The Secretary of State for Defence ( )
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on
the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
We are now 239 days into the operation that President Putin
planned to conclude within a month. Active Ukrainian offensive
operations continue in the north-east, near Svatove and the
Kherson region in the south. If Ukraine successfully advances on
Svatove, a key road and rail junction, it will constitute another
severe blow to the logistical viability of the northern sector of
Russia’s Donbas front. Yesterday, the new Russian commander in
Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin, offered an unusually candid
public statement of the difficulty of the Russian position in
Kherson, on the right bank of the Dnipro River. Pro-Russian
occupation forces have now started to withdraw some categories of
civilians east of the river. They claim 7,000 people have already
departed, and aim to move another 10,000 a day, although we
cannot yet verify those figures. Russia’s limited hold on the
bank of the Dnipro looks shaky. It is likely more seriously
considering a draw-down of its forces in the area.
Russia’s ground campaign is being reversed. It is running out of
modern long-range missiles and its military hierarchy is
floundering. It is struggling to find junior officers to lead the
rank and file. Meanwhile, its latest overall commander,
Surovikin, has a 30-year record of thuggery marked even by the
standards of the Russian army. What will worry President Putin is
that the open criticism is inching closer and closer to the
political leadership of his country. Russia has strong-armed
Belarus into facilitating its disastrous war, but the newly
announced Russian-Belarusian “Group of Forces”, supposedly to be
deployed in Belarus, is unlikely to be a credible offensive
force. It is far more likely that Russia is attempting to divert
Ukrainian forces from their successful counter-offensives.
As Russia’s forces are pushed back, they are resorting to
directly striking Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure,
especially the power grid. It should be noted that these
facilities have no direct military role, but the impact is
multiplying the misery of ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Notably,
these strikes are partially being conducted by loitering
munitions—so-called “kamikaze drones”. Despite Tehran’s denials,
these weapons are being provided by Iran. This, in itself, is
another sign of the strategic degradation of Russia’s
military.
In the wake of these ongoing and indiscriminate attacks on
civilian infrastructure, the UK will continue—and is
continuing—to gift air defence missiles to Ukraine. We are proud
to be the second largest donor of military equipment, and last
week I announced that the UK will provide additional air defence
missiles to Ukraine to defend against Russian missile strikes.
These include AMRAAMs—advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles
—which, used in conjunction with NASAMS—national advanced
surface-to-air missile system—air defence, pledged by the United
States, are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. We continue
to provide sophisticated electronic warfare equipment that gives
additional protection against long-range drones and missiles.
Supporting Ukraine remains the Ministry of Defence’s main effort.
We are helping Ukraine to replenish its stocks to keep us
fighting. As winter approaches, we are developing a package to
support Ukrainians through the winter, including 25,000 sets of
winter clothing, so that they are more effective on the
battlefield than their poorly trained, badly prepared and
ill-equipped Russian counterparts, many of whom have been
mobilised at short notice with little training, equipment or
preparation.
As part of Operation Interflex, we are also continuing to train
Ukrainian recruits in the United Kingdom alongside our Canadian,
Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Lithuanian, New Zealand, Norwegian and
Swedish partners. We have so far trained over 7,000 soldiers and
are currently on track to train 10,000 by the end of the year,
with up to 20,000 to follow in 2023.
Furthermore, we have worked with allies and partners to establish
an international fund, which will ensure the continued supply of
essential lethal and non-lethal military support to Ukraine, as
well as manufacturing capacity. To date, we have received pledges
totalling approximately £600 million and continue to work with
international partners to secure further funding. Today, we will
launch the first urgent bidding round to identify and procure
critical capabilities that can be rapidly deployed to
Ukraine.
I would also like to share with the House details of a recent
incident that occurred in international airspace over the Black
sea. On 29 September, an unarmed RAF RC-135W Rivet Joint, a
civilian ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and
reconnaissance—aircraft on routine patrol over the Black sea was
interacted with by two Russian armed Su-27 fighter aircraft. It
is not unusual for aircraft to be shadowed and this day was no
different. During that interaction, however, it transpired that
one of the Su-27 aircraft released a missile in the vicinity of
the RAF Rivet Joint aircraft beyond visual range. The total time
of the interaction between the Russian aircraft and the Rivet
Joint was approximately 90 minutes.
The patrol completed and the aircraft returned to its base. In
the light of this potentially dangerous engagement, I have
communicated my concerns directly to my Russian counterpart,
Defence Minister Shoigu, and my colleague, the Chief of the
Defence Staff, has also communicated his concerns. In my letter,
I made it clear that the aircraft was unarmed, in international
airspace, and following a pre-notified flight path. I felt that
it was prudent to suspend these patrols until a response was
received by the Russian state.
The reply by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 10 October stated
that it has conducted an investigation into the circumstances of
the incident and that it was a technical malfunction of the Su-27
fighter. It also acknowledged that the incident took place in
international airspace. The UK Ministry of Defence has shared
this information with allies and, after consultation, I have
restarted routine patrols, but this time escorted by fighter
aircraft.
Everything that we do is considered and calibrated with regard to
ongoing conflict in the region and in accordance with
international law. We welcome Russia’s acknowledgment that the
incident was in international airspace. The UK has conducted
regular sorties of the RAF Rivet Joint in international airspace
over the Black sea since 2019, and we will continue to do so. For
security reasons, I will not provide further commentary on the
detail of these operations, but I want to assure the House that
the incident will not prevent the United Kingdom’s support for
Ukraine and resistance to Russia’s illegal invasion.
The UK Government’s position remains unchanged, with—I am pleased
to say—consistent support across the House. We will continue to
support the Ukrainian people to defend their homeland. The
rules-based system has protected all nations from such naked and
unprovoked aggression over the past 75 years; it has also been
shaped by Russia in that time. This Government will always defend
the rules-based system, because it is fundamental to who we are.
It provides peace and security for this country and for our
partners and allies. I commend this statement to the House.
12.10pm
(Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. At a time of much Government chaos, I also thank him
for his calmness and professionalism in the job.
The incident with the RAF Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft that
the Defence Secretary described is serious. He outlines that the
correct steps have been taken, the malfunction has been confirmed
and the incident has now been resolved. It is welcome that RAF
flights have restarted and that there has been a clear
recognition from Russia that the aircraft was flying in
international airspace. The RAF has this House’s full support; we
are grateful to it, to other UK forces and to our NATO allies for
their work protecting the alliance and protecting freedom. The
incident is a serious reminder of the importance of avoiding
escalation and miscalculation while continuing with the UK’s
united support for Ukraine.
Almost eight months on from Russia’s criminal invasion of
Ukraine, I pay tribute to the remarkable and continuing Ukrainian
resolve in the face of Russian aggression. Putin has made a huge
strategic miscalculation in invading Ukraine, which has resulted
in Russian forces suffering heavy losses: the MOD estimates
25,000 Russian dead, tens of thousands injured, tens of thousands
who have deserted and more than 4,000 armoured and protected
vehicles destroyed.
At a time when Ukrainians have shown incredible resilience in
defending their homeland, Britain must honour their bravery by
remaining unwavering in our support for Ukraine. I am grateful
that the Defence Secretary has set out the UK’s continued support
under Operation Interflex for training Ukrainian forces; we thank
UK members of the armed forces for their work. I would also be
grateful if he confirmed when the promised action plan for
continuing UK support for Ukraine will be published, outlining
the type and quantity of military, economic and diplomatic
support that Ukraine will receive. Putin needs to be in no doubt
that our resolve will continue; whether the Defence Secretary’s
party or mine is in charge, that will not change.
