PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership - 20 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, before I turn to Ukraine, I want to begin by welcoming the release of Emily Damari. After 471 days of captivity, she has been brought home. It was deeply moving to see the pictures of Emily and her mother Mandy reunited. I pay tribute once again to all those who campaigned so tirelessly for this moment. The Government will continue to work closely with our partners to secure the release of all the hostages, get aid into Gaza and see the deal implemented in full.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Ukraine. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister visited Kyiv. It was his seventh meeting with President Zelensky, but this visit had a special purpose: to sign a historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine. The partnership enshrines both sides’ commitment to a relationship benefiting the whole of our nations: businesses as well as the Government, communities as well as our military. It consists of a legally binding treaty and a political agreement outlining our co-operation in greater detail. We will lay the treaty before this House for scrutiny in the usual way.

The partnership covers the full breadth of our friendship, across nine pillars. In each area, deeper co-operation can enhance our collective security and help us both to build resilient, flourishing economies. On maritime security, through joint exercises and training between the Royal Navy and the Ukrainian navy, we can enhance their effectiveness and learn from their successes in securing the Black sea. On air defence, the supply of 15 Gravehawk missile systems, produced in Yorkshire by BAE Systems, is a direct benefit to our economy and an innovative new capability for Ukraine. On the energy sector, the agreement cements the United Kingdom as Ukraine’s preferred partner, opening up opportunities for us and them in areas such as renewables and green steel.

The Prime Minister saw at first hand what our work together can mean for the people of Ukraine, while visiting a burns unit supported by specialist national health service doctors, helping them to treat victims of indiscriminate Russian attacks and joining a Ukrainian class speaking to a primary school in Liverpool. It is these young people who will reap the rewards of the efforts we are making today.

A partnership lasting 100 years, beyond the lifetime of even the youngest Members of this House, is unprecedented, but it reflects the unique nature of our friendship—a friendship that Members on all sides did so much to strengthen. I pay particular tribute to the work of my predecessors the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield for their work under the previous Government in supporting this partnership.

This cross-party unity is a source of strength for our country and a source of strength for Ukraine. It is a unity that goes well beyond this House. Members will have witnessed it in their constituencies, from the more than 200,000 Ukrainians who have found refuge in our homes to the countless Ukrainian flags flying proudly outside churches and town halls across the country.

This Government have shown strong support for Ukraine since our first day in office. For my part, I have called out Putin’s modern-day imperialism in the United Nations Security Council, I have been using the full force of our sanctions against Putin’s war machine, with the UK having led the way in sanctioning Putin’s shadow fleet, and I announced over £600 million in humanitarian and fiscal support during my own visit to Kyiv in September. My ministerial colleagues have been playing their full part as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has accelerated the delivery of military aid, extended our training of Ukrainian soldiers to at least the end of the year and signed a defence industrial treaty with Ukraine, allowing it to draw on £3.5 billion of UK export finance to acquire military equipment. This month, legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor came into force, enabling a loan of over £2 billion more to Ukraine, all of it repaid through the use of profits from frozen Russian assets. That funding comes on top of the Government’s commitment, made by the Prime Minister in our first week in office, to provide £3 billion a year in military aid in every year that it is needed. We do not know for how long it will be needed; it is for Ukraine to decide at what point and in what way to have any form of talks with Russia, and Ukraine will continue to need support from its friends even after Putin’s barbaric, illegal war comes to an end. We have always said that we want to see a just and lasting peace, but our priority right now, together with our allies, is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to achieve that.

Three things are clear. First, Ukrainians want to live at peace with their neighbour. They did not provoke this war, whatever the false claims of the Kremlin or its army of bots online, but now that Putin’s mafia state is preying on them, they are fighting back courageously. Their cause is just: quite simply, the freedom to choose their own future. Secondly, Putin shows no sign of wanting peace. He could end this war tomorrow by withdrawing from Ukraine, yet he insists that the war will not end until he has achieved his objectives—objectives that amount to the subjugation of the Ukrainian people. That is no basis for meaningful dialogue, and Putin’s actions speak far louder than his twisted words: inhuman strikes on civilians on Christmas Day, dispatching North Korean troops to the frontline, and wave after wave of attacks on the brave people of Ukraine.

