NATO Summit Mr Speaker Before I call the Prime Minister, may I say
how pleased I am to see him in the House? I hope we will see more
statements made in the House first. I am sure we can work together
on that. 10.37am The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak) Mr Speaker, I
have just returned from the NATO summit in Vilnius, where we
strengthened the NATO alliance and confirmed Britain’s place at its
heart. Faced with a more volatile and dangerous world, a
mechanised...Request free trial
NATO Summit
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, may I say how pleased I am to
see him in the House? I hope we will see more statements made in
the House first. I am sure we can work together on that.
10.37am
The Prime Minister ()
Mr Speaker, I have just returned from the NATO summit in Vilnius,
where we strengthened the NATO alliance and confirmed Britain’s
place at its heart. Faced with a more volatile and dangerous
world, a mechanised war in Europe and increasing aggression from
authoritarian states, we must show those who would challenge our
security and prosperity that NATO is united, that it is ready for
this new era and that it will remain the most successful alliance
in history.
Together with our allies, that is exactly what we did, in three
specific ways. First, we acted decisively to strengthen the
alliance. We agreed the most fundamental transformation to NATO’s
readiness since the cold war. That includes comprehensive
war-fighting plans to defend the UK and its allies, scaled-up
defence production to boost our stockpiles, which will benefit
British industry and jobs, and increased defence spending. All
allies made
“an enduring commitment to invest at least 2%”
of GDP.
The Vilnius summit also saw NATO’s membership expand. We welcomed
Finland to the table as a NATO member and ensured that Sweden
will follow close behind. The historic decision of our Finnish
and Swedish friends to join NATO would have been almost
unthinkable just a year and a half ago, but Putin’s aggression
made it almost inevitable. Where he sought to make us weaker, he
has achieved the opposite. We are stronger than ever with these
new allies by our side.
Secondly, we acted to increase our support for Ukraine. Let us
never forget what Ukraine is going through. Over 500 days of war,
Ukrainians have experienced untold suffering, the likes of which
no NATO country has suffered since its inception. I know the
whole House will join me in paying tribute to the Ukrainian
people and to their incredible spirit and fortitude. They are
still standing strong and defiant, and the counter-offensive is
making progress. In the last few weeks, they have taken back more
ground than Russia has taken in the last year. We are standing
with them, and allies are doubling down in their support.
This is not just about NATO. At the Munich security conference in
February, I called for long-term security arrangements to protect
Ukraine, re-establish deterrence in Europe and break the cycle of
Russian violence. And now allies have delivered. Yesterday, the
G7 leaders came together to sign the joint declaration of support
for Ukraine, agreeing to provide the long-term bilateral security
commitments that Ukraine needs and deserves. Those commitments
mark a new high point in international support for Ukraine, and
more allies will be signing up to add their support. But let me
be clear: that is not a substitute for NATO membership.
We took a big step in Vilnius towards bringing Ukraine into the
alliance. The summit communiqué echoed the UK’s long-held
position that
“Ukraine’s future is in NATO.”
Of course, there is more work to be done, but we have shortened
Ukraine’s path to membership, removing the need for a membership
action plan, and holding the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine
council with President Zelensky sitting at the table, by our
side, as an equal. As President Zelensky said, the summit was
“a very much needed and meaningful success for Ukraine.”
Thirdly, we showed in Vilnius that the UK remains a driving force
behind this alliance. As I have told the House before, those who
run down this country and its place on the world stage could not
be more wrong. In my bilateral meetings and the wider NATO
sessions, I was struck again and again by how valued our
contribution is. The British people should know that and they
should be proud. The United Kingdom is, and will remain, one of
the world’s leading defence powers. We are the leading European
contributor to NATO. We were one of the first to hit the 2%
target for defence spending, and we are going further. Earlier
this year, I announced a significant uplift of an extra £5
billion over the next two years, immediately increasing our
defence budget to around 2.25% of GDP, on our way to delivering
our new ambition of 2.5% and ensuring that our incredible armed
forces can continue to keep us safe.
Right now, RAF jets are patrolling NATO’s eastern flank, our
troops are on the ground in Estonia and Poland as part of NATO’s
enhanced forward presence, and the Royal Navy is patrolling the
seas, providing a quarter of the alliance’s maritime capability.
We are one of the only countries that contributes to every NATO
mission, and we will keep playing our part as a leading nation in
the joint expeditionary force. We are building deep partnerships
such as AUKUS and the global combat air programme. We are using
our leadership in technology to keep NATO at the cutting edge,
hosting the European headquarters of the defence innovation
accelerator and holding the first global summit on artificial
intelligence safety in the UK later this year. We are also
leading the debate on tackling emerging security threats,
including the migration crisis. I have called on NATO to play a
stronger supporting role here, helping southern allies to build
their capabilities.
That leadership in defence and security is matched by our
diplomacy, strengthening our relationships around the world. In
just the last few months, we have concluded negotiations on the
comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific
partnership and have signed critical minerals partnerships with
Canada and Australia, a semiconductor partnership
with Japan, and the Atlantic declaration with the United States—a
new kind of economic partnership in a more contested world.