I think it is time the Defence Secretary made a statement about
the planned drawback of troops from Estonia and about how that
decision can be properly scrutinised. I would also be grateful if
he set out whether orders have been placed for the replacement
next-generation light anti-tank weapon missiles and when our
stockpiles will be replenished.
There has been a concerning increase in Iranian drone activity. I
would be grateful if the Secretary of State set out what
additional support can be provided by the UK and our allies to
ensure that the Shahed 136 and Mohajer 6 drones from Iran can be
properly intercepted and defeated to protect Ukrainian
infrastructure.
In his speech last night, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral
Sir Tony Radakin, threw into doubt the planned rise in defence
spending to 3% of GDP, referring to it as a “potential increase”.
I would be grateful if the Defence Secretary spelled out the
Government’s position on defence spending and whether the
increase is confirmed or—as Admiral Sir Tony Radakin says—only
potential.
The Opposition’s support for Ukraine is unwavering. The Defence
Secretary knows that he has Labour’s full support in the
provision of military aid to our friends in Ukraine. Putin must
fail in his aggression. As we enter an incredibly difficult
period of the war, with cold weather drawing in, we must make
sure that we support not only our friends fighting in Ukraine,
but those civilians who are there fighting on its behalf. I would
be grateful if the Defence Secretary set out what support the UK
can offer to civilian infrastructure. The protection of energy
sources is particularly important, not only for Ukrainian
industry but for the Ukrainian people.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. To assure
the House, I did not choose to make my statement when my
counterpart on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member
for Wentworth and Dearne (), was not here; I spoke to him
at length yesterday. I also assure the House that although there
are some things that are of the highest sensitivity and cannot be
said in public or in this House, I continue to engage with the
party leaders on the most sensitive areas to ensure that they are
fully apprised throughout this process.
Calibration is incredibly important to me. We are dealing with a
President and with Russian forces who, as we have seen from the
Rivet Joint incident, are not beyond making the wrong calculation
or deciding that the rules do not apply to them. That is why I
ask those constituents who are fearful that this report could
lead somewhere to have faith that all of us in this Chamber are
working on a detailed response to ensure that we walk what is
sometimes a tightrope.
On Rivet Joint, as I said, we have made sure that the flight path
is pre-declared, so that it is no surprise to the Russians and is
logged in the normal manner. Indeed, I informed the Russians that
they would be escorted, so there were no surprises.
The shadow Minister asked about the action plan; I think he was
referring to the broader Government action plan, including
foreign aid and support. I concur that the foreign aid package
and helping Ukraine’s economy to survive, stand on its feet and
go from strength to strength are as important as an effective
military response. I will press my colleagues in other
Departments to ensure that we get the shadow Minister details of
the time and date, but it is a fundamental plank for Ukraine.
Some of what I discussed when I was in the United States was in
that area.
On the second battlegroup deployed in Estonia, hon. Members will
remember that after the invasion a number of countries deployed
what we called enhanced forward presence groups in Bulgaria, in
Romania and around Europe. There was some talk about deployment
in Hungary, but that did not materialise. Germany stepped up in
Lithuania, and so did we in Estonia. The second battlegroup was
always going to come back; our fixed position in Estonia is
effectively a battlegroup that we vary in size and capability. To
recognise the changed threat, we will keep our guided multiple
launch rocket system, our longer-range deep fires and indeed our
air defence capabilities, which are not always an accompaniment
to that battlegroup. We have effectively beefed up the existing
battlegroup, but we need to bring back the next battlegroup,
which has been extended for another six months. I thank the men
and women of the armed forces whose time out there has been
extended. That battle- group will come back.
We should not forget that we also have a squadron of tanks in
Poland, more forces, a company—a sort of small battlegroup—in
Bulgaria, part of a US strike brigade, and we are now exploring
having more Royal Engineers in Poland to assist with training
Ukrainians and with things like combat engineers. That is why the
battlegroup came back. I engage with my Estonian counterparts,
whom I met only last week; indeed, I met them the week before in
Poland to talk them through this, and they were given prior
notification. We are very keen to continue to work strongly with
them.
We have given an extra commitment on Estonia to have a brigade
headquarters and a brigadier. In the same way, the German plan in
Lithuania is to allocate a brigade for fast response to deploy,
and that is one of the ways we seek to go. We are also helping
Estonia to develop its own divisional headquarters, hand in hand,
but we always keep things under review. We are all waiting for
the NATO regional plans that will set out in detail how our
forces should be deployed across Europe as part of a bigger
comprehensive plan. It is really important for us all to be
guided by that.
The Ukrainians are having success in shooting down a number of
the Iranian drones, but it is a question of sheer scale. Members
will not have missed the similarity with V1 rockets. I urge the
Iranian Government to understand that supplying Russia so that it
can indiscriminately kill civilians, including women, children
and babies in prams, is surely not an activity with which Iran
wants to be associated. I urge them to desist as soon as
possible. We are not at all convinced by the Iranian Government’s
denials that they are not supplying the drones.
We will use some of the funding that I have mentioned to invest
in other novel capabilities that we can find to deploy. In the
meantime, we are continuing, and will step up, our supply of
low-velocity missiles to Ukraine to work with the Stormer system
and ensure that we can help with detection or electronic warfare
schemes. Obviously the Ukrainian conflict has flushed out
counter-drone technologies that we all need. Members will recall
the Gatwick airport scenario. Everyone came up with magic
solutions, but, if memory serves, when we tested them almost none
of them did what it said on the tin. However, we are helping
rapidly, and the best of innovation is being used to help the
Ukrainians.
When I was in Washington, it was made very clear from No. 10 that
the commitment on 3% of GDP by 2030 would stand. I should be
interested to know whether the Labour party will match that
important commitment. If Labour Members are getting ready for
government, as they seem to think they are, these are the
questions that they will need to answer for the British public
and the British armed forces as they lay out their timetable and
their plan. They will have at least two years in which to do it,
so I am not too worried—[Interruption.]It is when I am guessing
the election will be, but that is definitely above my pay
grade.
As for how we can get the Ukrainians through the winter, we are
all working internationally to see what we can do. The European
Union has announced a fund, and we will ensure that we do what we
can to help Ukraine with critical infrastructure and energy.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, .
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his calmness, and for the
consistency of his support for our friends in Ukraine. Our
leadership on defence spending matters, and it is important that
we meet the target of 2.5% of GDP by 2026, because between now
and 2050 it is spending on, and investing in, artificial
intelligence, quantum and other new technologies that will allow
us best to protect ourselves from hostile states. However, I am
concerned about the escalation over the Black sea. I know that my
right hon. Friend has a close relationship with his Turkish
counterpart. Can he please give us an insight into how he is
working with our allies in Turkey and Romania to protect air
policing?
Mr Wallace
One of the allies with which I discussed this incident was
Turkey, at the time when it happened. I have a good and close
relationship with the Turkish Government, and I will be visiting
Turkey next week. The Turkish Government are aware of the
position, and, as ever, offered as much assistance with this
process as we wished.