Finally, Putin’s position is not one of strength. The invasion has been a monumental strategic failure, and pressure is mounting. Russia’s casualty rate is staggering, the highest number of military casualties that the country has suffered since the second world war, and Russia is more insecure than it was before the war—and for what? Russia gained some territory last year, yes: fields and small settlements, left barren by relentless bombardment, and taken at a rate so slow that the Russians would need a century to conquer all of Ukraine. Meanwhile, their economy struggles increasingly to sustain the war through this year alone. Spiralling inflation is making basic goods such as butter unaffordable, welfare cuts are hitting the most vulnerable, and interest rates have been hiked to a record 21%. We are approaching the third anniversary of this conflict, and, as the Prime Minister said in Kyiv, we must not let up now. Putin hopes that the world lacks his resolve, and we need to call his bluff to prove him wrong.

This is not simply a moral necessity, although I know that the whole House has moral clarity on the righteousness of supporting Ukraine. It is also a strategic necessity for Britain and our allies. If Putin wins in Ukraine, the post-war order founded in great part by my predecessor Ernie Bevin, which has kept us all safe for more than eight decades, will be seriously undermined. Foundational principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity will be shaken, and a more dangerous world will result. That is why the Government will not falter, it is why the Prime Minister travelled to Kyiv, and it is why we stand firmly with Ukraine, today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

May I start by joining the Foreign Secretary in welcoming the release of Emily Damari yesterday? Our thoughts are with her, with her family and with all the hostages at this time. I associate those on this side of the House with the Foreign Secretary’s comments.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for providing advance sight of his statement. For nearly three years the House has stood united and steadfast in our support of the people of Ukraine. We admire their determination, courage and bravery in the face of such horror, terror and brutality being inflicted on them, and our hearts bleed for the pain, the loss and the suffering that Putin has caused through his illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.

From day one—in fact, since before Russian troops started the latest wave of aggression in 2022—the British Government have backed President Zelensky in defence of Ukraine’s freedom. We recognise the threats posed since the invasion of Crimea in 2014, and the ongoing incursions in the east. We quickly provided the Ukrainians with military equipment, aid and finance. We set up bespoke routes to provide safety in the UK for those needing to leave Ukraine, and the British people opened their homes. Through Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace, we led global diplomatic efforts to rally the world in support of Ukraine and to isolate Russia. That included one of the most comprehensive packages of sanctions ever imposed on a country, members of its ruling regime, and businesses with links to Putin and the war.

When we were in government, our commitment to Ukraine was solid, and we were grateful for the support of the then Opposition. In three years, we have provided £12.8 billion-worth of support for Ukraine, including £7.8 billion in military assistance, and we welcome the ongoing commitment to provide at least £3 billion a year in military aid for as long as it is needed.

As the Foreign Secretary will know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton were instrumental in laying the foundations for this partnership. The partnership reached commitments to a long-standing and deep relationship between our two countries. At this time of uncertainty for Ukraine, the prospect of future stability and our ongoing friendship and support will be welcome.

Can the Foreign Secretary provide more details about the following elements of the partnership? First, on security and defence, referenced in articles 2 and 3, can he give an update on when he expects the proposed maritime partnership to be concluded, and on how any such partnership can be impacted in the future? The partnership also enshrines our support for Ukraine becoming a future NATO ally, so can the Foreign Secretary give an update on his discussions with the incoming US Administration on their plans, and on how we can ensure that there is consistency in this partnership? On defence alliances, can he give an update on the progress being made towards spending 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence?

Secondly, the partnership commits to increasing economic and trade co-operation, partnership working on energy, and work on science, technology and innovation. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the levels of investment that he expects to be made, and on what work is under way within Government and with the private sector to facilitate that? What discussions are under way with our international partners to boost the contributions that they are making?