There is no better example of our ability to bring all those
elements together and lead on the world stage than our response
to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Our diplomats have led the
unprecedented effort to co-ordinate sanctions against Russia’s
economy. Last month, we hosted the Ukraine recovery conference,
raising over $60 billion to help rebuild Ukraine’s economy and
bringing in the private sector to help unlock its economic
potential.
As the House knows, we have backed Ukraine’s fight for its
freedom and sovereignty since the start. We were the first
country in the world to train Ukrainian troops, the first in
Europe to provide lethal weapons, the first to commit tanks and
the first to provide long-range missiles. Now, we are at the
forefront of the coalition to equip the Ukrainian air force, with
Ukrainian pilots starting their training here in just a few
weeks’ time.
We do all of this because it is right, because it protects our
values and our interests, because it keeps our people and our
allies safe, and because, quite simply, it is who we are as a
country. We were there at the start of the NATO alliance, and
this week we have shown once again that we remain at its heart,
leading it into the future. I commend this statement to the
House.
Mr Speaker
I call the Leader of the Opposition.
10.44am
(Holborn and St Pancras)
(Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his
statement.
It is over 500 days since Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine began.
Putin believed the west was too divided to act in our common
interest and too corrupted to stand up for what was right. He was
wrong. NATO nations continue to stand united—united in our
collective support for President Zelensky, and united in our
belief that victory will come to the Ukrainian people. And so
too, across this House, we remain steadfast and determined to
show that whatever our differences, we will stand up to Putin’s
aggression, and we stand ready to pursue him for his crimes.
Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. It is an achievement
of this party and a cornerstone of British security for 74 years.
I therefore welcome the progress made in Vilnius this week, in
particular the commitment to strengthen the collective defence of
this continent. Regional plans, greater intelligence co-operation
and improved readiness—this will put us all on a better footing
to react quickly to modern threats. The new defence production
action plan will help us build a robust and resilient defence
sector, not only to develop the munitions and hardware needed to
support Ukraine’s war efforts but to strengthen our own defence
capabilities.
I also welcome the announcement that G7 members will provide
wide-ranging and long-term security commitments with Ukraine.
This is a crucial signal to Putin and those who back him that our
support for Ukraine will not waver. We must continue to show that
his illegal invasion will end in defeat and that it will only
make NATO a stronger alliance. That is why this House should
celebrate the historic decision by NATO nations to welcome Sweden
into the alliance. Sweden will be a strong addition to NATO, and
its membership, along with the recent accession of Finland, shows
once again that rather than divide and weaken Europe, Putin’s war
has only strengthened our collective resolve. NATO has never been
stronger.
I understand the decision by leaders not to set a timetable for
Ukraine’s membership of NATO, but I also support the clear
declaration that Ukraine’s future lies within the alliance. Our
military assistance for Ukraine has Labour’s total backing, but
so too does Ukraine’s long-term aim to join NATO. It fights on
the frontline of European freedom, so it is important that we are
clear to the people of Ukraine who fight so bravely for their
future that the question is not if Ukraine joins NATO, but when
Ukraine joins NATO.
Finally, it is important we are clear that even if there is a
change of Government in the UK, there will never be a change in
Britain’s resolve, no change in our support for Ukraine and no
change in our commitment to the security of Britain and our
allies. At moments like this, this House tends to acknowledge
this unity and understand that our words carry weight beyond
these shores; we choose them wisely. So I would ask the Prime
Minister when he rises whether he is prepared to correct the
record in this House in relation to a social media statement he
made last night that Labour “didn’t want” him to attend the
summit this week. On the contrary, we were delighted that he was
there, because in an ever more dangerous world, we must be
united, and NATO must be co-ordinated, ready to adapt and ready
to strengthen. The decisions taken this week give us a platform
to do that and deliver a plan that can protect our collective
security and support our friends in need, however difficult that
may prove to be. We must stay the course and make sure Putin’s
brutal ambition ends in his total defeat.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although it is a
bit rich to attack me for missing Prime Minister’s Question Time
and then say that he wanted me to attend the NATO summit.
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, I want to hear the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I think the point has been made. I also welcome the right hon.
and learned Gentleman’s new-found affection for the NATO
alliance, having sat for long years next to someone who wanted
to— [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister; those who do not can
please leave now.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, you can tell from the volume of noise that they do
not like it, but it is the truth. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is the same for those on the Government Benches—I want
to hear the Prime Minister, and I do not want those on the
Government side stopping me either.
The Prime Minister
The reality is this: for long years, the right hon. and learned
Gentleman sat there next to someone who did not support NATO and
wanted to scrap Trident and abolish our armed forces. That is
what the record is, but I am pleased that the right hon. and
learned Gentleman joins the Government in supporting efforts for
Ukraine. It is important that that remains a united position
across this House. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore () is stepping in for the Chief
Whip; that does not mean that he can carry on shouting like he
does when at this end of the Chamber.