We do not consider this incident to constitute a deliberate
escalation on the part of the Russians, and our analysis concurs
that it was due to a malfunction, but it is nevertheless a
reminder of quite how dangerous things can be when you choose to
use your fighters in the manner in which the Russians have used
them. While this obviously involved the release of a weapon, we
have seen very close flying next to United States, United Kingdom
and NATO assets over the last few years. In one case, a Russian
fighter went within 15 feet of a NATO aircraft. Such action is
reckless and unnecessary, and puts many people’s lives at
risk.
I am not naive. We are incredibly lucky that what we saw over the
Black sea did not become worse. I am not trying to trivialise it,
but we do not consider it to have been a deliberate escalation on
the part of the Russian state.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross,
Skye and Lochaber () appreciates the collegiate
way in which both he and his staff have acted throughout this
crisis.
Understandably, much of the attention arising from the statement
will be focused on the incident involving the RAF surveillance
aircraft and the Russian Su-27 fighter which took place in
international airspace during a pre-notified flight over the
Black sea last week. I commend the Secretary of State and the
Ministry of Defence for their calm and measured response to a
situation that could easily and very quickly have escalated into
something far more serious.
Of course, the situation in Ukraine is serious enough, with Putin
having now declared martial law in the four newly annexed
territories. That gives him a level of control over industries
that could possibly be repurposed to support his illegal war
effort. As the Secretary of State said, in recent days we have
seen more Russian war crimes. Ukrainian civilians and civilian
infrastructure have been targeted with missiles, rockets and
Iranian-made drones—which, I believe, makes Iran directly
complicit in these war crimes. When will the Government follow
the example of our US allies and EU partners in actively pursuing
and sanctioning Iranian companies which have been involved in
making those drones, as well as the individuals behind the
companies? What, if anything, is being done to try to cut off the
international supply of components to Iran?
Let me end by echoing what was said by the hon. Member for
Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (). As winter approaches and we
continue to provide military support, what thought has been given
to protecting the civilian population? Is there scope for us to
send more generators and specialist electricity equipment to help
Ukraine to keep the lights and the heating on this winter?
Mr Wallace
That last point is extremely important. The Department of Health
and Social Care has already done significant work in securing
medical supplies during the conflict, but the hon. Gentleman
prompts me to see what we can do in a more international,
co-ordinated manner. I will, perhaps, write to him giving the
details of that. He is right to say that this is going to be a
tough winter, and we need to make sure that the Ukrainians can
cope.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the calmness of the RAF.
Incredibly professional men and women are doing an incredible
job, and not only here. Some of those same aircraft, and the P-8s
from Lossiemouth, go out to protect us in the very high north
from aggression and Russian activity. It is often in Scotland
that Russia enters our airspace with its long-range bombers and
the patrols that it did not give up after the cold war. The
difference that should be noted is that we were in international
airspace. However, we try to retain a professional manner with
Russia. It is important that we maintain that professional link
with the Russian Ministry of Defence, and recognise that we can
still have those important engagements at times like this.
Sir (Maldon) (Con)
Given the extraordinary success of the Ukrainian armed forces in
pushing back Russian troops, does my right hon. Friend agree that
there is a danger that Putin may consider escalating the
conflict? While attention has focused on the potential use of
battlefield nuclear weapons, does he agree that any use of
chemical or biological weapons equally represents a red line
which Putin must not cross?
Mr Wallace
When it comes to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons and the chemical weapons convention which all of us,
including what are viewed as some of the key anchor countries,
have signed up to—when chemical weapons were used in Syria, for
instance, military action was taken by countries including
ourselves and France—it is extremely important to uphold that
convention. Breaking the taboo, or allowing it to be successfully
broken, would have severe consequences for all of us. Similarly,
the messaging is that the use of nuclear or chemical weapons
would lead to severe consequences for the Russian state, and we
urge that none of those be resorted to.
As for President Putin’s position, he has obviously made a number
of speeches, and he has annexed illegally parts of countries that
are still full of Ukrainian forces. His ambitions do not seem to
match the realities on the ground. The key message to him is that
we are interested in helping Ukraine to succeed in defeating
Russia’s illegal invasion. If he understands what that is about,
he should be able to calibrate his response so as to leave
Ukraine in an orderly manner, and we can start the process of
trying to rebuild that amazing country and ensuring that Russia
is held accountable for its crimes.
(North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and his
leadership during this difficult time. I also thank the members
of our armed forces who are supporting our efforts in Ukraine and
in eastern Europe, and, indeed, the civil servants behind the
right hon. Gentleman in his Department.
In his statement, the Defence Secretary mentioned the Russians
targeting drone attacks on civilians. Over the last few weeks, as
the Ukrainians have gained ground, it has become clear that war
crimes have been perpetrated against civilians and members of the
armed forces in Ukraine. What expertise and support are we
providing to enable the Ukrainians to log evidence and enable the
individuals concerned to be brought to account?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
When the war crimes in Bucha and not far outside Kyiv were
exposed, a group of us—including the United Kingdom, alongside
the Canadians—began the process of gathering evidence for the
International Criminal Court. My colleague the now former Home
Secretary, who was then the Attorney General, visited Ukrainian
herself, and worked with the then prosecutor. The Red Cross is
also engaged in gathering such information. Its biggest challenge
is the sheer scale of the amount of evidence that we are now
uncovering.
The fact that Russia does not invade and occupy a country with
any civility towards or regard for its people adds to the
anxiousness of our friends in the Baltic states; Russia seems to
destroy everything in its path. The worry of a small Baltic state
is that it does not have time for the rest of us to get there.
That is why we are committed to a battlegroup in Estonia. If we
give Russia time, there will not be much left when we arrive.
That is why we have to send a message that this course is
unacceptable.
(Witney) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his calm yet robust response
to the Rivet Joint Sukhoi incident, which is of course of great
concern. I also pay tribute to the calmness and professionalism
of the RAF crews during the incident.
Will the Secretary of State commit to continuing to keep under
review the adequacy of the fighter forces we have available,
bearing in mind the escort duties that he has now referred to as
well as the ongoing combat air policing duties on NATO’s eastern
front in any event?
Mr Wallace
Yes; making sure we have more aircraft fighter capability in this
country has been one of my priorities. On almost my first day in
the job, I sent a letter to the Chief of the Air Staff stating
that his No. 1 priority was to improve the fighter pilot
pipeline; there is no point in buying planes if there is no one
to fly them. It is incredibly important that we get those
pilots.
Of course one of the challenges with the new F-35 is growing
instructors. It is a Catch-22: there have to be enough pilots in
the planes to grow the instructor body, but if there are not
enough pilots in the first place, how do we do that? We are
getting there, and the situation is improving. The Typhoon is
proving its worth every single week. I went to the ceremony to
hand over to Qatar the next iteration of the Typhoon. It is a
formidable aircraft, which I hope will be bought by many other
countries around the world.
(Enfield North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State touched on the help that we are providing.
Will he elaborate on that? He talked about equipment. What are we
doing to provide small diesel generators to ensure that key
services such as hospitals or water cleaning plants keep going,
given Russia’s attack on civilian infrastructure?
Mr Wallace
Non-lethal military aid is collected and corralled in the same
place as military aid: through the international donor cell based
in Germany—a multinational cell staffed predominantly by military
and civil servants who collect the ask from Ukraine, which they
try to match with donors. That is predominantly for military and
non-lethal military aid, which includes generators, field
hospitals and medical stuff. Predominantly, that is related to
the war effort.