Thirdly, can the Foreign Secretary give an update on the further steps being taken to isolate and undermine Putin and Russia, including responses to the use of North Korean troops fighting for Russia? Does he expect to announce further sanctions and activities to mobilise assets, to fund the rebuilding of Ukraine?

Fourthly, the partnership refers to commitments to

“combatting foreign information manipulation and interference”

in article 7. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on how that will work in practical terms, and on the steps being taken to prevent and combat Russian interference in other countries, including Moldova, Romania and Georgia?

There will continue to be difficult days ahead for the people of Ukraine, but their fight for freedom is a just cause, because they are not only fighting to free their country from Putin’s aggression; they are fighting for our values and freedoms, too. That is why we must continue to stand by them, and to make sure that this partnership is a success and gives Ukraine hope for a brighter future. Slava Ukraini!

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her words, which underline the bipartisan support in this House. It was very useful for me to be in Washington DC with the Defence Secretary last May, when we underlined to colleagues across Capitol Hill that here in the United Kingdom this remains a bipartisan issue. It is a great indication of what we can achieve in this Parliament on matters of the greatest concern.

On the right hon. Lady’s last point, she will understand that today is inauguration day and it would have been a bit pre-emptive to have had discussions with the incoming Administration on the security guarantees and on Ukraine’s path to NATO. She knows that we set out an irreversible pathway to membership at the NATO conference when we came into office, and that remains the position. She also asked me about the security pillar, and that is important. Helping Ukraine to reach NATO’s standards, particularly across its military structures, to support Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership, is something that we in this country take very seriously.

Ukraine has defended itself resolutely in cyber-space in the face of Russian aggression, and the UK has been proud to support that defence, both in Ukraine and also in the next-door country. The right hon. Lady mentioned cyber. I was in Moldova seeing the work that we fund, which began before we came into power. It is good, hugely important work, and when we see the interference across the region in Romania and Georgia, the importance of this work is underlined even further.

The right hon. Lady rightly talked about the maritime context and strengthening our maritime capabilities. Working with Ukraine to protect Black sea security is essential to its future security and prosperity. Some 49% of Ukraine’s pre-war trade went through the Black sea, and I might say that that is why, for a substantial period of history, Russia has wanted total control of much of the Black sea. Through the agreement, we will work together to ensure the safety of trade in the Black and Azov seas through joint naval tasking and de-mining activity, which will be hugely important once this war comes to an end.

More broadly, it is important for me to be absolutely clear on the issue of third-party support. I raised concerns with my Chinese counterpart when I was in China on 18 October about the supply of equipment to Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s relationship with Russia. The right hon. Lady knows that I went on to designate companies that we saw dealing with that dual-use technology. The direct participation of DPRK troops in combat operations is another dangerous expansion of Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine and further proof that he has no interest in peace. We have also imposed sanctions on a number of Iranian individuals, on 10 September and again on 18 November, including Iran Air, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia.

I want once again to thank the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for willing this partnership into life. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I fully support all nine pillars of the agreement, as I am sure all members of the all-party group do. Pillar 4 deals with the economy and trade, and there are many things we can do now to deepen and strengthen our trade relations with Ukraine, one of which involves joint ventures. What work will be done to remove insurance barriers and trade barriers, for instance, to give access to kindred or joint venture partnerships between UK and Ukrainian companies in all areas, including defence?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on the all-party group. He will be pleased that there are active conversations on this very issue at this time. He will know, too, that because of some of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made on procurement, we are doing all we can to assist trade in Ukraine, as complicated as that is at this moment.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the release of Emily Damari, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment last week to a 100-year partnership with Ukraine, and today I am thinking of those in Ukraine who have faced 35 months of continuous conflict since Russia’s illegal invasion in 2022. I am also thinking of the many communities across the UK that have welcomed thousands of Ukrainian families since that time. The courage and resilience of our Ukrainian guests has been matched by the solidarity and generosity of British communities. Cross-party support for our ally Ukraine has been unwavering.

