PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update - 7 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, and with thanks to you for allowing me to do so at this late hour, I wish to make a statement to update the House on today’s US operation and yesterday’s coalition of the willing summit in Paris.

Today the US conducted a military operation to intercept the motor vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic on its way to Russia. The UK, at the request of the US, supported this operation as part of global efforts to crack down on sanctions-busting and shadow shipping activity. The Bella 1 was falsely flagged and subject to US counter-Iran sanctions. The vessel refused to comply with the US’s exercise of its sanctions jurisdiction on 20 December, after which the US Coast Guard vessel Munro pursued the ship across the Atlantic. It is a sanctioned, stateless vessel that carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with both Iran and Russia.

Following a request from the US, I authorised the use of UK bases and the deployment of Royal Navy and RAF assets to support the operation, including airborne surveillance and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Tideforce. This was a US operation. No UK personnel took part in the boarding. I can update the House that the operation is ongoing, but the Bella 1 is now under the control of US forces, who demonstrated immense courage and professionalism in dangerous and deteriorating Atlantic sea conditions.

A stateless vessel may be lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state. The US’s enforcement action was based on counter-Iran sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from fuelling instability through the profits of illegal oil sales. The UK supported this action to achieve three objectives: first, to enforce counter-Iran sanctions; secondly, to tackle the global security threat posed by expanding shadowy maritime activity; and thirdly, to reinforce British homeland defence and security in this era of rising threats.

Let me expand. First, in 2024, the vessel was sanctioned by the US and subjected to a seizure warrant for illegally transporting Iranian oil. It has reflagged five times in the last five years and was falsely flying the Guyana ensign when it was intercepted by the US. Over a four-year period, reports suggest that the vessel moved some 7.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil, the proceeds of which are used to finance terrorism, threat and instability across the world.

The Iranian regime continue to export violence across the region through their proxies and partners including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias. They maintain support for Russia by supplying Putin with weapons for his brutal invasion of Ukraine, including the Shahed drones and missiles that target and kill Ukrainian civilians. It is telling that the vessel, in an attempt to evade the seizure warrant, changed its name and tried to adopt the Russian flag.

Secondly, the UK also supported this military operation to counter the expanding global security threat. The vessel is part of an increasing web of shadow shipping that fuels and funds instability across the world, that undermines global trade and that threatens our national security. We know that Russia operates a vast shadow fleet of its own to bankroll its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Last year, it is estimated that Russia sold $100 billion-worth of sanctioned oil: money that is directly funding attacks against Ukrainian civilians, such as the onslaught during Christmas involving 600 Russian missiles and drones that killed at least three people.

We owe it to the Ukrainians to step up action on those shadow operations, and we are doing so. That is why we are deterring, we are disrupting and we are degrading the Russian shadow fleet as a priority for the Government. To date, we have imposed sanctions on 544 vessels. According to estimates, sanctions against the shadow fleet by the UK and our partners have forced 200 ships off the seas—almost half the Russia shadow fleet’s overall capacity—while Russia’s critical oil revenues are now down 27% compared to October 2024. That is their lowest since the start of its full-scale invasion.

Let me speak plainly: the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so.

Thirdly, this is not just about international security but about the threats to British national security. Iran presents a persistent danger not only to security in the middle east, but to us here in the UK. It poses a significant espionage threat, it sustains an aggressive cyber-attack campaign against us and, as our own Intelligence and Security Committee reported, since 2022 the Iranian regime has plotted at least 15 assassination or kidnap attempts on British soil.

More widely across Europe, we are seeing a pattern of flagrant maritime activity co-ordinated by Russia, so I applaud and welcome the fact that the Finnish authorities last week seized a Russian shadow vessel suspected of damaging a communications cable under the gulf of Finland. We have also exposed the Russian spy ship Yantar, operating in our waters and surveying our undersea cables. And, of course, by assisting our US allies in taking this ship off the seas, we are protecting the British people and our nation.

This is a stark reminder that our world is changing; it is less predictable and more dangerous. This operation and the shadow fleet show the global links between the security threats faced by the UK and its allies. The shadow fleet itself is vital to Putin’s ongoing illegal invasion and war in Ukraine, which brings me on to the second topic in this single statement.

Next month, we enter the fifth year of Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, yet the Ukrainian people—military and civilian alike—still fight with huge courage and defiance. I am proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine, that Britain remains united for Ukraine. We know that if Putin prevails he will not stop at Ukraine, and we know that a secure Europe depends on a strong, sovereign Ukraine.

I am also proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine. It started under the last Government and stepped up under this Government. Now we—the UK—lead the 50 nation-strong Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside Germany, and secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year. We, with France, lead the coalition of the willing, undertaking detailed military planning to help secure peace for the long term when a deal is agreed. I say to this House: let us make 2026 not only the year when peace is possible, but the year when peace is achieved.