I will make sure that we write to the hon. Lady with the broader
detail of what other assistance is happening. I visited Ukraine
about three or four weeks ago. People there were in a pretty good
mindset about their ability to see through the winter, but the
use of Iranian mass drones will have an effect if it continues
and we must make sure that that does not catch up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I forgot to answer the question about
sanctions put by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan
O’Hara). My understanding is that the Foreign Secretary will make
a statement about that in the near future.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Con)
I commend the Secretary of State on his statement and his ongoing
handling of the UK response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine by
President Putin.
I have long been of the view that spending on our armed forces
should be viewed as an insurance policy to protect not only our
security but our national interests. As with any insurance
policy, when the risk profile increases so must the premiums. My
right hon. Friend has already reconfirmed that the Government
have committed to raising defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030.
Given the acute security situation in which we find ourselves at
the moment, will he also commit to keeping that 2030 date under
review?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right; I have often stood at the Dispatch Box
and said that as the threat changes so must our investment and
funding. That has been all too forgotten when it has come to
defence during the last three decades, to be honest. It was
interesting that we always understandably responded to pressures
in the NHS or the financial markets, but that did not seem
necessary when it came to threats. That is how we have ended up
with a need to go up to 3% by 2030.
As long as I am Defence Secretary, I will keep the view that as
the threat changes we should always review the issues. That is
fair and consistent for the men and women of the armed forces. It
also sends a strong message to people such as President Putin:
that we mean what we say.
(Warley) (Lab)
In answer to the challenge from the Secretary of State, I can say
that Labour Front Benchers are very ready for government—and by
the way, his lot seem to be actively working to be ready for
opposition.
The statement was helpful, but ignored the gorilla in the room.
Earlier this week, the Secretary of State urgently flew to
Washington DC for talks about the situation in Ukraine. There has
been quite a bit of briefing in the media on what that may have
been about. I fully understand the sensitivities, but surely it
is owed to the House and indeed the nation for there to be some
indication of how we and our allies see the conflict
evolving.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I went to
Washington ourselves in calmer times; it now seems decades ago. I
was in opposition and he was in government, although he is well
qualified to know what opposition is—sadly for him, he has
probably spent more time in opposition than government.
There has been a lot of what I would describe as speculation
rather than briefing about why I went to Washington; I noticed
that yesterday two mainstream media publications gave different
reasons for why I went. Fundamentally, President Putin makes his
speeches, things change and we need to be absolutely prepared to
discuss that with our closest allies. Sometimes it is important
to do so in person. I thought it was important after the
appointment of the new general, after President Putin’s speech
about annexation and during the issues around Ukraine’s success
on the battlefield and what that could mean for President Putin,
his actions and what happens next.
It is important that we have such discussions in person. I went
to the Pentagon and the State Department. I met the National
Security Adviser and had other meetings to make sure that we all
understand our planning processes about what we would do in the
event of a whole range of things.
People should not be alarmed, but I hope they take comfort from
the fact that my priority is, if necessary, getting on a plane to
go and do that, not dealing with what is currently going on in
our mainstream media.
(Bracknell) (Con)
Following the Defence Secretary’s recent visit to Washington and
other travels, will he provide for the House a short assessment
of the continuing resolve within NATO for supporting Ukraine, so
that we can see this through?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend will have noticed two things in the last few
weeks. First, we had our NATO Defence Ministers meeting last
week. The resolve is absolutely rock solid. When it comes to the
nuclear issue, the line is consistent that there would be severe
consequences for Russia if it uses tactical nuclear weapons. Our
commitment to responding to such issues and the threat they pose
to the world order in breaking the nuclear taboo is determined
and united.
My hon. Friend will also have noticed that the European Union has
started to use much more hawkish phrases about this issue. That
is because its member states are clearly resolved. They want this
issue to be concluded successfully. They recognise that
constituents in all our countries face higher food and energy
prices because of what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker and
more permanently we can solve that, the better for all of us. We
can then get on and deal with the inflationary pressures and all
the other stuff.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement; his
transparency is welcome and serves to prevent misreporting of the
Rivet Joint incident and inadvertent escalation. We in the
Liberal Democrats would like to add that we also pay tribute to
the professionalism, values and standards of the Royal Air Force
and all our armed forces.
I particularly appreciate the Secretary of State’s recognition
that communication is crucial to ensure that we avoid
miscalculation. He said that he has communicated his concern
directly to his Russian counterpart, Defence Minister Sergei
Shoigu, and that the Chief of the Defence Staff has done the same
using his channels. On 7 March this year, the Chief of the
Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said lines of
communication were
“not as strong as we would want them to be”.
Can the Secretary of State comment on whether top-level lines of
communication with Russian counterparts have deteriorated further
or improved since then?
Mr Wallace
It is possible for us to communicate with the leadership of the
Russian Ministry of Defence and the leadership of the Russian
Government when we need to, and there is a constant capability to
do that. That is not particularly easy across the international
community at the moment, because General Gerasimov and Minister
Shoigu are clearly engaged in the activity that has led us all to
the House today, and they are busy doing that. Communication is
possible, and I assure the House that, if it became impossible, I
would seek other ways of making sure. I also have close allies
and partners who can make calls, if necessary, and we utilise
them where needed.
(Isle of Wight) (Con)
Given all that is happening in Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere in
the world, does the Defence Secretary agree it is right that the
Prime Minister has brought forward a commitment to reach defence
expenditure of 2.5% of GDP by 2026? We cannot wait until 2030 to
deal with the great threats we face now.
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, 2030 is the key point, because we have to
pass through 2.5% to get to 3%. The reality is that we need to
make sure that the rise to 3% is done sustainably. I cannot be
given a blob of money in 2029 and be expected to buy a warship in
five weeks. There has to be a proper, graduated response. I will
make sure the response includes 2.5% en route to 3% of GDP.
It is also important to remind the House that being part of NATO
helps us to achieve global mass, or certainly mass within the
north Atlantic, and enables us to deploy very large numbers of
troops, if necessary. On paper, NATO still far outnumbers Russian
forces. Since Russia has significantly degraded nearly all of its
land armed forces, the ratio is even more imbalanced in the
favour of NATO.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
It gives me great confidence that we have heard a competent and
trusted Secretary of State and a competent and trusted shadow
Secretary of State having an intelligent conversation about this
issue, followed by a question and answer session. That is what
our constituents expect to happen in Parliament, as opposed to
recent events.
May I push the Defence Secretary a little? The credibility of our
armed forces relies on how many men and women they have and, as
he knows, many years ago I campaigned for a 100,000 minimum. I
still have no answer on whether the 72,000 aim in the most recent
Conservative party policy is still working. I support the 3%
target for expenditure; and please can we have more aid going to
the civilian population of the places that the Russian air force
is bombarding?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If, at the end of this,
we do not help Ukraine rebuild itself, it will all have been for
nothing. It is important that, alongside the military response,
we help Ukraine’s economy get on its feet. Ukraine has the
means—it has agricultural produce, et cetera. As the hon.
Gentleman says, Ukraine’s military and other values are different
from Russia’s, but the economy, the poverty and all the other
issues are also important.
On the credibility of our armed forces, we have to make sure
that, whatever their size, our armed forces are properly
protected, perfectly formed at the forefront of capabilities and
able to interoperate and integrate with our biggest allies. That
is as important as the size of our armed forces. Russia went for
size, and its armed forces cannot talk to each other or defend
themselves. For all Russia’s boasts about how many BMPs and T-72s
it has, they all ended up dead or broken on the road to Kyiv.
There is an important balance to strike but, like the hon.