The Prime Minister
Briefly, with regard to NATO membership, it is important that
President Zelensky’s words are listened to. He said that he
viewed the NATO summit as providing a meaningful success for
Ukraine—for his country and its people—because significant
progress was made on the path towards NATO membership. It is a
question of when, not if, and as the Secretary-General said, what
was a two-step process has now become a one-step process, with
more political support and momentum behind Ukraine’s membership
than at any time in NATO’s history. That is something that
President Zelensky understands and appreciates, and over the
course of the two days, it was crystal clear that there is an
incredibly strong feeling among all alliance members to support
Ukraine on that journey as quickly as practically possible.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I returned from Ukraine
in the last few days, where I was quite close to the frontline
working with a charity. The one thing that I must tell the Prime
Minister is that the people of Ukraine are enormously grateful
for the leadership that he and the UK have shown within NATO.
They never stop telling us how much they welcome the UK’s
leadership in this matter.
While I was there, the Ukrainians were very clear that in their
assaults, their biggest problem is that they are losing many men
trying to clear the minefields. They do not have the right
equipment; in fact, at night, they go forward with bayonets
trying to get to the mines—it is shocking to see. I urge the
Prime Minister, if at all possible, to make it a priority to talk
to the US Government and try to get them to release the right
equipment that would allow the Ukrainians to make those assaults
in the right way, not losing so many lives.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for all his commitment, and indeed
for his personal visits to Ukraine to see at first hand what is
happening and how best we can tailor our support. He is right
about the mines that have been left by the Russian armies—it is a
considerable effort to have them cleared. I want to reassure him
that we are in close communication with the Ukrainian military
about exactly what capabilities and equipment it needs to clear
minefields and support its armed forces as they make progress. We
will continue to have that conversation and work with allies to
get it all the kit it needs.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I associate myself with the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition’s strong support for
Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.
This Government’s defence Command Paper will be published next
week, I believe. Given events in Ukraine, what lessons has the
Ministry of Defence learned about modern urban warfare, and how
will that feed into operational strategy? I recall the former
Prime Minister saying at the Liaison Committee just before the
war:
“We have to recognise that the old concepts of fighting big tank
battles on the European landmass…are over”.
He then proceeded to cut our tank numbers—how wrong he was. Is
the Department considering future opportunities for defence
co-operation with the EU that are complementary to NATO?
There is less than a week left until the expiration of the deal
allowing Ukrainian grain exports via the Black sea—this is very
important, so I hope the Prime Minister is listening. Can he
speak to the discussions that were had at the summit to ensure
the continuation of the current deal, which is vital for
Ukraine’s remaining economy and for global food security? What
steps has the Department taken, and what steps will it take, to
improve the UK’s military partnership with Finland in the period
since it joined NATO, and are there plans to do the same with
Sweden?
Given recent reports of Russian spying on and sabotage of energy
infrastructure in the North sea, and the fact that the UK’s
undersea cables are worth £7.4 trillion a day to the economy,
what will the UK be contributing to NATO’s establishment of its
critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell, and will it
be based in Scotland? My hon. Friend and leader the Member for
Aberdeen South () raised with the Prime
Minister previously that some nations are continuing to use
products from Russian oil. Did he pursue that further? Is it his
impression there is genuine unity on proposed reconstruction
efforts in Ukraine?
Finally, how does the Prime Minister hope to contribute to
diplomatic efforts to bring on board parts of the international
community, increasingly including the Republican right in
America, to support what NATO is doing to ensure Ukraine’s
survival?
The Prime Minister
On NATO co-operation with the EU, I agree wholeheartedly with the
Secretary-General, who set three very clear conditions for
supporting EU defence initiatives: first, that they are coherent
with NATO requirements; secondly, that they develop capabilities
that are available to NATO; and, lastly, that they are open to
the fullest participation of non-EU NATO allies. That has been
the established position, and it is one we fully support.
The hon. Member asked about the Black sea grain initiative, which
is due to expire on 17 July. I commend President Erdoğan’s
leadership on this issue, in particular over the last year. I
spoke to him at the conference last week on this, and he is
working to engage with the Russians on extending the grain deal,
as are other allies. It is important that the grain deal is
extended because, as we know, around two thirds of the grain
leaving Ukraine is destined for low and middle-income countries,
and we do not want Russia to inflict any more suffering than it
already is.
The hon. Member also asked about undersea cables and undersea
infrastructure. I agree with her that that requires attention and
focus, which is why the Ministry of Defence and the Department
for Science, Innovation and Technology are working
collaboratively, together with industry, to make sure that
everyone is doing their part to protect what is critical
infrastructure. The MOD is developing particular capabilities to
monitor and protect that infrastructure, and it is something that
we have put on the agenda through the joint expeditionary force,
which obviously comprises the northern European nations. We are
hosting, in fact, as I think she alluded to, a potential
headquarters for more focus on that area, and I look forward to
discussing that with my JEF allies towards the end of this
year.