This Government are leading that push for peace; this Government are building a new deal for European security. That is why in Paris yesterday, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing, with 39 nations, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron and President Zelensky, signed a declaration of intent. As the Prime Minister said,

“The purpose of the coalition of the willing is to help deliver a peace that can last and to work with the US to guarantee Ukraine’s security for the long term. This work is now more advanced than ever.”

Yesterday’s declaration advances that work significantly. It confirms that the UK and France will “take a leading role”: first, in using military, economic and diplomatic instruments to ensure the conclusion of a peace agreement; secondly, in supporting the development of Ukraine’s defence capabilities; and thirdly, in commanding a multinational force for Ukraine that plans to deploy to Ukraine after a ceasefire has been agreed.

The MFU plans to deploy units from nations in the coalition of the willing to carry out defence and deterrence operations in the air, on land and at sea, and to conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces. The UK and France will also create military hubs to support that work across the country and build protected facilities within Ukraine for weapons and equipment. As the Prime Minister has said today, “If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”

Yesterday, at this largest meeting of the coalition of the willing, we agreed further significant steps, including the signing of a joint declaration. We will also participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. We will support the long-term provision of armaments for Ukraine’s defence, and we will continue to work with the US towards security guarantees to deter any further Russian aggression and to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. In Paris yesterday, US Special Envoy Witkoff described these commitments as being

“as strong as anyone has ever seen”.

I will travel very soon to Kyiv to continue these discussions with Ukrainian political and military leaders.

A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine, but we can only get a peace deal if Putin is ready to make compromises. Over the Christmas period, he showed that he was still not ready for peace, with hundreds of drones and missiles being fired into Ukraine and Russian attacks continuing on the frontline, so in 2026 we will continue with other nations to step up our military support still further. Our mission is to support the fight today, as well as to secure the peace tomorrow. In conclusion, our Government will always act in the interests of national security. We are committed to countering the threats posed by our adversaries, to standing by our closest allies, and to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing he provided to me and other parliamentarians on today’s operation. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, there should always be a statement to Parliament when UK troops are committed abroad, and we hope that the Secretary of State can provide a little more clarity than the Prime Minister was willing to provide earlier.

In recent days, we have seen extraordinary international developments, particularly in relation to Venezuela, but it remains the case that the single most important military action of recent years affecting our nation’s security is Putin’s illegal and wholly unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The ensuing war has led to terrible loss of life, and we all want peace, but it must be a lasting one on acceptable terms to Ukraine, and with credible security guarantees, so that any post-ceasefire settlement can endure. Having led the way in supporting Ukraine at the outset of the invasion, we will, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine. Specifically, it is entirely right to plan for a ceasefire. Just as we brought together an international coalition to provide weapons to Ukraine, we welcome the way the Government have worked with international partners to plan how a potential ceasefire will be supported militarily.

As to the detail of the plans, can the Secretary of State provide further information on the number of personnel involved? Earlier today, the Prime Minister did not give any specific details on troop numbers, yet The Times is reporting that the figure will be fewer than 7,500. What more can he tell us on that? Can he say more about the composition of the force that is to be deployed? Specifically, we note that British soldiers will be involved in logistics and training, but what proportion, if any, will be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? What air and naval assets does he plan to provide as part of the multinational force for Ukraine?

On rules of engagement, we note from the joint declaration of intent that our service personnel will be granted

“the use of force to fulfil the mission”

of the MFU, and will

“co-operate in accordance with international law”

and

“respect for human rights…as reflected in other international agreements whose participants are the Signatories.”

Can the Secretary of State confirm that this means that our soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment? Can he also state the exact mission of the MFU? The declaration of intent refers to “other contributing nations”, but does not name any countries from outside Ukraine other than Britain and France, so can he list those nations and tell the House what their primary contribution will be?

On the crucial matter of security guarantees, there appears to be no mention of any such guarantees in the declaration of intent. Can the Secretary of State tell us what explicit security guarantees the United States has agreed to, and will they involve US boots on the ground? Of course, this force would only be deployed in the event of a ceasefire being agreed with Russia, so what is his contingency plan in the event that the ceasefire is broken after the MFU has been deployed? Does this not point to the most important consideration: that this whole plan is based on the assumption that there is a genuine ceasefire? Having personally passionately backed Ukraine’s fight for freedom throughout, I would dearly love to believe that this peace is possible soon, but I fear that the occupant of the Kremlin is not interested in peace. Does the Secretary of State agree that in parallel with any preparation for the MFU, there must be no let-up whatsoever in the application of maximum economic pressure on Russia, along with all possible continued support for Ukraine?

Turning to other developments, we support today’s operation by the United States to seize the MV Bella 1 tanker in order to enforce sanctions on Iran. We also welcome the UK’s enabling role, undertaken by Royal Navy and RAF assets, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State on the objectives he set out, not least the objective of reinforcing our homeland security. I am pleased to hear that the operation has been successful, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to all personnel involved, and I join the Secretary of State in recognising the skill and bravery of the US forces who participated.