Gentleman, I believe we also need to invest to deliver armed
forces of scale so that we are able to be present around the
world to deter our enemies, and so we can make choices about
being in the Baltics and in Poland and in the Pacific and in
Africa, where violent extremism is getting bigger and threatens
the stability of Africa.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am having a meeting with the
Treasury this afternoon. If he would like to come with me, I
would be delighted to take him. We have been in the House
together for many years, and he is formidable at delivering what
he wishes to achieve. I also remember him being formidable to his
own Front Bench at certain times when they needed to hear the
right messages. He would be very welcome. If I could squeeze him
into the Treasury meeting, I would.
(North West Durham)
(Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I echo the
comments of the whole House, including those of my constituency
neighbour, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I
praise my right hon. Friend for his leadership on the issues we
have been facing in Ukraine and over the last few years.
Obviously, in addition to the supply of lethal and non-lethal
weaponry and supplies, one of the big things the UK has been
doing is helping to train Ukrainian forces. Can my right hon.
Friend confirm how many Ukrainian troops have been trained so far
by the UK’s training programmes and how many we plan to train in
the coming year?
Mr Wallace
We have trained 7,000 so far. We are on target to complete
10,000, and then another 20,000-plus next year. It often depends
on whether the Ukrainians are able to give us the training
pipeline. Some of these people will be coming off the frontlines.
It is always a challenge, but we are in the right position. We
are well supported by the international community, and it is
making a difference. We are now looking at what we can do with
larger units, by helping Ukraine to train at company and
battalion level. That would probably happen within Europe.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
In describing Russia’s increased targeting of Ukraine’s energy
infrastructure, which we learned this morning has led to
restrictions on power supply, the Secretary of State referred to
the sheer quantity of cruise missiles and drones that are being
used in those attacks. Is it now a question of increasing the
equipment and capability he has announced to the House today to
enable Ukraine better to resist those attacks, or are there other
capabilities—he referred to some—that could be supplied or that
Ukraine has requested?
Mr Wallace
From the international community, for example, Ukraine has
consistently requested some of Israel’s electronic warfare
capability. It is regrettable that, at the moment, Israel has not
chosen to do that. I will be seeing the Israeli ambassador in the
next few weeks to try to press the case.
One of the challenges I have talked about is the proliferation of
precision weapons into the hands of basically low-level troops.
We have highly sophisticated, complex weapons that take months to
make and were originally designed to shoot down fighter aircraft.
When they are used against fairly cheap, mass drones, Ukraine
will run out of them quicker than they can be replaced. That is
one of the lessons, and it is why electronic warfare to jam,
divert or take over these things plays an important part. That is
why we will all be looking at our capabilities and thinking about
future challenges. It is as much about how we are going to do
that as about how we can help the Ukrainians. Right now, we are
helping the Ukrainians, and what we have learned is coming back
into our system for ourselves.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I had the great privilege of attending a delegation to the Tapa
British Army base in Estonia last week. We met His Majesty’s
ambassador to Estonia, who is doing a fantastic job. There is
obviously huge affection between the peoples of Estonia and
Ukraine, as we saw when we had the great privilege of attending
the Ukrainian ballet.
I also met my constituent, Laurence, at the Tapa army base. He is
in 19 Tank Transporter Squadron, and I asked him, “How can I help
you? What message can I take back to the Secretary of State for
Defence?” His whole thought was about the vehicles and how they
are looked after, protected and maintained; it was not about
himself. Will the Secretary of State join me in respecting the
dedication of Laurence, everyone in 19 Tank Transporter Squadron
and every one of those proud British armed services personnel
working at the Tapa army base to keep us and the people of
Estonia safe?
Mr Wallace
Yes. My hon. Friend was brave asking that question of a soldier—I
have often had answers people did not expect. He espouses the
real professionalism of our men and women. We were always taught,
and I have never forgotten this, that it was, “My men, my kit,
myself.” I hope Members will forgive the gender issue there. That
shows the difference between us and the Russians: they do not
seem to care about their men and their women, and seem to care
only about themselves. That is why we see their army doing what
they are doing. It is incredibly important that we have ready,
capable equipment—that is the point I make to the hon. Member for
Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman): it is not just about mass and it has
to be about things being properly serviced and maintained. The
job that my hon. Friend’s constituent was doing is one of the key
things—he is an enabler. In the past, it was the enablers they
hollowed out, as long as they could talk about having a
“frontline regiment” or “frontline tank regiment”. However, if
you do not have the transporters, there is no point in having
lots of tanks, because you will not go anywhere.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is
encouraging for all of us in this House to know that we have a
Secretary of State who is very much committed, in every sense, to
ensuring that Ukraine has everything it needs. Is there any
further support that he can and will make available to ensure
that the damage left by the drone attacks that were designed to
disrupt power and water supplies is repaired urgently? This might
not necessarily be a Ministry of Defence thing, but this is about
repairing the damage and ensuring that these supplies are not
attacked again. Can he make that happen with any manpower,
expertise and supplies, in order to thwart Putin’s determination
to leave Ukrainians in the dark and with no water?
Mr Wallace
The positive side is that the Ukrainians are incredibly skilled
at being able to fix, repair and build their equipment. In many
cases they have managed to turn around the shortages of
electricity in a matter of days and Putin has not been
successful. On wider skills, I offered at one stage to send Royal
Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, not into Ukraine but into
neighbouring countries to assist with the refurbishment of tanks
and such things. Those are some of the skills we can provide. In
my experience, this is about “Mechanics, mechanics, mechanics”,
as they will fix a Challenger tank as quickly as they will fix a
T-72. They are always on offer; if the Ukrainians ask, we will be
happy to help.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
I agree with Members from across the Chamber in praising the
right hon. Gentleman and his handling of the Ukraine-Russia
situation. After the NATO Secretary-General said that NATO allies
will act if Sweden or Finland comes under pressure from Russia or
another adversary before they become full members of the
alliance, how does the Defence Secretary predict that that might
antagonise Putin and what risk does he assess there to be for the
UK?
Mr Wallace
If Putin attacks Sweden and Finland, the Russians will antagonise
Sweden and Finland; I do not think they will antagonise
themselves. If Russia chooses to lash out at Sweden and Finland,
not only would NATO meet and discuss what it can do to protect
some of its closest allies, who are choosing to join, but the UK
has a number of security arrangements we have made recently with
both Sweden and Finland, and we would ensure, even bilaterally,
that we would step up to the plate. However, what we can see is
that because of Russia’s poor and failing invasion of Ukraine,
the conventional military forces it would have previously had
near those countries are hollowed out or have been destroyed, so
Russia has much less to threaten them with. However, we are alert
for things around critical national infrastructure, pipelines and
electricity cables, which is why I recently deployed two ships to
the area—I believe one was HMS Enterprise and the other a Type-23
frigate—to make sure we help to protect Norway’s pipelines and
our infrastructure.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for updating
the House on events relating to the war in Ukraine.
Lords repeat of Commons
statement
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence () (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made in the other
place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary
of State for Defence, , on Ukraine. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Deputy Speaker, with permission I would like to make a
Statement on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
We are now 239 days into the operation that President Putin
planned to conclude within a month. Active Ukrainian offensive
operations continue in the north-east, near Svatove, and in the
Kherson region in the south. If Ukraine successfully advances on
Svatove, a key road and rail junction, it will constitute another
severe blow to the logistical viability of the northern sector of
Russia’s Donbass front.
