraine, supporting the Labour Government to that end, as they supported us prior to the July election. We wish the Prime Minister every success in Washington and hope for a lasting peace, in which Ukraine can finally enjoy the security it deserves. For all the talk of peace, and for all our efforts to date, providing everything from tanks to Storm Shadow missiles, and despite the incredible bravery of Ukraine’s armed forces in defying the odds to push back Putin’s land and naval forces, the day-to-day reality in Ukraine is one of continued bombing, pain and suffering for its people. A key question for us in this debate is: what action can we undertake this day to support the ongoing fight? I turn to the subject of drones and rearmament, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in an excellent speech, but one aspect of rearmament speaks to our own need to rearm. Also, Ukraine will need rearmament on a far greater scale, whether a settlement is achieved or not. If there is no settlement, the ongoing war will require that rearmament. If there is, the need to give Ukraine security about its future will also require a continued ramping up of military industrial production, not least to deter Russia, so now that the Government have confirmed their plan for a sustained increase in defence spending, we must urgently unlock our domestic procurement to drive our defence industrial capacity and that of Ukraine. On Monday, I had the pleasure of visiting a brilliant UK defence SME, Modini, which is creating one-way attack drones and other capabilities for the British Army. When I launched the MOD’s first-ever defence drone strategy about a year ago, the plan was to procure drones at scale for Ukraine, as we have done, and to learn from that to build a domestic industry capable of arming our own military. It was frustrating to hear from Modini what I have heard from so many of our best defence SMEs, which is that procurement is largely on hold. En masse, our fantastic firms are like a coiled spring, waiting for the Government to press “go” on procurement at the scale and pace we have needed for months. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), I believe that a big step forward would be for our defence companies to urgently forge new joint lines of production with Ukrainian firms in the United Kingdom, honouring the pillar 1 promise in the 100-year partnership to “Establish stronger and closer defence cooperation and industrial bases.” That is so important because, for safety reasons, Ukrainian defence companies that I have spoken to want UK production, away from the bombing. They also know that partnering with UK SMEs will provide access to capital and ultimately a chance to feed into UK procurement. For the UK, that co-operation means access to the know-how and expertise of those companies with manufacturing capabilities that have succeeded in a war as it is being fought. For our armed forces and the MOD, it means realising the cultural change that we need—being less risk-averse in procurement, and rapidly developing capability to enhance the lethality and survivability of our armed forces in the near term. That will be particularly important should there be a peacekeeping force. Ultimately, conventional war that is sustained for a longer period is fought in terms of factory production capacity, which is linked to innovation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) about capital controls—I think there is enough capital—but he made an excellent speech about the need to boost capacity. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, I looked at multilateral procurement with NATO partners. Whatever its current military capabilities, Europe has a vast industrial base that could scale up if there is the will power to do so, and if there is leadership from Governments. We led at the outset of the war, and with our greatest ally, the US, reasonably asking us and our NATO allies to do more of the heavy lifting in confronting the Russian threat, we will need to lead again. That requires leadership on industry and innovation in the UK and across Europe to massively boost our defence industrial capacity. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to accelerate partnerships with Ukrainian businesses that have delivered on the frontline, but which will be even stronger with British backing. That will create British jobs, and will deliver a far greater scale of production for both countries’ armed forces. We can and must continue to do everything possible to support Ukraine.

15:05:00

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for initiating this timely debate, which it is an honour to close, and I am grateful for all the superb contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I am especially grateful for the powerful advocacy of Members who have just returned from Ukraine; they shared their experiences of what is going on there, and told the story of the brutality of the Russian onslaught. I have been in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the air raid sirens sound, which is a sobering experience. It stays with you, and it must. It is a reminder of the daily courage of our Ukrainian friends as they resist Putin’s illegal invasion. Today we have had the opportunity to reflect on the most unhappy of anniversaries. It is three years this week since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine—three years in which thousands of people have lost their lives. Millions of Ukrainian families have seen their homes and communities destroyed, and Ukrainian children have been stolen by Russia. Although Russian troops continue to make small territorial gains, both nations have become deadlocked in a war of attrition. But this is a war that Putin believed he could win in three days. Thanks to the extraordinary resistance and courage of Ukraine, Russia has been humbled on the battlefield. Three days have turned into three years, and today marks 1,099 days.

The whole House will recall that when Russian tanks were bearing down on Kyiv, President Zelensky was offered a ride out for his own personal safety. He famously replied, “I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition.” That was Churchillian heroism, wasn’t it?