On the wider matter of Iran, I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with all those who in recent days have had the courage to defy that nation’s despotic and repressive regime. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State will not speculate on operational planning by us or our allies, can he reassure the House that his Department is conducting contingency planning in case of any further escalation of internal unrest in Iran?

On Greenland, we totally support Denmark’s sovereignty over that territory. While the United States remains our closest ally, it is surely not in the interest of the US or any of our allies for NATO’s shared commitments to be undermined to any degree. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition earlier, can the Secretary of State assure the House that he will be seeking an urgent meeting of all NATO members to provide mutual reassurance on the matter of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland?

Finally, is not the common thread in all this that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and we must therefore rapidly ramp up our defence spending and rearmament? When will the Secretary of State finally publish the defence investment plan?

We are working flat out on the defence investment plan. We will complete it and publish it as soon as we can.

The sovereignty of Greenland is not at issue: it is clearly Denmark that has sovereignty. It is clear that Greenland and Denmark are a part of NATO. Greenland’s security is guaranteed by its membership, and by all 32 nations of NATO. Any decisions on the future of Greenland are a matter for the citizens of Greenland and for Denmark.

Let me turn to the shadow Minister’s more extensive questions and points about the declaration of intent yesterday and the situation in Ukraine. I welcome his commitment to and support for a lasting and just peace. He pledged his support for all efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, and I welcome his support for our work to do that. On the detailed questions, I will simply not go into detail on the nature of the activities in the deployment, the numbers of troops that are likely to be deployed to Ukraine or the commitments that other nations have made. As a former Defence Minister, he will understand that well. The finality of this will depend on the details of the peace deal. He quite rightly said that we will deploy only if there is a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Disclosing, let alone debating, those sort of details would only make Putin wiser.

On the deployment in future of any British forces, I am proud to say that whenever British forces deploy, including abroad, they meet the highest possible standards of international law and professionalism, and they will continue to do so.

On the number of nations committed to and involved in the planning of the coalition, as the Prime Minister has said, and as I said in my statement, yesterday’s meeting was 39 strong. It was the largest meeting of the coalition of the willing yet. Yesterday’s declaration of intent signifies not just an advance in our work towards the security guarantees and peace, but a gathering of momentum behind that.

Although the hon. Gentleman welcomes our support and pledges his own for efforts to bring peace, he questions aspects of this deployment and of this coalition of the willing, though his party leader has still not publicly backed the coalition of the willing, and has still not publicly said that she would support the multinational force for Ukraine. If and when she does, we will gladly see that as support for the security of Britain, the future of Ukraine and the strengthening of our work with allies.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Putin is not interested in peace. He is quite right to say that we will not, and should not, let up on intensifying the economic pressure. My statement dealt with the shadow fleet, which is part of that. We should not give up, or let up on increasing the pressure on Putin through the military aid and support that we provide to Ukraine. I can tell the House that I will co-chair the next meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, alongside the German Finance Minister. We will do that at NATO next month, and we will look to ensure the strongest possible pledges throughout 2026, so that we can step up support for Ukraine, both for the fight today and to secure peace for tomorrow.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

I welcome the advance sight of the statement from the Defence Secretary, and I thank the Defence Minister for the operational briefing this morning. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s progress on the coalition of the willing. Of course, it does nothing to change the reality on the ground faced by our Ukrainian friends, nor the growing threats that we face. We await precise details, with respect to numbers. It is rumoured that approximately 7,500 British troops will be sent. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can allay my concerns about how our already overstretched armed forces will be able to meet their existing commitments, especially in Estonia.

The UK’s support today for our US allies enforcing sanctions in the Atlantic demonstrates the strength and value of alliances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and Denmark to determine, and that any attempts by a NATO ally to seize NATO territory would not be in our collective interests, and least of all in America’s interests?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s work chairing the Defence Committee. He, I and the Prime Minister are entirely at one: the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland. It is under the sovereignty of Denmark, a nation that is a full-scale, valued member of the NATO alliance.

My hon. Friend is right to question me on UK deployment and our commitments. He will get the chance to question me directly; I look forward to appearing before his Committee later this month. As the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, the House will have the opportunity to debate the issues in detail if and when there is any commitment and decision to deploy troops, following on from what he made clear was a political statement—a declaration of intent that is significant in advancing our work to secure Ukrainians’ future, but nevertheless a political declaration. The House would then have the chance to debate in full Members’ concerns, the consequences of any future deployment to Ukraine, and the terms on which we would make that deployment.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict, caused and perpetuated by Russia, have taken a terrible toll. There is therefore much to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners, to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. That is not about escalation but about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary.

We have been clear that Ukrainians are fighting not just for their own freedom but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure a fair peace deal and make it durable. We should be clear about the purpose: any deployment must be focused on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces—not fighting a new war but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within the bounds of international law, with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House. That matters even more at a time when trust in American guarantees is under strain, rhetoric about the annexation of Greenland is escalating, and international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of the principles that underpin our security.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris declaration states that the force would be deployed only after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can he give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were suddenly to resume?