Yesterday, the new Russian commander in Ukraine, General Sergey
Surovikin, offered an unusually candid public statement of the
difficulty of the Russian position in Kherson, on the right bank
of the Dnipro river. Pro-Russian occupation forces have now
started to withdraw some categories of civilians east of the
river. They claim 7,000 people have already departed, and aim to
move another 10,000 a day, though we cannot yet verify those
figures. Russia’s limited hold on the west bank of the Dnipro
looks shaky. They are likely more seriously considering a
draw-down of their forces in the area.
Russia’s ground campaign is being reversed. It is running out of
modern long-range missiles and its military hierarchy is
floundering. They are struggling to find junior officers to lead
the rank and file. Meanwhile, their latest overall commander has
a 30-year record of thuggery marked even by the standards of the
Russian army. What will worry President Putin is that the open
criticism is inching closer and closer to the political
leadership of his country. Russia has strong-armed Belarus into
facilitating its disastrous war, but the newly announced
‘Russian-Belarusian Group of Forces’, supposedly to be deployed
in Belarus, is unlikely to be a credible offensive force. It is
far more likely that Russia is attempting to divert Ukrainian
forces from their successful counteroffensives.
As Russia’s forces are pushed back, they are resorting to
directly striking Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure,
especially the power grid. It should be noted that these
facilities have no direct military role, but the impact is
multiplying the misery of ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Notably,
these strikes are partially being conducted by loitering
munitions—so called kamikaze drones. Despite Tehran’s denials,
these weapons are being provided by Iran, another sign of the
strategic degradation of Russia’s military.
In the wake of these ongoing and indiscriminate attacks on
civilian infrastructure, the UK continues to give air defence
missiles to Ukraine. We are proud to be the second-largest donor
of military equipment, and last week I announced that the UK
would be providing additional air defence missiles to Ukraine to
defend against Russian missile strikes. These include
AMRAAMs—air-to-air missiles—which, used in conjunction with the
NASAMS air defence system pledged by the United States, are
capable of shooting down cruise missiles. We continue to provide
sophisticated electronic warfare equipment which gives additional
protection against long-range drones and missiles.
Supporting Ukraine remains the Ministry of Defence’s main effort.
We are helping Ukraine to replenish its stocks to keep up
fighting. As winter approaches, we are developing a package to
support Ukrainians through the winter, including 25,000 sets of
winter clothing, so that they are more effective on the
battlefield than their poorly trained, badly prepared and
ill-equipped Russian counterparts, many of whom have been
mobilised at short notice with little training, equipment or
preparation.
As part of Operation Interflex, we are also continuing to train
Ukrainian recruits in the United Kingdom alongside our Canadian,
Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Lithuanian, New Zealand, Norwegian and
Swedish partners. We have so far trained over 7,000 soldiers and
are currently on track to train 10,000 by the end of the year,
with up to 20,000 to follow in 2023.
Furthermore, we have worked with allies and partners to establish
an international fund, which will ensure a continued supply of
essential lethal and non-lethal military support to Ukraine, as
well as manufacturing capacity. To date, we have received pledges
totalling approximately £600 million and continue to work with
international partners to secure further funding. Today, we will
launch the first urgent bidding round to identify and procure
critical capabilities which can be rapidly deployed to Ukraine.
I would also like to share with the House details of a recent
incident which occurred in international airspace over the Black
Sea. On 29 September, an unarmed RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint civilian
ISTAR aircraft on routine patrol over the Black Sea was
interacted with by two Russian armed Su-27 fighter aircraft. It
is not unusual for aircraft to be shadowed and this day was no
different. During that interaction, however, it transpired that
one of the Su-27 aircraft released a missile in the vicinity of
the RAF Rivet Joint, beyond visual range. The total time of the
interaction between the Russian aircraft and the Rivet Joint was
approximately 90 minutes.
The patrol was completed and the aircraft returned to its base.
In the light of this potentially dangerous engagement, I have
communicated my concerns directly to my Russian counterpart,
Defence Minister Shoigu, and the Chief of the Defence Staff has
also communicated his concerns to Moscow. In my letter, I made it
clear that the aircraft was unarmed, in international airspace
and following a pre-notified flight path. I felt it was prudent
to suspend these patrols until a response was received by the
Russian state.
The reply by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 10 October stated
that it had conducted an investigation into the circumstances of
the incident and that it was a technical malfunction of the Su-27
fighter. It also acknowledged that the incident took place in
international airspace. The UK Ministry of Defence has shared
this information with allies and, after consultation, I have
restarted routine patrols, but this time escorted by fighter
aircraft.
Everything that we do is considered and calibrated with regard to
ongoing conflict in the region and in accordance with
international law. We welcome Russia’s acknowledgment that this
was in international airspace. The UK has conducted regular
sorties of the RAF Rivet Joint in international airspace over the
Black Sea since 2019, and we will continue to do so. For security
reasons, I will not provide further commentary on the detail of
these operations, but I assure the House that this incident will
not prevent the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine and
resistance to Russia’s illegal invasion.
The UK Government’s position remains unchanged, with consistent
support, I am pleased to say, from across the House. We will
continue to support the Ukrainian people to defend their
homeland, and the rules-based system. It has protected all
nations from such naked and unprovoked aggression over the last
75 years; it was also helped and shaped by Russia in that time.
This Government will always defend it because these rules-based
systems are fundamental to who we are, and provide peace and
security for this country and our partners and allies. I commend
this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
17:39:00
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on
Ukraine made earlier today in the other place, and I welcome its
contents.
Obviously, there is currently chaos in government, with a new
Prime Minister, whoever that is, to be in place soon. Given this
political uncertainty, will the Minister take this opportunity to
say loudly and clearly that, whatever the outcome of all this
political uncertainty, our resolve to support Ukraine will remain
as steadfast as it has been and nothing will shake our joint
resolve to support Ukraine and NATO in facing up to Russia and
its illegal invasion? Will the Minister resolve to ensure that
President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine are made aware of
that? Indeed, President Putin himself must be in no doubt that,
whatever the political uncertainty, there will be no weakening of
our resolve.
To that end, talking of our new Prime Minister, what is the
government policy on defence spending at present? The former
Prime Minister said 3% by 2030, but last night the Chief of the
Defence Staff said it was only a potential increase to 3%. Can we
please have some clarity on that?
The Statement tells us that as Russian forces are pushed back,
they are resorting to directly striking Ukraine’s critical
national infrastructure, especially the power grid, with
consequent misery for the people of Ukraine. Given that the
so-called kamikaze drones being used are supplied by Iran, can
the Minister update us on what discussions have taken place
between our Government and Iran but also between NATO and Iran
about the supply of these weapons to Russia?
The Minister tells us that we are supplying a considerable number
of air defence missiles, which is very welcome and we can be
rightly proud of it. Are we able to keep up with the demand for
these missiles with our US and NATO allies? Can we provide all
the lethal and non-lethal equipment that is being requested?
In answer to questions in the other place earlier today, the
Minister there spoke about the withdrawal of troops from Estonia.
Can the Minister update us a bit more on the Government’s
position with respect to troop levels in Estonia?
As a result of the advance of Ukrainian forces and Russian
difficulties in Kherson, the Minister has just told us that
thousands of people are being moved, with thousands more to
follow. Who are these people, how are they chosen and where are
they actually being moved to? There are also reports of Russia
planning to blow a dam near Kherson and then blaming the
Ukrainians. Does the Minister have any comment to make about
that?