Lastly, on galvanising international support for Ukraine, that is
something I do when I am at these international summits.
Particularly when I was last in the US, one of the things I did
was spend half a day in Congress talking to congressional leaders
from both parties to illustrate to them the importance of
providing support to Ukraine not just now, but for years into the
future. I am delighted that the US has played a leading role in
the multilateral security guarantees, and it is important that it
does so. However, as we are seeing, we are broadening the
coalition of support for Ukraine, and being at these
international summits and talking to world leaders shows that the
UK is leading by example and leading from the front. I was very
pleased that France has just announced that it will also now be
providing long-range weapons to Ukraine, following the UK’s lead,
and making an enormous difference to Ukraine’s
counter-offensive.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
On Britain’s contribution, had our excellent Defence Secretary
not effectively foreseen the Russian invasion and provided
thousands of NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—to the
Ukrainians, with the appropriate training, to blunt the assault,
Russian generals would be having lunch in Kyiv today. The British
Army, relative to its size, has made a larger contribution of
critical equipment—the key organs, as it were—than any other army
in NATO, including the United States. We can be immensely proud
of that, but those organs need to be grown back for our own
security and to maintain our contribution to NATO. Will the Prime
Minister do everything he can across Whitehall to promote the
requisite sense of urgency to regrow those organs and,
critically, to provide the resources to do it?
The Prime Minister
I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend that this House
and the entire country can and should be proud of the leadership
we have shown on Ukraine. He is right that we need to rebuild the
stockpiles we have provided. That is why, in the Budget, £5
billion extra funding was provided for the armed forces, with a
large chunk of that going particularly to rebuild those organs
and those stockpiles, coming on top of the half a billion that
was provided in the autumn statement. Just this week, for
example, we announced a new contract with BAE to provide critical
155 mm rounds, which, as he will be familiar with, are absolutely
mission-critical. Because we now have the funding to provide
long-term contracts, we can increase defence production. That is
good for our security, it is good for the security of our allies
and, crucially, it also creates jobs, particularly in the north
of England.
(Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s update and our support for
Ukraine, and I strongly agree that we need to encourage our NATO
allies to meet their commitments in full. How is he encouraging
that goal when he is overseeing a cut to the British Army of
10,000 troops? Is not one of the key lessons from Russia’s attack
on Ukraine that a sizeable standing army remains crucial to the
defence and security of our country and NATO allies, and will he
listen to voices across this House calling for a reversal to cuts
in Army numbers?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about defence spending, and it is
clear that not only have we met the 2% target, but we were one of
the first to do so, and we have done so for over a decade. It is
good that others are now catching up, and our leadership on this
issue is unquestionable. How that money is spent is ultimately a
question for our military chiefs, to ensure that we have the
optimal mix of capabilities to protect ourselves against the
threats we face. I will not pre-empt the defence Command Paper,
other than to say that, when it comes to our armed forces, what
is important is not just the quantum in terms of the Army, but
how lethal they are, how deployable and how agile. That has been
a particular focus of attention from the Chief of the General
Staff, and it is a plan that we are putting in place. I would
maybe draw slightly different lessons from the right hon.
Gentleman’s on the conflict that Ukraine is currently
experiencing. The capabilities that we have brought to bear have
been in a range of areas, all of which have received extra
investment. Again, those will be questions for the defence
Command Paper, which he will not have to wait very long to
see.
(Harwich and North Essex)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and congratulate
him on contributing to what I think history will prove to have
been one of the most significant summits in NATO’s history. Will
he clarify what he understands is the intention with regard to
Ukraine’s membership of NATO? What would be the purpose of
delaying Ukraine’s membership beyond the end of hostilities in
Ukraine and the victory for the Ukrainians? Without the article 5
security guarantee, rebuilding Ukraine will be much more
difficult, because investors will not have confidence unless we
are providing that security guarantee.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In the interests of
time, I might point him in the direction of the
Secretary-General’s press conference from the day before
yesterday, which explained—in more detail than I have time for
now—the process and how this has been done previously. As he
pointed out, accession to NATO has never been a question of
timing; it has always been a question of conditions and
circumstances. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the fact that
there is an ongoing conflict. There are also requirements on all
NATO members when it comes to areas such as modernisation,
governance and interoperability, which Ukraine is now firmly on
the path towards fulfilling, not least because of the help and
support that we have provided over the past year.
I agree with my hon. Friend that history will judge this to be
one of the most significant NATO summits. There was the
significant change in the defence investment pledge, so 2% is now
firmly established as a floor, not a ceiling. There was the most
comprehensive update to NATO’s war fighting plans in decades, if
not since the end of the cold war, and they are remarkable in
their breadth and significance. There was the accession of new
members—Finland, and Sweden to follow. Lastly, there was the move
on membership for Ukraine. Taken together, that represents a
significant set of NATO achievements, sitting alongside the
multilateral security guarantees. As my hon. Friend says, it has
been an historic and very important couple of days.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
I hope that in his reply the Prime Minister will help clarify
that it is we who owe gratitude to Ukraine, not the other way
round. Will he update the House on plans not simply to help
Ukraine win the war, but to win the peace? The reconstruction of
Ukraine will cost at least $400 billion, and Russia should be
helping to foot the bill. That means we need new laws to seize,
not simply freeze, assets. It means we need action at the United
Nations to change the norms around immunity of central banks.