Today’s US operation to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership that our two nations have built. That is important and worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and principles. The shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Russia funds its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome, and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. Does the Secretary of State recognise that distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annex Greenland?

I think my statement made it clear that I took the decision to allow US forces to base themselves in the UK after we made an assessment of the legal basis for and the purpose of the planned US operation. That was a responsible thing to do. The hon. Gentleman should have absolutely no concerns on that front.

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the shadow fleet is one of the primary ways in which Putin is funding his illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why we are stepping up action on the shadow fleet, developing further military options and strengthening co-ordination with allies. In many ways, he is also right to say that the Ukrainians are fighting for the rest of Europe. They are fighting for the same values, and for the same hopes and aspirations to be a country free to determine its own future.

On the circumstances of any deployment, the Prime Minister has been clear—as have I in a number of updates to the House on coalition of the willing military planning—that the decision to deploy, and the military plans that are prepared, will come into action in the circumstances of a peace deal being agreed. That is one of the reasons that I stressed in my statement that we are working to support the securing of that agreement, as well as the long-term peace that we all hope will follow.

The hon. Gentleman urges me to support his argument on the imperative of increasing defence funding to 2.5% and beyond—I support it entirely. He will welcome the fact that this Government have made the difficult decision to switch funding directly out of overseas aid and into defence. We have done so because we recognise this new era of threat that we face—an era of hard power, strong alliances and strong diplomacy.

Finally, we are doing that at least three years before anyone expected us to do so. We have an ambition and a commitment to move beyond that to 3%, and we have made the solemn commitment, alongside all other 31 nations in the NATO alliance, that we will spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, and a total of 5% on general defence and national security by 2035. That is a sign of the strength and unity of the NATO alliance, and its ability to help make Britain more secure as well as stronger abroad.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, congratulating the brave men and women on the successful operation, and paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his clear leadership in the defence of Ukraine? My question is this: is there anything more we can do to ensure that Vladimir Putin is serious about peace?

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. One man stands behind the continuing war in Ukraine and continuing civilian deaths and attacks on domestic infrastructure, and that is Vladimir Putin. One man has talked of peace, but has yet to demonstrate that he is serious about doing what he says. To answer my right hon. Friend, important steps are keeping up the economic pressure on Putin, which is beginning to tell on his economy, on his oil revenues, and on his people. At the same time, we make clear that we will step up our collective military aid to Ukraine, as we are doing. Finally, we make clear, as this House has always said, that we will stand united for Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, and specifically on Ukraine may I commend him, the Prime Minister and the Government for their continued efforts? The whole House will be proud of how Britain has led on this from the very beginning. The future of Ukraine, and indeed the security of Europe, is an issue of vital UK national interest—a point that the right hon. Gentleman, and others, have made. I believe there are three prerequisites for a lasting peace in Ukraine: first, a western military presence there; secondly, credible and durable security guarantees; and thirdly, a well-armed and resourced Ukrainian military. In his work with allies in the weeks ahead, will the Secretary of State ensure that any ceasefire or peace agreement does not give Russia a veto in any of those three vital areas?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s echo of my pride in the way that the UK, under his Government and stepped up again under this Government, has led on Ukraine, and his echo of my pride in the way that Britain remains united behind Ukraine. He is right about his three conditions. They are part of ensuring what this House wants to see, which is not just peace but one that is lasting and secure.

The importance of the discussions and agreements, and in particular the comments from Special Envoy Witkoff yesterday about the US’s commitment to security guarantees that sit alongside and match European-led guarantees through the coalition of the willing, could not be more important. They will form the basis of the confidence that President Zelensky can have in going into the negotiations. We hope that they will add extra impetus to those negotiations, and in the end it will be a matter for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, and the deal that they strike with President Putin. In the meantime, we lend all the support we can to President Trump, who is doing what only President Trump can, which is potentially putting the pressure on Putin, bringing the parties together, and trying to broker the deal that will finally put an end to this terrible war.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the bravery of our service personnel, who will have to consequence-manage the result of such a military action. This ship was part of an expanding global security threat. It was used to fund the war in Ukraine and the nefarious activity that occurs here in the UK, such as the sub-threshold attacks and the payments received by Reform politicians such as Nathan Gill. We must wake up, because these attacks undermine our sovereignty and our way of life. It is asinine for the Opposition to use moments such as this to progress false arguments about the ECHR and rules of engagement for events that we are not at presently. Does the Secretary of State agree it is imperative that the Opposition stand up, show which side they are on and sack the shadow Attorney General?