The Statement talks about candid remarks made by the new Russian
commander about the difficulties they are facing. Can the
Minister explain the remark, “What will worry Putin is that the
open criticism is inching closer to the political leadership
too”? That is a direct quote. It would be helpful if the Minister
could say what evidence there is for that and what that sentence
actually means.
We read of the Defence Secretary’s recent visit to Washington,
which was organised so quickly that he had to miss a Select
Committee meeting at the last minute, to discuss, according to
Secretary Blinken, support for Ukraine and the serious security
threat that Russia poses to the Europe, the US and the world.
What threats were discussed? What was the purpose of this
last-minute meeting?
Worryingly, as the Minister has just told us, it is reported that
a Russian fighter jet released a missile near an unarmed British
spy plane over the Black Sea. Can the Minister confirm that the
Defence Secretary has accepted completely Russian assurances that
this was the result of a malfunction? Does it not, however, show
how careful we all must be to prevent any possible escalation?
Have there been any other similar incidents on land, sea or air?
Yesterday the US imposed new sanctions on Russia, targeting a
network accused of procuring military and dual-use technologies
from US manufacturers and illegally supplying them to Russia for
its war in Ukraine. RUSI has confirmed that UK components are
also appearing in Russian weaponry. Can the Minister confirm
whether we are looking at the imposition of a similar sanction on
Russia?
Lastly, can the Minister tell us anything about the new MoD
assessment of the threat to Ukraine from Belarus? Kyiv believes
that it is a very real threat.
I reiterate our support for the Government in their actions in
respect of Ukraine.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as so often on these occasions, I rise in many ways to
endorse all the questions and comments of the noble Lord, , and to echo the support for
His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to Ukraine. It is very
welcome that the Secretary of State for Defence, reiterated by
the Minister, noted the commitment to continue to support the
Ukrainian people, which is absolutely right. They are defending
their homeland against an illegal invasion, and it is absolutely
right that we should continue to support them.
In light of that—in many ways, I might sound a bit like an echo
of the Labour Front Bench—what assessment have the Government
made of the relationship with Iran? That is a slightly different
question, but if the kamikaze drones are coming from Iran, and
there is a fairly strong sense that they are, have the Government
made any further assessment of how dependent Russia is or might
be on Iranian weapons? There is surely a danger of escalation
into a wider region. Given that the United Kingdom, along with
many of our allies, has supported the reintroduction of the
JCPOA, where are we in negotiations with Iran, and is that an
area where the Government could hold to account the Government of
Iran?
Turning to the question of escalation over the Black Sea, to what
extent are His Majesty’s Government satisfied that the incident
with the Russian fighter jet was a one-off? Was it just an
accident? Is there not a danger of escalation if we now feel that
we need to send our unmanned flights with armed support? To what
extent is there a danger of unintended consequences as the United
Kingdom responds to unintentional attacks—if we are being
generous in our analysis of what Russia may or may not have done?
Beyond that, it is very welcome that we are continuing to train
Ukrainian soldiers. The numbers we are training sound very
positive, and similarly, sending cold-weather kit is highly
desirable. What other activities are His Majesty’s Government
undertaking to support Ukraine in a non-military sense? As the
noble Lord, , pointed out, Russia has been
attacking critical infrastructure, particularly energy sources.
To what extent is the United Kingdom seeking to support Ukraine
to make sure it can keep the lights on? On the diplomatic
approach, to what extent is His Majesty’s Government having
conversations with China, perhaps in margins of the United
Nations and elsewhere? Whatever our difficulties with China might
be on some issues, it is perhaps best placed to persuade Putin
that further perpetration of this illegal war is not in Russia’s
interests, and that deconflicting the situation is possibly best
promoted by China. Are the Government discussing this informally,
behind the scenes?
Finally, obviously, I have to ask about defence expenditure.
committed to 3% by 2030. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer—the version—did not rule that in.
Does the Minister believe that there is a firm commitment to 3%
of GDP for defence? Will she and the Secretary of State please
fight to ensure that we keep our defence expenditure where it
needs to be to keep this country secure and to support all our
commitments to NATO and other allies?
(Con)
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Smith, for the tenor of their remarks? It is a great pleasure to
stand as a Minister at the Dispatch Box with business as usual.
That is where we are at the MoD, that is what we are getting on
with, and it would be perilous if we were distracted from that
core mission. I want to reassure your Lordships that I have not
just a deep friendship with the Secretary of State for Defence,
but the most profound respect for him, as I think everyone has. I
wish to reassure your Lordships that in the MoD, we consider that
we have a vital task. Every Minister there has their head down
and is getting on with it.
I will try to deal with some of the points raised. The noble
Lord, , sought reassurance about our
resolve, and whether we will remain steadfast. Indeed, the noble
Baroness, Lady Smith, echoed that sentiment. Let me say, without
a shadow of a doubt, “Yes”. We have demonstrated our political
and national will to support a country in peril and in need, and
the victim of a quite outrageous breach of international law with
this illegal incursion. We have demonstrated by deed what we are
prepared to do by ourselves and in conjunction with NATO partners
and with other allies across the globe, as we assist Ukraine in
defending itself against this quite appalling and totally
unjustified invasion.
The noble Lord, , said that President Zelensky
should be assured. The MoD has very good and close relationships
with Ukraine. I am absolutely certain President Zelensky knows we
understand that, while our tumult within the United Kingdom is
troubling and distracting, to put things into context, the
problems confronting him are of a very different magnitude. None
of us should ever forget that, living in democracy which we do.
Democracies bring ups and downs, triumph and difficulties, but I
know that in this Chamber there are persons of all political hues
who have seen that at first hand. Our job is to never take our
eye off what we are here to do as public servants and try to do
that to the best of our ability. I am sure President Zelensky is
aware of that.
Both the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Smith, raised the issue of defence spending. I can confirm that
the Secretary of State is committed to the objective of 3% of GDP
by 2030, and I entirely support that objective. He made it clear
in the other place, earlier today, that it is not just a question
of 1 January 2030 arriving and us looking for 3% of GDP. For it
to make any sense whatever, because of the nature of the defence
budget and the magnitude of it, there has to be a phased
increase. That is what the Secretary of State will fight for,
that is what he believes is necessary, and he is supported by his
Ministers in that objective. While it would be for any new Prime
Minister to put his or her stamp on that objective, I think there
is a universal understanding across government of the essential
importance of what the MoD does, and the need to ensure that it
is funded as required. Otherwise, it cannot do the job it is
tasked to do.
On the issue of the power grid and the disruption by Russia of
Ukrainian energy supplies—an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady
Smith, also raised in the context of humanitarian aid—as your
Lordships will be aware, a lot has been happening. The UK is
providing support for Ukraine’s early recovery through the
multi-donor partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. All of this
is extremely important. Through UK export finance, His Majesty’s
Government have made £700 million available in financial
guarantees to help rebuild homes, bridges and other critical
infrastructure destroyed by the war. This facility is part of
UKEF’s £3.5 billion capacity to underwrite loans to Ukraine and
to support UK businesses exporting to Ukraine with credit and
insurance. I hope that indicates to your Lordships that, while
the MoD obviously is focused on the delineated area of military
support to help Ukraine defend itself, on that wider front a
great deal of good work is being down by the UK, and in
conjunction with partners. Everyone is cognisant of the need to
be sure that there is a sustainable way of helping Ukraine, when
this war comes to an end, to rebuild its country.