I assure our Ukrainian allies that we will continue to support them, for in the face of expansionist Russian aggression and threats to democracy, Ukraine’s fight is indeed our fight. Yet today is a critical juncture, for a man who described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” will today become President of the United States, while his vice-president has advocated for a deal that would reward Russia with the territory that Putin has seized, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the Ukrainians must have the freedom to choose their own future.

In that context, what initial contact has the Foreign Secretary had with the incoming US Administration about Ukraine? What assurance can he give the House that the US will stay the course and not press Ukraine to capitulate to Russia? If the Foreign Secretary is unable to give that assurance, will he agree that we must redouble our efforts to work with our European allies to secure Ukraine’s future and our own security?

I welcome the Prime Minister’s tour of Ukraine and eastern Europe last week, but it leaves some questions that I now put to the Foreign Secretary. What new actions and investments will the UK take to support security in Europe? How will the UK demonstrate the strengthened leadership in the joint expeditionary force that our European partners expect? And did the Prime Minister raise with our allies the support expressed by Members across this House for mobilising the frozen Russian assets held in the UK and Europe to support our Ukrainian allies?

We must stand with Ukraine for the long haul. The Ukrainian people must be in charge of their own destiny. If the UK’s new pledge is to be real, it must address the uncertainty generated by President Trump. The Prime Minister’s 100-year commitment must outlast the President’s desire for a quick deal in his first 100 days.

Order. I remind the Front Benches of the set times that they are meant to stick to. Can they please look at this and make sure they get it right next time?

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for his questions and their bipartisan spirit. We welcome the bipartisan support that we eventually got from the United States after a lot of lobbying, including from my predecessor. It should not be forgotten that it was a £61 billion package to support Ukraine, notwithstanding the work that Europe is currently doing.

It is also important to say that Europe now shoulders two thirds of all aid to Ukraine, including over half of all military aid. In President Trump, we find someone who has been consistent in urging those colleagues across Europe who are still not spending 2% of GDP on defence. Since Roosevelt, successive US Presidents have raised this. When President Trump first came to office, just six countries were meeting their commitment. By the time he left, it was 18. That must be something we can welcome.

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary’s announcements in December in relation to procurement and the assistance we will continue to give to Ukraine, and on the ease with which Ukraine can now use our processes to get the equipment it needs to modernise its systems. The UK will provide £2.26 billion of additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme, which will be repaid using the profits of frozen Russian sovereign assets, and that must be welcome.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the JEF, which is hugely important. The support from the Baltic nations is extraordinary. The JEF is a very important partnership, and it has been one of the most proactive groupings in support of Ukraine. All JEF nations have signed their own bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. JEF nations are some of Ukraine’s strongest supporters and will continue to be so.

I also commend to the hon. Gentleman the Interflex training that we are doing with Ukraine, which we have said will continue until the end of this year.

I am proud of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate who opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees, and those at South Hampstead synagogue who offered free history and English lessons. Last year, I met some of those refugees to talk about the enormous cultural contribution they are making to our country. Turning to the pillar 9 of the partnership, what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure those who have been forced to flee their homes retain cultural links with their country and preserve their sense of heritage?

I am grateful to take my hon. Friend’s question and to see her back in her place. She is right to commend the work of her constituents in offering their homes to Ukrainian families, as many of our constituents are doing. Three years into this war, it is important that we commend their efforts. Under pillar 9, which is about the strong people-to-people links that exist across the country, we are working with the Premier League and the British Council to help young people in Ukraine to develop the skills, education and confidence needed for them to be assets in society, and to promote the power of the English language. Over time, I hope we will see the power of the Ukrainian language in our country and our schools.