My hon. Friend speaks with great military insight and authority on the challenges of the deployment and the operation, which was conducted in some of the most extreme weather and seas that any military force can face. He is right to point out that this is a bad ship; it was sanctioned by the US in 2024, it has changed its flag five times in the last five years, and it turned off its transporter for almost two weeks on 17 December, so that no one could track its whereabouts. Last month, it was sailing with a false flag, before heading to Russia—it is very telling which country reportedly sent out a warship to try to escort it into a Russian port. No one should be in any doubt about the purpose of the US operation or the legal basis for doing so.

In relation to the question about the support for the deployment and the potential multinational force for Ukraine, I think the most serious equivocation has come from the leader of the Reform party. When he was asked about that today, he simply said, “Forget it.” Let me say to the two representatives from his party who are in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice)—

That is not what he said!

He did.

Let me say that that is an insult to Ukrainians. It does not do justice to the sentiment of the British people, who recognise the fight of the Ukrainian people and want to see them prevail, and above all want to see a peace that will last.

May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this evening? I hope it is heard widely across the world, and I hope it is heard in Moscow and Washington. I hope it is heard particularly in Kyiv and across Ukraine, because I want the people of that country to understand that this House is totally united in support of their aims. I do not wish to see peace at any price; I wish to see Ukraine prevail. I hope that I speak for the whole House in that respect.

Given that context, I will ask my question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister earlier today about the numbers that had been committed. The Prime Minister said: “Let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that.” Figures are being briefed to the newspapers, but I do not know whether they are correct. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to brief us on the numbers that he is considering. I may wish them to be higher, and some other Members of the House may wish them to be lower, but I want this House to hear what his plans are.

I really welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response, his question, the way in which he speaks for the House, and his urging that this statement—and, indeed, the declaration of intent signed in Paris yesterday—will be recognised around the world and particularly heard in Kyiv; I am sure that President Zelensky will ensure that. I will play my part in doing that shortly as I visit the country, and I will discuss the further work that needs to be done with Ukraine’s military and political leaders.

On the question of detailed numbers, yesterday was a political declaration—a political statement. The detailed military planning that has been going on for months with the nations that are participating in, and contributing to, the coalition of the willing means that we are ready if and when a peace deal is signed. The deployment that will follow that will clearly depend on the circumstances and detail of that peace deal. I have certainly not been briefing the media at all, because any discussion of details of numbers and very detailed activities only makes Putin wiser and undermines the confidence that the Ukrainians can have in the guarantees we are developing, with them and for them.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to providing security guarantees for Ukraine, which are vital to the defence of Europe and to upholding peace on our continent. However, military resolve alone is not enough; deterrence requires financial guarantees that underpin our security commitments today and in the years ahead. Will the UK join other nations in seeking to establish a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank so that Britain can protect itself, stand firmly with Ukraine, and uphold our responsibility to defend peace in an increasingly dangerous world?

My hon. Friend is entirely right that the long-term commitment we and other nations have made to Ukraine is not just about our military support or the deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine; it is about the financial support Ukraine will require for the long term. We are certainly interested in the proposals that she has been championing. Led by the Treasury, this Government have been in discussions with those who are developing such proposals, and we will continue to hold those discussions, because such proposals will potentially play a significant role in contributing the sort of financial investment that we must see in Ukraine for the long term.

The UK remains one of the chief facilitators of the export of Russian gas, with UK-owned or UK-insured vessels having enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas since the start of the war. Will the Secretary of State finally agree to ban the provision of all UK maritime services for the transport and insurance of Russian gas exports?

Where there are grounds for us as a nation and a Government to take action, particularly where we can do so alongside close allies, we have done so. We have done so against individuals, organisations and vessels, and we have sanctioned 544 ships that are part of the Russian shadow fleet operation. Wherever there are grounds to do more, we will look at that, but I will not get into speculation on hypotheticals about future potential moves that we might make on economic sanctions.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and pay tribute to his leadership on this issue, as well as that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I also welcome the statement by the coalition of the willing on their commitments to deter further Russian aggression. Do those commitments extend to preventing the further forced deportation and militarisation of Ukrainian children, and if—as has been widely reported—we are 90% of the way towards a peace agreement, does that mean that Putin has agreed to hand back the more than 20,000 Ukrainian children he has stolen from that country?

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and emotion about this issue. I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine a number of times, and one of the most moving things I have done on any of my visits happened when I was there jointly with the then shadow Foreign Secretary. We met some of those children who had been abducted and kidnapped by the Russians and then rescued and brought back to Ukraine. The impact on them and their families was deeply moving. My hon. Friend is totally right to say that this issue must be at the forefront of our minds, and it is, as I know it is for Ukraine. We must ensure that this practice is prevented and that all Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russia are returned in the very earliest stages of any peace negotiations.

I welcome the Secretary of State coming to the House to update us on the commitment made by the Prime Minister last night, but I put on record my serious concerns about the commitment to put British troops on the ground. Over the past 30 years, we have not learned enough lessons on how to pull troops out of locations from some of the deployments that I have been on. We could be setting up UK forces for a long-term sustained conflict or peacekeeping operation over in Russia, where we do not have the resources to sustain it. We need to look at funding, troop deployments and increasing numbers in the armed forces. The outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Europe at NATO believes that a full-scale global conflict will come between one and three years after the cessation of fighting in Ukraine. If that is the case, as many others believe it to be, our troops will be right on the frontline, and we will go from peacekeeping to full-scale war because we have put ourselves in there.