All parties in this House have rightfully praised President Zelensky, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. It is right that we continue to stand with him and his people for as long as it takes; I will come on to that in my remarks. Putin’s resources have been drastically worn down, with over 860,000 Russian soldiers killed or wounded. The UK Government expect the grim milestone of 1 million Russian casualties to be achieved in the coming months. Nearly 4,000 main battle tanks and 8,400 armoured vehicles have been lost, and the damage and destruction of the once formidable Black sea fleet is testament to what a nation without a navy can now do with the right equipment and approach. Let us not forget that over these three years, the UK has often been the first to step up to help Ukraine. This year, we will spend £4.5 billion on military assistance—more than ever before. To date, the UK has provided £12.8 billion of support and trained over 51,000 Ukrainian personnel with our allies as part of Operation Interflex, and we have committed to £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes. We have continued to strengthen Ukraine in recent weeks. Earlier this month, we announced a new £150 million firepower package, including drones, tanks and air defence systems. On Monday, the Defence Secretary announced that we are doubling our support for Ukraine’s lifesaving defence medical services, with a £20 million uplift in funding for Project Renovator. The UK has been repairing and upgrading a military rehabilitation hospital in Ukraine, and providing training to Ukrainian surgeons, doctors and nurses, and the funding will provide a major boost for this project. It will help Ukrainian soldiers to recover from frontline service, and help those who have suffered life-changing injuries while defending Ukraine’s sovereignty. We also heard on Monday from the Home Secretary that we are turning the tables on Putin by blocking Russian elites and oligarchs from entering the UK, and the Foreign Secretary announced the largest package of sanctions since the early days of the conflict, which aim to hit Russia’s revenue and hamper Vladimir Putin’s military machine. Standing alongside our allies, we will do what is necessary to support Ukraine, and keep Europe and Britain safe. The UK is solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January; bolstering co-operation on defence and security, and more; and, importantly, signalling our confidence that in 100 years’ time there will still be a free and sovereign Ukraine. I turn to some of the important questions that have been raised in today’s debate. On negotiations, while Russia is weakened, it remains a significant military threat, not just to Ukraine, but to the whole of Europe, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine is the frontline of freedom, and our defence and security begin on that frontline in eastern Ukraine. That is why the decisions made in negotiations over the coming weeks and months will define not only the outcome of this conflict, but the shape of European and global security for decades to come. Everyone wants this war to end, none more than the Ukrainian people, who need a chance to rebuild their shattered nation, so the efforts by President Trump’s administration to find a solution to the crisis are welcome, but the resulting peace cannot be achieved at any price. That would be an insult to Ukraine, the armed forces of which continue to fight with enormous courage and skill, and the population of which continues to ensure unimaginable hardships. When the fighting stops, it must be followed by a strong, stable, durable, lasting peace. That means a deal that safeguards Ukraine’s sovereignty and ends Russian aggression—not a temporary ceasefire before Putin finds an excuse to return to violence, but a lasting and durable peace. An insecure peace risks more war, and a US backstop is the only way to achieve a durable and lasting peace. The Government’s position is clear: negotiations about Ukraine cannot happen without Ukraine. At the same time, it is right that the UK and Europe play our part in securing the peace. It is our security that is being negotiated, as well as Ukraine’s. We have to work together with the US to achieve a sustained peace and protect the democracy that both the US and Europe hold so dear. That is why the Prime Minister has said that a US security guarantee in Ukraine is critical to stop Putin attacking again. It is welcome that we are now talking about negotiations, but as a Defence Minister, let me remind the House that we must not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war. President Trump has long expressed his wish for Europe to step up and take more responsibility for its own security, and he is right. Indeed, we are responding to that challenge, and we are stepping up. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are bringing forward our Labour manifesto commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence to 2027—back to a level that has not been achieved since 2010, when Labour was last in government. Ahead of his visit to Washington today, the Prime Minister also announced that, subject to our economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% in the next Parliament. Through our strategic defence review, which will be published in the spring, we are assessing the threats that Britain faces and building the defence capabilities we need to meet them. We are also cutting waste in the Ministry of Defence, and reforming procurement and recruitment, including by addressing some of the outdated medical standards that have been raised in this debate. We are prioritising investment in UK defence industries. As a result, our armed forces will once again become fit to fight a modern war, learning the lessons from Ukraine and adapting to the evolving threats we face, because we know that strengthening defence is the only way to win peace—by deterring conflict, but also by preventing defeat in it, if necessary. We are also stepping up in NATO, and encouraging all our NATO allies to spend at least 2% on defence. With Britain spending 2.5% on defence from 2027, we are also setting a new benchmark for others to follow. Two weeks ago, I was leading a UK trade delegation in Ukraine with our Dutch and Norwegian colleagues. We talked about more joint ventures, more investment, more tech transfers of knowledge and data sharing in both directions. This week, I visited Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark and the Netherlands to discuss with our close allies how we step up our collective support for Ukraine. The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up the debate.

15:15:00

It is great that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because two and a half years ago you came out to Ukraine with me and the charity, as others have done, and you were fantastic talking to troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They remembered that when I saw them again later, so I thank you on their behalf. This has been an excellent debate. It will send a message of unity to the President of America. It will tell him that this House is united in its support for Ukraine and believes that if we have faith in Ukraine it will succeed, and that there is no peace that is not durable that is worth the word peace. We need to make sure it has freedom and justice at the same time. To finish the debate, I will give one small quote—if the House will forgive me; it is very short—from the man who, in 1941, was also appealing to the President of a nation of 130 million that was in isolation and not likely to enter a war on our behalf. This is the sign that we must send to the man who has a bust of Churchill sitting in his office. This is how Churchill appealed to the President of America, and, on behalf of Ukraine, I repeat it: “Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and, under Providence, all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” Slava Ukraini. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.