I find myself thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the second time in quick succession for his gracious recognition of the work done by his Conservative predecessors, including me. I am reminded of conversations I have had with President Zelensky and, particularly, Prime Minister Shmyhal about our collective desire that when the scars and pain of the conflict have diminished, the bond of friendship between the UK and Ukraine is maintained. To that end, what can the Government do now to make it easier to de-risk some British-based businesses and potential investors going to Ukraine to start the rebuilding work now, in preparation for that glorious day when Russia is ejected from Ukraine sovereign territory and the Ukrainians can properly start to rebuild their homeland once again?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, friendships can exist across the House, and I have greatly valued his over the years. I put on record my thanks for the work he did; I know this partnership was first mentioned in a meeting he had with the former Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I am pleased to be able to take that work forward. The idea he mentions is a good one. He will be pleased that one of the things that flowed from the Prime Minister’s trip to Ukraine is the possibility of such a delegation to Ukraine, perhaps led by a Business Minister, at some point in the future, when it feels safe to make such a visit. That will mean we can assess the opportunities, which go well beyond Kyiv. A huge industrial base existed in Ukraine before the war. There are huge opportunities because it is “the bread basket of Europe” and because of the innovation present in the country, which a lot of people do not realise, that has led to one of the biggest drone industries on the planet.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his announcement that the UK will continue to do all it can to keep Ukraine in the fight in the face of Putin’s unlawful war of aggression. He mentioned sanctions. Will he update the House about what discussions he has had with international counterparts on seizing and repurposing Russian state sanctions, to the tune of the £300 billion held in G7 countries, to finance Ukraine to keep it in the fight?

That was a very good question. I reassure my hon. Friend that the subject remains under active discussion with our colleagues, particularly in Europe. We have made progress in relation to interest. We recognise that more funds need to be found to keep Ukraine in the fight. There are differences of opinion about the lawfulness and legality of doing this, and the implication for the markets particularly at this time. Those discussions are live and active, and I was with the Weimar group of not just Foreign Ministers, because Prime Minister Meloni and Chancellor Scholz were there as well, discussing these very issues just before the Christmas break.

It is welcome to hear that this partnership agreement is a binding treaty. As such, it contrasts with the Budapest memorandum, which was non-binding and not worth the paper it was written on. There is a lot of talk about how Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership, but it will be difficult to get a consensus for that anytime soon among the 32 NATO members. In lieu of NATO membership, what security guarantees might the UK seek to develop for Ukraine with European allies?

This is a very live issue. As I said in my statement, we do not see Putin ready to halt his aggression and come to the table for serious negotiations, but just as this country has stood by Ukraine throughout, and provided very important intelligence in the run-up to this war, we will recognise our part in working with others on security guarantees.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on this 100-year partnership with such an important European ally. We absolutely understand how our futures are linked. I want to recognise the Ukrainian community in Milton Keynes, which has established the Sunflower school and held the first Holodomor memorial event. These communities are very worried. They are coming to the renewal of their visas because they never thought that they would be here this long. They have built new businesses, family connections, and friends and community connections. Can we reassure Ukrainians in the UK that they will continue to have our support for the duration of the war, and potentially support afterwards for some of them to continue their lives here?

I reassure Ukrainians in the strongest terms—I hope that they might see the 100-year partnership as a signal of this—that the UK will stand with them long after none of us are in this Chamber. That is the nature of the partnership. They should be reassured, and remember that war strikes indelible bonds; just as it did between us and the United States after the second world war, it will do so between us and Ukraine.

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary’s statement will be as welcome in Kyiv as it is in this House. He referred to the 200,000 refugees in this country. Further to the point that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) made, many of those people would like to return home, but home is a war zone, particularly in the east, and they cannot do so. They therefore have children in school here, and have built lives here. It would reassure them to know that they are safe and secure in the United Kingdom for not just the future but the immediate future, and will be able to be here for as long as it takes.

None of us knows when the war will complete, but across our constituencies we all recognise communities that continue to be here, coming out of other conflicts. I am thinking of Kosovan communities, for example, which exist right across the country; I can think of a significant community in south London in particular. Many Ukrainians want to return, and we should make it possible for them to do so, but in some areas there will have to be a lot of de-mining, let us face it, in order for them to go back to their homes. Let us see where we get to at the end of the conflict.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement. Exeter’s large and vibrant Ukrainian heritage community will welcome this further strengthening of our cultural, security and economic ties. Going back to sanctions, will he confirm that the UK will continue to keep up the pace and pressure of sanctions on Russia and, indeed, strengthen them where necessary to close the loopholes, in full partnership with our allies?