The hon. Gentleman speaks with military experience, and he is one of the authoritative voices in this House, so I respect what he says. I just say respectfully to him that that is exactly why the Prime Minister has confirmed today that in the circumstances of any decision to deploy UK troops into Ukraine as part of the leadership and commanding of the multinational force for Ukraine, this House will have the chance to debate that and vote on it.

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership and the signing of the declaration of intent, but the vicious attacks by Putin on Ukraine over Christmas suggest that peace is still a long way off. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the military aid and support we are providing to Ukraine? Can he reassure us that where there is depletion of stocks, that is being backfilled?

Yes, I believe I can. This Government are proud of the fact that this year we have provided the highest ever level of spending on military aid directly to support Ukraine. We are also proud of the fact that we are capable of and are delivering some of the most important military equipment that Ukraine needs, such as air defence systems and missiles. I am proud also that we work especially closely with the Ukrainians to help them develop new systems, new missiles and new weapons to try to stay one step ahead of the Russians. We will continue to do that.

I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today, but I want to press him a little on a vote in Parliament. In his statement—it is pretty much the same wording as the Prime Minister’s, as I would expect—he states that a decision on deployment will be brought to the House “for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment”. That is not the same as having a vote before the deployment. There are very good strategic and military reasons for not making public an immediate, surprise or secret deployment beforehand, but this is a public, planned deployment, as set out in the Paris agreement. It could not be more public than that. Will he commit to a vote in this House before the deployment, and not a debate in the House only? He will know that in 2013—he was in the House; I think he entered Parliament in 1997—the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron of somewhere in Oxfordshire —[Interruption.] Under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in beautiful Oxfordshire, there was a vote, which was lost by 13 votes. As a result, the UK did not deploy RAF support of the Americans into Syria. It is right that the Government get the balance right, and I support what they are doing, although we have to see the detail, but will he commit to a vote before deployment, and not just a debate?

I have to admit that I am struggling to follow the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. I quoted in my statement the words spoken by the Prime Minister in House earlier today, but I am happy to repeat them: “I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.” I think that that is pretty clear, and could not be clearer.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and commend our incredible servicemen and women who have defended our interests here. I am increasingly worried, as are many other Members, about the shadow fleets and the way in which they are operating in the world. Given that there are two international ports in my constituency, I should like the Secretary of State to reassure my constituents by telling me how the United Kingdom will protect the workers, sailors and companies operating out of the Sheerness and Ridham docks at sea in future.

My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to the professionalism of our UK forces. They played an important supporting role to back up what was essentially an entirely US operation today, but that is a demonstration of their professionalism and of the fact that we work together with the United States as the closest possible defence and security allies. That is something that this Government are committed to continuing to do, and something that our troops and our forces are proud to do.

The Secretary of State knows of my support for the Government’s persistence over Ukraine, and I welcome his statement. We have spoken endlessly throughout this process. I am, however, deeply worried about deploying British troops into what is basically a first-world-war war, as it were. The fact that more than 2 million are dead or wounded as a result of the conflict puts it on a wholly different scale from anything that we have done in the last 10 or 20 years. Afghanistan and the others are very small in comparison with what we are discussing now, and I have a certain amount of cynicism. I will support the Government’s pursuit of this, but I worry desperately that we will get it out of proportion. Are we peacekeepers, or are we going to enforce the peace? These are big questions to be asked, surely, before full support can be given.

There is, however, one thing that I think the Government can do. The Secretary of State talked about Iran and the shadow fleet, the support that Iran has given to Russia and the brutality that it has, and I absolutely agree with all that, so I have a simple question for the Government: will they now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is at the heart of everything that is bad, deceitful and despicable from Iran? Will the British Government now proscribe the IRGC, full stop?

The right hon. Gentleman has returned to a subject that has been raised and debated in the House before. He was a member of the last Government, and he will know that in advance of any decisions, they are never disclosed or confirmed by Ministers. As for the concerns that he has expressed, I welcome his support for the Government’s decision and their participation in and leadership of the coalition of the willing, and for the declaration of intent that was signed yesterday.

Let me make three points. First, there will be no deployment unless there is a peace agreement. Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal. Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression. We would do this alongside the negotiation of similar commitments and security guarantees with the United States. Finally, the role of any British forces is to ensure that—as I have argued in the House before—Ukraine is its own best deterrence, and its own best defence, against future Russian aggression. That is why the primary focus of the multinational force for Ukraine will be to regenerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces, and we are ready to do that, alongside them, for the long term.

Order. For colleagues’ information, I should say that I intend to take everybody, but how long that will take depends on the length of the questions; we could be here for quite some time. Can questions and answers please be short?