Crucially, it means we need to start prosecuting Russia for the
crime of aggression. That will require us to mobilise not simply
a military NATO, but an economic NATO. Will the Prime Minister
update us on the conversations that he has had to make that a
reality?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have recently hosted the
Ukraine recovery conference, for which the Ukrainian Government
and people are extremely grateful. It was the most successful
conference of its ilk that has happened, raising more than $60
billion for Ukraine’s reconstruction and mobilising private
sector capital, as is necessary. It was seen as a significant
achievement and the UK leading from the front. With regard to
assets, I point him to a good couple of paragraphs in the NATO
communiqué. All allies are taking steps, as are we, to legally
freeze assets until suitable reparations from Russia have been
put in place for reconstruction. He will understand that the
international framework for doing so is untested and novel. It
requires co-operation among allies, and that co-operation and
work is happening.
(West Worcestershire)
(Con)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for
Birmingham, Hodge Hill (), I welcome the UK’s strong
leadership at the NATO summit and thank the Prime Minister for
it. The unity, the resources and the new members send a powerful
message. There is no timetable for Ukraine joining NATO, but its
membership is only a matter of time. When that time comes, the
extent of reconstruction and the investment needed will be vast.
A lot of Russian assets are held here and are frozen. Can the
Prime Minister elaborate even further on the conversations he had
at the summit on how the UK will again play a leadership role in
unlocking resources from those Russian assets to help with the
reconstruction of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
We have recently published new legislation that will enable
sanctions on Russia to be maintained until Moscow pays
compensation to Ukraine. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will
pursue all lawful routes to ensure that Russian assets are made
available in support of Ukraine’s reconstruction, in line with
international law. Our international partners are, like the UK,
yet to fully test the lawfulness of a new asset seizure regime,
but that is exactly the work we are doing with allies,
particularly across the G7, to share expertise and
experience.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for
guarantees about its security and territorial integrity. Given
what has happened since, we all understand why President Zelensky
is so keen to join the alliance. Does the Prime Minister agree
that when and however the current war ends, NATO membership at
that point will need to form the cornerstone of new security
guarantees that the people of Ukraine can rely on?
The Prime Minister
I think the people of Ukraine received a very strong signal of
support from the NATO alliance over the past couple of days. That
is what President Zelensky believes and it is what he is taking
back to his country. He called it a significant security victory.
The signature of the multilateral agreement on security
guarantees by the G7 represents near-term, immediate support for
Ukraine’s security from the G7 allies. I am highly confident that
others will join that declaration, too, giving the Ukrainian
people some assurance and security, which they rightly
deserve.
(Shipley) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for his leading role at the NATO
summit, and I very much support his statement. In the statement,
he said:
“All allies made an enduring commitment to invest at least 2% of
GDP.”
Many countries have been making that promise for many years and
never actually fulfilling it. They want the protection of NATO
but are not paying their fair share towards it, and are instead
relying on the UK taxpayer and, more importantly, the US taxpayer
to foot the bill. What more can be done to ensure that every
country in NATO, if they want the protection of NATO, pays its
fair share?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree
wholeheartedly. It is why we fought hard for the new defence
investment pledge to set 2% as an enduring commitment and as a
floor, not a ceiling. Progress has been made. If he looks at the
statistics over the past couple of years in particular, he will
see an increase not just in the volume of defence spending across
the alliance, but in the number of countries that are meeting 2%.
That is forecast to be potentially as high as two thirds of all
members next year, which would represent a landmark achievement.
He is right that we must keep the pressure on and urge everyone
to fulfil their 2% commitment.
(South Shields) (Lab)
The Prime Minister knows that UK stockpiles are being depleted
due to the war in Ukraine and, for us to rightly sustain our
support at the right level, the Government should be fully
addressing our diminished defence industrial base and skills
shortages. Our NATO allies were swift to reboot their defence
plans, yet he has consistently delayed the defence Command Paper.
Why is that?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member talks about what other allies are doing but,
again, that is not the conversation that I have been having for
the past couple of days: other allies look up to the UK and to
the example that we have set. We are the ones increasing defence
spending, particularly to rebuild stockpiles. As I mentioned,
there was £5 billion of investment at the Budget coming on top of
half a billion pounds at the autumn statement. A new contract was
announced just this week, which is creating jobs across the
country, but particularly in the north. That is the right thing
to do, and that is what we will continue to deliver.
(South West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
What conclusions has the Prime Minister drawn about the increased
vulnerability of Ukraine since it gave up its nuclear weapons and
the contribution that our nuclear weapons make to our own
security?