I have been very proud of the work I have led on sanctions since coming to office. It is now the strongest sanctions package against Russia anywhere in the world, with more to come.

I welcome the Government’s efforts on the 100-year partnership. President Zelensky has made great strides in cracking down on corruption in his country, but he has a long way to go—he has probably got rid of most of the low-hanging fruit. What extra efforts will the UK Government make in assisting the Ukrainian Government to crack down on corruption, which will aid its ability to get NATO membership? I also push the Foreign Secretary on whether he has further views on how maritime support can work in conjunction with the Montreux convention.

The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), met officials from Ukraine on the issue of anti-corruption just a few weeks ago. This is an issue I have spoken about directly with President Zelensky in the past, and it is an issue that the US traditionally has taken a big interest in. I was first in Ukraine looking at those issues in opposition. At that stage, the UK was funding a lot of work with non-governmental organisations. That work must continue to break the corruption—a lot of it a legacy, frankly, of the Soviet Union.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. We have already seen the extensive role of the Russian shadow fleet in the Black sea and across the world, most recently in the Baltics. What further action can the UK Government take to tackle the role of the Russian Black sea fleet in the conflict?

One of the issues is how third countries, some of them significant countries, are still facilitating the Russian shadow fleet because of the illicit oil that finds its way into various economies. Those are conversations that we and our European partners continue to take forward. If we are serious about tackling Putin’s aggression, we have to be serious about the revenues that finance it.

This morning, I was struck to hear the Foreign Secretary describe Donald Trump as a man of

“incredible grace, generosity…very funny, very friendly, very warm”

and say that most of the world is glad he is back in power. Yet, as Trump re-enters the White House, there are significant concerns about whether support for Ukraine from the US—so far Ukraine’s biggest backer—will continue. With Trump boasting that he will stop the war in Ukraine in a day, and with his choice for US Secretary of State saying on Wednesday that Ukraine will have to make “concessions” to Russia, does the Foreign Secretary think that Ukraine is as happy as he is to see Trump back in power?

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to actually read the words of President Zelensky, who said that he welcomed Donald Trump and his approach of “peace through strength”. I encourage him to take all opportunities he gets over the coming years to meet Donald Trump and make up his own mind.

I welcome the announcement of the new grain verification scheme, which will help track stolen grain from occupied Ukrainian territories. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important UK contribution given Ukraine’s role as a major agricultural producer, which gives it a critical position in global food security?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. People forget that before this war, Ukraine was effectively the breadbasket of Europe. This is an issue that I spoke about with Ms McCain of the World Food Programme. It is hugely important that those grain supplies are able to leave the country. It is hugely important that they are not sabotaged. That is one of the reasons why the pillar on the Black sea is important: there must be the means for the grain supplies to leave Ukraine. The work continues.

I join others in very much welcoming this declaration of solidarity between London and Kyiv on the future of Ukraine, but there is something surreal in these exchanges. Everything is about to change very dramatically; we all know that this is a kind of pre-positioning statement in advance of Mr Trump assuming the presidency. What assessment have the Government made—the Foreign Secretary has given us no idea of this at all—of what President Trump is likely to do and of how they will respond? How ready are they to ensure that we do not falter and that we step up our support for Ukraine along with our European allies—or will President Trump call all the shots?

I say to the hon. Gentleman—in whose question is a seriousness about the cost of war and what it takes to negotiate—that when I met Donald Trump, my sense was that he did understand acutely the importance of this war, and he struck me as a man who is not prepared to be a loser. It is becoming clearer and clearer that Putin shows no sign whatsoever of wanting to negotiate, and we must therefore continue to support Ukraine as strongly as we can. The hon. Gentleman will also have picked up—I read about it in the papers—that there was a sense previously of a rush towards negotiation. That has moved over time somewhat, and that must be right as a new Administration pick up the files and fully grip this, understanding of course that we all want peace.