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and pay tribute to the role of the Royal Navy and RAF personnel in taking out this rogue tanker flying under the flag of a rogue nation. The Bella 1 was taken just a few hundred miles out into the Atlantic, which is too close for comfort for those of us who come from the Western Isles.

I understand that we hosted the USAF maritime patrol aircraft Poseidon out of Stornoway airport and two V-22 Ospreys out of Benbecula. Can the Secretary of State give us more details on the role of Scottish airports in this operation? Does he agree that, yes, we have a frontline in the Donbas, but that the frontline for us against Russia is our backyard: the wild North Atlantic?

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for encouraging short questions and short answers.

My hon. Friend is right on both accounts: part of the British and European frontline is in the Donbas and part of the frontline for this nation, and for NATO, is the North Atlantic. I am proud that Scotland makes such a considerable contribution to the security of this country, and I am proud that part of the basing that was important for the US operation was indeed in Scotland.

I wholeheartedly endorse the resolve across this House to continue to help Ukraine to prevail against this aggression. By extension, I therefore commend the armed forces personnel who enabled and assisted the US in this very slick interdiction of a rogue vessel—a key element of the funding of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

There are other challenges in the High North as we speak. Our allies in the United States are apparently very concerned about the vulnerability of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our partners in the Joint Expeditionary Force nations about discussing with the Greenlandic peoples and the Government of Denmark how the JEF may deploy to Greenland, to allay those US fears?

I am sure that the US and the US military will welcome the strong support from the Scottish nationalists for their operation, and the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman offers; I shall ensure that the US Secretary of War is aware of that.

On the question of Greenland, I have been in contact with the Danish Defence Minister. The Prime Minister was very clear in the joint declaration that he signed yesterday in Paris that Greenland is part of Denmark. Its sovereignty is not at stake, and it is defended by being part of NATO. Its security is guaranteed by all 32 member states, and any future for Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the citizens of Denmark.

I welcome the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to the highest level since the cold war, and the Teesside defence and innovation cluster stands ready to support the national interest. Will the Defence Secretary do everything possible to ensure that British steel is used across the defence industrial supply chain, so that national security is also economic security for Britain?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s observation that national security is founded on economic security. Economic security is dependent on strong national security; as an MP from the proud steelmaking town of Rotherham, I am very conscious of the commitment that this Government have made and of the imperative to ensure that as much as possible of what we procure through defence and more widely within Government, uses, whenever we can, British-produced steel, which is among the finest in the world.

The Defence Secretary refused to say when the defence investment plan will be published, and there is a tension between the statement about the immediacy of the growing threats and the lack of urgency on funding as other areas of Government are prioritised. Does he recognise that other nations are moving now on funding? Why are the Government so complacent on funding that they are prioritising other Departments over moving now on defence?

I certainly do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We have made a commitment as a new Government to put an extra £5 billion into defence. We have made the commitment to 2.5% of GDP—three years before his own unfunded commitment at the election—and we will raise that further.

As for the work on the defence investment plan, we are dealing with a programme, which we inherited from his own Government, that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. We are working flat out to complete that defence investment plan, and I will publish it and report its details to the House as soon as I can.

I welcome this statement from the Defence Secretary and I also welcome the comments from across the House about how the Prime Minister has been conducting himself in leading the coalition of the willing. At this time, we need consensus across British politics on how we support Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that no British politician should ever be taking bribes from Russians, or advising Russian nationals on how to avoid sanctions in relation to money that should be used to support Ukrainian people?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. The actions she speaks of bring discredit on that party—the party of Putin—and bring discredit on this country. I also welcome her comments on the importance of cross-party support and support throughout the United Kingdom for the actions we are taking to support Ukraine.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We congratulate all those involved in taking and boarding the rogue ship in the Atlantic. I also congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on securing from the US the strongest security guarantees and the strongest commitments. That is clearly good news.

On the leadership of the coalition of the willing, many will be questioning why 37 of the 39 countries have not committed to put boots on the ground. Can I just gently correct the Secretary of State? What my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said about putting boots and kit into Ukraine was that, to ensure we can do that on a long-term and durable basis, the Government need to increase their defence spending earlier and faster than currently planned.

I am sure everyone in the House would like to hear from the Reform leader himself. If he would like to participate in a sitting in the House of Commons Chamber rather than in press conferences, let us hear from the leader himself.