The issue of diplomatic engagements with Iran was raised. That is
for my noble friend Lord Ahmad to respond to, as is it very much
a matter for the FCDO. I remind your Lordships that severe
sanctions have been applied by both the UK and the United Nations
against Iran. We continually review how we can persuade Iran to
reconsider what it is doing. I have to say that while Iran may be
a problematic country in many respects, historically it is
actually one of honourable traditions and pride in its
international position. I would have thought it was appalled to
see the footage of what these drones were achieving as they were
delivered to innocent citizens of Ukraine, and that that might
want to make Iran consider just where it is in this.
There was an important question on whether we can keep providing
equipment. Yes, and not only have I on previous occasions listed
the extensive types of equipment advanced but the Secretary of
State, in the Statement I have just repeated, detailed further
provisions of equipment, all of which is important to Ukraine’s
ability to defend itself.
The noble Lord, , raised Estonia. I can say that
the 2nd Brigade—the battle group—was put in at the start of the
Ukraine war, but it was only ever temporary. We made that clear
and it is being withdrawn, but the fundamental presence remains.
It is important to look at this across the piece, in terms of
what we are providing to Estonia and in the surrounding
countries. We are expanding our national headquarters in Estonia.
There will be the balance of a full combat brigade, allocated at
high readiness for rapid deployment across the Baltic region.
There is an increase in the warfighting capability of our forces
already based in Estonia. We are helping with the development of
the Estonian national divisional C2 through training and
mentoring, while seeking opportunities to embed Estonian staff
officers within the UK divisional HQs. We are regularly in touch
with Estonia. The Secretary of State spoke very recently to his
counterpart in the country, and Estonia is very positive about
what the UK is doing there.
The noble Lord, , also raised the issue of
people being moved by the Russians in the areas referred to in
the Statement. I do not have details of where they are going.
That is something we shall try to monitor, but it is a serious
issue and, clearly, there must be concerns about their welfare
and how they are being looked after. He also asked about the
phrase used in the Statement of criticism “inching closer” to Mr
Putin. By general acknowledgement—recently, the head of GCHQ made
a statement in a radio interview about the situation in
Russia—the anecdotal evidence we are picking up is that the
Russian population is beginning to understand that there is more
to Russia’s illegal war than meets the eye. I think many are
getting reports back directly from family members; they are
finding that distressing and beginning to question what is going
on.
On the Secretary of State’s visit to the United States, at this
critical time we think it vital that we keep closely and
personally in touch with our most important allies, of which the
United States is one. I know from speaking to the Secretary of
State that the discussions were very constructive and very
useful. They were an important opportunity to make sure that
everyone understands the backdrop of what is happening in
Ukraine. The House will understand that I cannot disclose further
information about these discussions.
On the RAF incident above the Black Sea, there is really no more
I can add to what I have already said. The noble Lord, , asked if I was aware of other
incidents. I am not, and I think they would have been brought to
my attention if they had occurred, but the matter was handled
sensibly and wisely by the Secretary of State. The response the
Russian Government gave was regarded as professional and, while
there is much to condemn about Russia, I have said before that
MoD maintain civilised levels of communication with our
counterparts in Russia. That is evidence of it but there is no
more I can add about the incident.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about China. It is
a very important question. We continue to engage with China at
all levels in Beijing, London and at the United Nations. We can
seek only to influence and make clear to China that we are
watching it, as is the rest of the world and whether its actions
contribute to peace and stability or fuel aggression. We expect
China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity and uphold its commitment to the United Nations
charter.
I have tried to deal with the points raised and I hope I have
managed to address the majority of them. I will, as usual, check
Hansard. If I have omitted to deal with something, I shall write.
18:01:00
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. May I
begin by agreeing with everything said by my noble friend—
(Con)
My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for the noble Viscount,
Lord Stansgate, but I am afraid he was not here for the start of
the debate. On this occasion, I have to ask him to hold his
question for another time.
(Lab)
My Lords, on this of all days it is a very good thing that we are
able to express our national unity behind the Government’s stance
on Ukraine. I thank the Minister for the very detailed way in
which she tried to answer the questions of my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady
Smith.
I have two questions. One relates to the inevitable problem of
money and the Treasury. Has the MoD concluded its discussions and
negotiations with the Treasury on how the armaments that we have
sent to Ukraine will be replaced and on what timescale? Do we
know that our defences will not be weakened as a result of what
we have done? Is there a commitment on the part of the
Treasury—especially given the Statement coming up in 10 days’
time or so—to replace all the kit and armaments that have been
sent there? When is that happening?
My second point is not an MoD issue. Is the noble Baroness aware
of what steps have been taken across Europe with our European
friends and allies, and by us, to assist the Ukrainians
practically with keeping their critical infrastructure,
particularly their power infrastructure, going throughout the
winter? I happen to have been in Ukraine in winter and it is a
pretty horrific prospect if they are unable to heat people’s
homes. What practical steps have been taken to help them counter
the threat from Iranian drones?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to what has
been supplied and how we pay when we come to replenish it, the
MoD has proceeded on the basis that it will be paid for by the
Treasury. That has been a negotiated position and it is one I
would expect to be obtempered and to continue.
On Ukraine’s infrastructure, I indicated to the noble Baroness,
Lady Smith, some of what the UK was trying to do. As I observed
earlier this week, the EU has shown commendable willingness to
group together to support the endeavour, discussing with friends
and allies how we best make an impact on supporting Ukraine. I
reassure the noble Lord that the UK is working closely with the
EU on providing Ukraine with military equipment, cyber resilience
and humanitarian and economic support—not least with sanctions,
energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation. There is
work going on. It is perhaps a broader issue than for the MoD,
and I am sure it is one that my noble friend Lord Ahmad would be
very pleased to take up with the noble Lord.
of Newnham (LD)
If there are no other Back-Bench speakers, I would like to ask a
question on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell, who is
absent from the Chamber. I think he perhaps misunderstood the
timing of a Statement repeat rather than an Urgent Question
repeat. I believe he was going to ask the Minister whether it
would be possible to answer a question that both he and I have
raised on a couple of occasions recently about the ability of the
United Kingdom to continue to supply weapons to Ukraine and about
the supply-chain issues. Clearly, it is something on which
reassurance would be important.
(Con)
I find it difficult to see in the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the
demeanour of the noble Lord, , but as a proxy
she is very capable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell,
is concerned and there is legitimate interest in how we
replenish, how we fund and how we keep supplying. I can say that
we continually manage and analyse our stock of weapons and
munitions, so when the Secretary of State makes an announcement,
it has been carefully considered before it is made public. We
make these decisions against commitments and threats, because we
have our own national security to think of.
We also have to review industrial capacity and supply chains,
both domestically and internationally, so that informs not just
the numbers of munitions we have granted in kind to the armed
forces of Ukraine but the avenues of supply. I can say that
industry has been extremely supportive in all of this, and, of
course, the noble Baroness will understand that the UK does not
work in isolation. We of course have discussions with our
partners and allies and then we have discussions with the
industry suppliers because it is quite a complicated jigsaw, as
the noble Baroness will know. It is a complicated jigsaw because
there are a lot of pieces that we keep having to make sure are
fitting together. I want to put on record that industry has been
very supportive. We work bilaterally with industry, but we also
work closely with our international partners, as we are trying to
make a coherent presentation and to avoid duplicating what one
another is trying to do.