I warmly welcome this bold new partnership. I think it is a source of pride for everyone in the House that we have more than 200,000 Ukrainians living among us as our friends and neighbours. Will the Foreign Secretary offer a tribute to the Ukrainian community in Welwyn Garden City, who have set up a thriving Saturday school that I had the pleasure of visiting just before Christmas? I encourage him to look favourably on their ask for us to fast-track Ukrainian as a GCSE and A-level language, because many young people would love to study it but do not currently have the opportunity to do so.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the partnership between schools under pillar 9 is fundamental. It is what gives us the bedrock on which to build both the English language capability in Ukraine and, I hope, the Ukrainian language capability in this country.

It is to be hoped that, as has been said, President Trump can indeed bring significant additional pressure to bear on the dictator Putin to end this horrific war. Will the Foreign Secretary give additional reassurance to the British people that, although we have invested billions and billions of pounds in supporting Ukraine, we are committed to recovering it from the frozen assets of the Russian state in due course?

I know that the hon. Gentleman understands history. He will know that after the second world war, we were in quite a lot of debt to the United States as a result of lend-lease, which it took us many years to pay off. Today, no trading relationship of ours is bigger than that with the United States: it totals over $300 billion, with $1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and 1 million British people working in US companies and 1 million Americans working in British companies. This partnership sets up something similar for the next 100 years. It is the result of war, but it has brought our two nations together. He is absolutely right to centre on how we can better use those Russian assets. That is a matter of close discussion across the European family.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to 100 years of friendship with the people of Ukraine. In pillar 4, which talks about economy and trade, there is a commitment to “broaden mutual market access” and raise

“awareness and utilisation of the UK-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement”.

How long will it take for that work come into effect and for both countries to benefit from it?

I am so glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to pillar 4. That allows me to remind the House that the Prime Minister announced £40 million for a new economic recovery programme, which will create opportunities for UK companies by supporting key growth sectors in Ukraine. That is the bedrock of an enhanced trade and investment opportunity, and eventually a trading relationship when Ukraine gets back to the normality that I know it is so keen to achieve.

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. As he will know, in order to have an enduring peace, there will need to be credible deterrence for Ukraine. We have already seen the development of deterrence in eastern nations such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania through the enhanced forward presence. Is the Foreign Secretary thinking of opening up discussions about how we could do that in Ukraine in the future, establishing an enhanced forward presence to underpin its security?

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this issue. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO—allies agreed at the July summit in Washington that that was the rightful place of Ukraine over time. However, he is right that guarantees will be necessary. It is a matter of intense discussion. We have been the European country that has led on our military support for Ukraine, so he is absolutely right that we would expect to play a role in that when the day comes, working with other allies. As President Zelensky has said, the US would have to play a role in that, too.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for their leadership on sanctions. We know that Putin’s shadow fleet is still a major source of financing for the war, and that cutting it off is vital to bringing him to the negotiating table and, crucially, preventing him from rearming later on. How does the Secretary of State plan to persuade allies and counterparts —including some of our own British overseas territories—to clamp down on sanctions evasion and expand the capture of the shadow fleet to the full extent of that fleet?

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he did on these issues prior to coming to Parliament, and for the work that he continues to do. He will be pleased that this is a subject we have raised, particularly with the overseas territories. It is also something I have raised with both the Indians and the Turks, where we have seen some going behind the rules that we have made in order to inadvertently benefit Russia.

The scores of Ukrainians living in my constituency will be very happy to hear today’s statement, because they are fearful about their future due to the length of time that the war has gone on. I just hope that the Foreign Secretary stands by these promises more so than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has done today for the people of Northern Ireland—he has surrendered to the EU, rather than protect Northern Ireland businesses. However, does the Foreign Secretary have any concerns about the effect that either the resolve of EU countries or the attitude of the forthcoming American Administration is likely to have in undermining the message of support to the Ukrainian people and the message of defiance to Putin?