The Prime Minister
Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our security.
That is why it is so important for the UK and an important part
of the contribution that we bring to NATO. We are one of the few
countries that offers NATO not just nuclear capabilities but
carrier strike, fifth-generation combat air and leading maritime
across the board, as well as cyber-offensive. That is why we are
respected in NATO and why we are a valuable member of the
alliance.
(Halifax) (Lab)
This week, I was at the forum of the NATO summit in Vilnius
alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr
Jones), who is vice-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
I hope that the Prime Minister will join me in paying tribute to
Lithuania not only for its political leadership, but for having
been such excellent hosts and organising such an historic summit.
But the mood in Vilnius was not quite how the Prime Minister has
presented it. Representatives of Ukraine’s Parliament and civil
society had a clear and sobering message that as the war goes on
for longer, Ukraine is losing brave fighters on the frontline.
That is why it is so important that we get the weapons that
Ukraine needs to win into the hands of those brave soldiers now.
What are the practical outcomes of what was agreed that will
ensure that those resources are on the frontline so that Ukraine
can win sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister
I would say to the hon. Lady that that is exactly what we have
been doing for the past year, and the Ukrainian Government and
people are extremely grateful for our leadership on that issue.
But I join her in paying tribute to Lithuania not just for
hosting the summit excellently, but for demonstrating so clearly
why our collective security is so important. Given Lithuania’s
geographic position and the threats it faces, particularly from
Belarus, it was important that the NATO summit was held there. It
sends a strong signal of our unity in supporting the eastern
flank of the NATO alliance, which I think is incredibly
important.
(Bracknell) (Con)
Having worked in and around NATO for several decades, I am clear
that it remains the exemplar for western security. May I please
thank the Prime Minister for his exemplary leadership when it
comes to the UK contribution? Noting that a significant number of
countries are not providing their 2% commitment, does the Prime
Minister have any sense on how they might be encouraged—or even
coerced—to do so?
The Prime Minister
What I am pleased to see is positive forward momentum. We see
that in, as I said, not just the quantum of defence spending
across the alliance but the number of individual countries
increasing spending and, indeed, forecast to meet the 2% target
next year. It is right that we keep the pressure on, and the new
defence investment pledge signed at the summit demonstrates
willingness across the alliance that defence spending does need
to increase and a recognition of the threats that we face, but
also that a number of countries, including the UK, have been
leading on this issue for some years.
(Brent North) (Lab)
Russia has built 475 new military sites and 50 major new military
bases on its northern frontier—its northern flank—in the past six
years because the loss of the summer sea ice has exposed that
flank. That makes clear the way in which climate change is
affecting and endangering all our lives not just in terms of the
environment and food security, but militarily. What discussions
did the Prime Minister have at the NATO summit about the Arctic
Council and how its balance, which has moved from 5:3 to 7:1, has
furthered that isolation? Did he discuss how the northern sea
route has been claimed by Russia as an inland sea and how
warships are now having to declare when they go through?
The Prime Minister
I spent a lot of my time talking with our joint expeditionary
force allies. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because of the
geographic location of JEF, in which we are the leading framework
nation, we talk regularly about the security of the high north
and the Arctic. I discussed that with some of my counterparts
over the last two days, and it will be a focus of our discussions
at the JEF summit towards the end of the year. He should rest
assured that it is an area we pay increasing attention to, not
just from an intelligence perspective but with our military
capabilities.
(Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts leading from
the front in NATO’s support for Ukraine. The United Kingdom is
NATO’s largest European defence spender, spending more than 20
other NATO allies combined. We are meeting our 2% commitment, but
far too many are not. When does the Prime Minister expect all
NATO allies to have met the 2% floor?
The Prime Minister
As soon as possible is what I would like to say. Hopefully, next
year we will see very significant progress in the number of
countries in the alliance meeting the 2% target—forecast to be
almost two thirds next year on a rising trajectory. It is
important that we keep the pressure on. The threats that we face
are only growing in their scale and complexity, and we need to
invest more to protect ourselves against them.
(Wirral South) (Lab)
I agree with the Prime Minister that we should be proud of the
United Kingdom’s place at the heart of NATO, as I have always
been proud of my party’s role in the creation of the alliance.
Does the Prime Minister agree that those in the United Kingdom
who know the consequences of Putin’s murderous regime best—the
Ukrainian, Polish and eastern European communities—ought to be
supported here? Does he agree that no one should ever try to
denigrate or divide anyone from those long-standing parts of our
British community?
The Prime Minister
Those countries in particular value their relationship with the
UK. The meetings I had over the past couple of days evidenced
that. I pay particular tribute to their leadership on this issue,
supporting Ukraine and setting an example when it comes to
defence spending. That is why with Poland in particular we have a
close and growing defence and military relationship, which will
only become a more significant part of the NATO alliance in the
years to come.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the leadership he has
shown in this highly successful summit. I particularly welcome
the broadening of this critical alliance. It was good to hear his
confirmation of our ambition to reach 2.5% of GDP spending on
defence, and the progress made to encourage others to do the
same. Can my right hon. Friend comment on how NATO is utilising
new technologies to ensure it remains at the cutting edge?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to keep on the
cutting edge of new technologies to maintain our military
superiority and advantage against adversaries. The UK is playing
its part in two ways: we will host the European headquarters of
DIANA—the defence innovation accelerator for the north
Atlantic—and last year saw the announcement of a €1 billion
innovation fund, the first sovereign venture capital fund of its
type, which will ensure that we can continue to invest in those
critical technologies that provide a security advantage.
(Cardiff West) (Lab)
In welcoming the Prime Minister’s statement, I gently encourage
him to adopt a slightly different tone rather than phrases such
as “new-found affection” for NATO. He knows the seminal role of
the post-war Labour Government, in particular the Foreign
Secretary Ernest Bevin, in the creation of NATO. [Interruption.]
I suggest they read some history books. He also knows that
Labour’s policy of support for NATO is as strong now as it was 75
years ago. Will he welcome that fact and work in a statesmanlike
way with the Leader of the Opposition, in the national
interest?
The Prime Minister
I was not quibbling at all with the leadership shown by Labour
politicians 75 years ago; I was quibbling with that shown just a
few years ago.
(Watford) (Con)
Across Watford, as across the UK, people have been so welcoming
to those from Ukraine who have been moved from their homes
because of the despicable acts of Putin. Does the Prime Minister
agree with me that today we are as resolved to help Ukrainians
win their war against Putin as we were on day one when he invaded
their country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We remain completely resolute
in our commitment to support Ukraine for as long as it takes for
it to regain its sovereignty and freedom. It is an enormously
proud accomplishment of this country that we have provided such
warm hospitality and refuge to many Ukrainian families in all
parts of our country. I know that every Member will join me in
thanking people for welcoming Ukrainian families into their
homes. Long may it continue.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The statements coming out of Vilnius this week make plain that
Ukraine will not be admitted to NATO until it enjoys a peaceful
relationship with its neighbours. That is understandable, but
what is the Prime Minister doing to make it plain to Russia that
it would be mistaken if it took that as an incentive to sustain
its aggression, given that Ukraine is not responsible for the war
on its territory?
The Prime Minister
Very specifically, by leading the conversation and now delivering
multilateral security guarantees to Ukraine, which we first spoke
about in February at the Munich security conference. That has
been delivered at this summit by the G7 allies, and I am sure
will be joined by many others, and unequivocally demonstrates to
Russia that not only will there be support for Ukraine today, but
for years to come. That will serve as a significant deterrent to
him and hopefully change the calculus in his head about the
persistence of this illegal and unprovoked war.
(Warrington South) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his
commitment to leading the debate on tackling emerging security
threats, including the migration crisis. Will my right hon.
Friend explain how NATO can play a stronger role in helping some
of our southern allies to build capabilities and capacity in
southern Europe?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Italian Prime Minister
and I spent time discussing that. Indeed, she and I raised it in
the NATO sessions. It is something we agreed to work jointly on,
because it is clear that illegal migration is one of the new
threats we face, whether it is being weaponised by Belarus or
coming from Wagner-oriented action in Africa. It is right that
we, as an alliance, do what we can to share intelligence and
strengthen our co-operation to break the cycle of criminal gangs
and stop illegal migration.
(Leeds North West)
(Lab/Co-op)
As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I
know how steadfast support for Ukraine is right across the House.
Ukraine is not just defending itself; it is defending the UK and
people right across Europe, so I was disappointed to hear the
Defence Secretary’s comments about not being Amazon. Does the
Prime Minister disassociate himself from those comments? A year
ago, the UK-led international effort to create a fund of £770
million for military aid, but none has been delivered. When will
that military aid arrive in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
As I said, President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine are
incredibly grateful for all the leadership and support shown by
the British Government and the British people. One thing we did
was to co-ordinate the International Fund for Ukraine among our
allies. We continue to do that, and to ensure we deliver vital
supplies to Ukrainian armed forces.
(Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister and I share an interest in artificial
intelligence. We have seen it used for deepfakes of President
Zelensky, which were taken down very quickly. AI has moved on
very quickly, with ChatGPT being opened to the public very
quickly. What conversations were had at NATO about how we deal
with that? More importantly, what can the UK do to ensure we have
a safe framework around AI?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the opportunities and
threats posed by AI. The Defence Innovation Accelerator for the
North Atlantic —DIANA—which I mentioned, will look in particular
at harnessing dual-use commercial technologies in areas such as
AI. As I said, we will be hosting the European headquarters. More
broadly, the UK is proud to be hosting the first global summit on
AI safety later this year, where this will, of course, be a topic
of conversation.