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am a man of my word, and that I am not as worried as some are. The reason is that while there is this debate—which Donald Trump has continued to push—about our commitment to defence spending, it is important to say that if we let Putin win, defence spending across all of our countries will rocket. During the cold war, defence spending rose to about 7%, so I think all countries need to concentrate their minds on standing by Ukraine.

The Ukrainian defence and tech sectors have proven themselves resilient and innovative under the harsh pressure of war. Will the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about how, under the new 100-year partnership, the UK defence and tech sectors can support their Ukrainian counterparts? Likewise, how can we learn from the innovations of our Ukrainian friends and allies?

The Ukrainians recognise our huge strengths in higher education and, as result, innovation, which my hon. Friend will that referenced in the eventual treaty. Prior to the war, there was immense expertise in tech and IT in Ukraine. The innovations in drone technology are extraordinary and, frankly, are changing the nature of warfare, from which we should benefit. For all those reasons, that is an important pillar, from which we will gain as much as Ukraine will over the coming years.

Pillar 2.3 states:

“Throughout the duration of the Declaration, neither Participant will be left alone in the face of an attack or aggression.”

To what extent does that act as a NATO article 5 commitment in lieu of Ukraine joining NATO? Does it, like article 5, facilitate direct UK military action in support of Ukraine should it be attacked again in the future in violation of the UN charter? Are other NATO allies also negotiating similar pacts, and to what extent do they complement this one?

Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead of himself somewhat. We continue to support Ukraine with every military effort. That is going on now, and in a sense that is the reference he is making. I have indicated an irreversible pathway to NATO, as we agreed back in September. This is not article 5.

I welcome the statement, and I thank the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues for working on the partnership. As he will know, the House, in its first debate of the year, called on the Government to investigate how we might seize Russian assets. Notwithstanding his statements about the ongoing conversations and the sensitivities, will he update the House on when he will be able to report back to us on that?

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the most sensitive of times. We all recognise that this is a critical year for Ukraine, and further funds will need to be found. I am pleased to see that the $50 billion loan through the G7 will eventually be getting into Ukrainian coffers, but there is more to do, and the conversations are live at this point in time.

It has been reported—indeed, it was mentioned by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—that Putin has deployed North Korean troops in Ukraine. What is the Government’s response to what is now an axis of operations against Ukraine?

This is incredibly dangerous, as we see the Euro-Atlantic theatre and the Indo-Pacific theatre coalesce. It is important to emphasise that our assessment is that those troops are being used in Kursk. We see that, we recognise it and we will use all means necessary to deal with that issue with the tools we have as best we can in the coming days.

While the worst of humanity was being demonstrated with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our nation was showing the best of humanity, in our rich tradition, by opening our doors to those displaced by war. One of those families is that of my constituent Professor Ivan Waddington, who has adopted a Ukrainian refugee family, whom he sees as his own. He has asked me to ask the Government whether they are planning to continue with the scheme, and will those Ukrainians who have assimilated and are making a positive contribution to our country have the right to remain in this country when the war ends?

I recognise why hon. Members have raised this issue, but that must rightly be a determination for the Home Secretary at the appropriate time. However, I want to strongly indicate our support for those families in this country, and our recognition, as the war continues and may go on for some time, of the huge contribution they continue to make. I hope that the 100-year partnership that we have signed is an indication of the inextricable link that we think now exists between Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It will give the almost 300 Ukrainian families living in my constituency the encouragement they need. It is our desire and their desire that the war in Ukraine will come to an end shortly, for which I am a known advocate, along with many other Members. Do we still intend to send the £3 billion annual military assistance until 2031 whether the war is being fought or not? What will “no less than £3 billion” mean, and will we be expected to fund the Ukraine defence wholly if allies such as the United States of America do not make the same deals?

Our commitment is for that £3 billion for as long as it takes. It is a solemn and important commitment to Ukraine, and it underlines the cross-party support in the House and the strength of support among the British people.