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
Labour founded NATO, so of course we welcome the Prime Minister’s
work in that. What are his thoughts on, and did the summit
discuss, the possibility of establishing a special tribunal to
bring those responsible for the Russian Federation’s illegal war
to account for war crimes and crimes against humanity? That was
part of the memorandum of understanding at the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly, another security alliance that we are part of—I was
there the other week. It was proposed very movingly by the
Ukrainians, who are full members of that alliance. I wonder what
the Prime Minister’s thoughts are on that.
The Prime Minister
It is right that we hold Russia and those responsible to account
for their war crimes in Ukraine. That is why we led a state-party
referral to the International Criminal Court and provided about
£1 million of funding to the Court. It is also why we have joined
a core group of countries to explore options to ensure criminal
accountability for the crime of aggression committed in and
against Ukraine, including through a special tribunal. And at the
Council of Europe meeting that I was at, we became a founding
member of the international register of damage caused by the
aggression of Russia against Ukraine. We will continue to do
everything we can to hold those responsible for crimes to
account.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, in particular, for the role
that he played that led to Turkey agreeing the accession of
Sweden to NATO, which was a momentous event. As part of the armed
forces parliamentary scheme, with the Royal Navy, we have had the
privilege of visiting the home of the continuous at-sea deterrent
in Faslane and those who support it at Northwood. Does he agree
with me, and I think every Government Member, that our nuclear
deterrent is vital to our nation and to NATO, and will he join me
in thanking those who serve in silence and in secret beneath the
waves?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Our submariners do an
extraordinary job under difficult conditions, and they deserve
our gratitude for everything that they do for our country. They
are the ultimate guarantor of our security and we owe them our
thanks.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Labour’s Ernie Bevin helped to found NATO, but I ask the Prime
Minister: why have the Conservatives given us the smallest Army
we have had for 300 years?
The Prime Minister
It is right that our armed forces adapt their capabilities to the
threats that we face. Trying to compare the threats that we face
and the capabilities that we have now with when NATO was founded
is completely ridiculous. It is important now that we invest,
whether that is in offensive cyber or extra maritime capabilities
to deal with subsea infrastructure. The range of threats we face
evolves all the time and we will continue to make sure that we
are protected against them, but what no one can doubt is our
commitment to investing in our armed forces, with record levels
and a 2% commitment that we first met over a decade ago sustained
and on a rising trajectory. This Government are committed to
investing more in our defence and we will do so in a way that
absolutely protects us.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
I say, as a Bristol MP, that we are incredibly proud of Ernie
Bevin. He was orphaned at eight, started work on the Bristol
docks at the age of 11 and went on to become British Foreign
Secretary and found NATO, which is quite some achievement.
Obviously, this move is very welcome in terms of the containment
of Russian activity and strengthening Ukraine’s position, but the
Prime Minister did mention the activities of Russia’s Wagner
Group in Africa, where there are widespread reports of atrocities
being carried out and the fact that they are using trade in
natural resources, being paid in mining concessions, to avoid
sanctions. What action is the UK taking to try to combat
that?
The Prime Minister
We are working closely with partners, particularly France and
others, to share intelligence and do what we can to combat the
destabilising impacts of Wagner in different parts of the world.
We have also sanctioned the Wagner Group in its entirety and,
indeed, its leaders, which is contributing to some of the
economic squeeze on them.
(Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross) (LD)
Earlier, the Prime Minister referred to Turkey’s President, and
Turkey is the most important member of NATO. In recent times,
Turkey has changed its stance, and we see the historic result of
that change. The UK has had a long historical relationship with
Turkey. Can I take it from the Prime Minister that every effort
will be made in all channels, including diplomacy, to build on
the relationship with Turkey and make the alliance stronger
thus?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I was pleased to be
the first western leader to call to congratulate President
Erdoğan on his recent election victory. I also spoke to him last
Friday and spent time with him over the past couple of days.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the role Turkey plays in the
alliance, and indeed about the closeness of our partnership and
friendship with Turkey, which we are looking to find ways to
strengthen and deepen, whether economically, on defence or on
illegal migration. The President and I had a very good
conversation and agreed to do more in all those areas. He shares
my ambition for a closer, deeper and stronger relationship.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
In a statement, NATO’s Secretary-General welcomed the new
partnership programme with Japan and criticised China’s military
advancements. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of
China’s response to the statement? Does he have concerns about
the vague threat that any action threatening Beijing’s rights
will be met with a resolute response?
The Prime Minister
It is crystal clear that NATO is a defensive alliance. It is
right that we in the UK, and indeed other NATO countries,
strengthen our partnerships with nations in the Indo-Pacific.
They were invited to this NATO summit because our security is
indivisible—we have seen that—and the values we all share are
ones that we believe to be universally true. That is why we will
strengthen our personal relationships with Japan. The recent
Hiroshima accords are crystal clear on that, and Japan said that
it views the United Kingdom as its closest European ally. We are
strengthening not just our economic relationship but, critically,
our defence relationship with Japan, which is a partner,
alongside Italy, in building the next generation of our fighter
aircraft.
|