Beyond that, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member is here, and I welcome his support for the actions that the Government are taking. He is completely right to point to the importance of the US statements in public. Special Envoy Witkoff has said that the security protocols being discussed, developed and agreed with the US, us and Ukraine are as strong as anyone has ever seen.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank him and the Prime Minister for their leadership on this issue. He rightly referred in his statement to the actions of the Finns last week in intercepting a rogue ship that was cutting, or suspected of cutting, cables. He also mentioned the operation of the Yantar, which has been spying on our cables. Given the activity of the Russians in the high north, does he agree with me that the deal with BAE Systems and Norway is important, not just because of the frigates that will be built, but because it is a sign of the co-operation between our two countries, and that our co-operation with NATO allies extends across the high north—with the exclusion, of course, of Russia?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know she is very proud of her constituents who are part of the workforce that will build those frigates. This is not just the biggest ever warship export deal; it will set a new standard of countries, Norway and the UK, who are prepared to be able to combine and integrate their forces. By doing so, we will be in a stronger position to help deter Russian aggression and reinforce the security of the high north in future years.

The Defence Secretary said that one of the functions of the MFU would be to deter aggression, but we only have a deterrent if we have the willingness to engage kinetically backing it up. If this matter comes back to the House for a vote, will he be clear on the rules of engagement for the deployment of our troops? Will the status of forces agreement with Ukraine be explicit? Does he envisage the triggering of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to sustain the sorts of numbers that have been floated in the press today?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The rules of engagement will be a critical part of the security guarantees, and the sorts of points he raises today will, I am certain, be at the heart of any debate if we reach the point at which we have a peace deal and we are making a decision to deploy a multinational force.

We do not want an endless war in Ukraine. The people of Ukraine, and indeed the people here in the UK, need to see steps towards peace in the world, not more chaos, division and war. Will the Defence Secretary confirm whether, if the United States were to seek to seize ships taking, for example, oil to Cuba, where the US has unilateral sanctions in place, this Government would aid it?

I think my hon. Friend would not expect me to be able to, or to be prepared to, answer hypothetical questions. What I can say to her is that if the US, as our closest defence and security ally, asks for UK assistance, we will always be willing to respond. We will ensure that any support we do offer, whether it is support or a combined operation, will have a strong legal basis, as indeed this one today, which has been mounted so effectively and—early indications—successfully, has had.

The Secretary of State said in relation to Ukraine:

“we will continue to work with the United States towards security guarantees”.

I regret that President Trump has continued to undermine NATO this afternoon, writing:

“I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed them.”

That flies in the face of the experience post-9/11, when Brits and Danes fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan. How would the announcements from Paris yesterday differ if there was no prospect of a US backstop?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, things have moved beyond that point. Jared Kushner yesterday confirmed the readiness of the US to provide a backstop, and special envoy Witkoff said that the President “strongly stands” behind the security protocols that are being agreed. So I would first say to the hon. Gentleman: catch up. Secondly, he is right, of course, that the only time that article 5 has been triggered was when NATO responded to the US’s request following 9/11. We were proud to be a part of that and we are now proud to be a leading part of a 32-nation-strong NATO.

I welcome the decisive leadership of the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister in supporting Ukraine. When the Foreign Affairs Committee met the Ukrainian Government, it highlighted the necessity of a strong sanctions regime that is joined up internationally. The actions taken today show just that: a sanctions regime with teeth that is joined up to stop the loopholes Putin uses to keep funding his illegal war, so I welcome the action taken today.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will continue to increase the stranglehold of sanctions and action to freeze and seize the assets? What will be done with those assets to enable them to be used to rebuild Ukraine—both now and in the future, when peace comes?

I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will do everything we can, alongside other allies, to step up the economic pressure on Russia; that we will step up our activity and pressure and action in relation to the shadow fleet; and that, at the same time, we will step up, with allies, the military aid that we provide to Ukraine, so that Ukrainians can be in no doubt that we as a country, alongside others, will stand with them for as long as it takes, both in the fight and in the peace.

In 1995, thousands of innocent men and boys were taken from a UN protectorate in Srebrenica and murdered. The main reason that that happened was because UN troops were unable to fire upon the Bosnian Serbs as they came along. May I therefore push the Secretary of State further on the rules of engagement? The rules must not say, “Do not fire until fired upon”, or there will be no deterrent. I know this has to be worked out, so I ask him to take that into serious consideration when the rules of engagement are being put together.

We will indeed. To reinforce the right hon. Gentleman’s point, the purpose of the proposed and planned multinational force is to deter Russia, and the rules of engagement will be entirely consistent with supporting that purpose.

We are clearly facing the most dangerous times in almost a century in this country and across our continent. Since 1945, our safety and security have been guaranteed by being part of the most powerful military alliance in the history of humankind and sacrosanct borders in Europe. Times are clearly changing. Can the Defence Secretary assure me and this House that we will fulfil the aims of the strategic defence review in full, and fully fund it to protect both ourselves and our continent?

My hon. Friend is right that times are changing. He is also right that NATO, which has been outstanding in protecting us and preserving the peace for more than seven decades, is critical to that. NATO is not just the most successful defensive military alliance in history; as an alliance, it is stronger now, larger now and more united now. We are proud to play a leading role within it.

Given that the Americans were clearly perfectly capable of seizing the ship by themselves, I wonder why they were so keen to involve the UK. In a week in which Trump rode roughshod over international law on Monday and threatened a NATO ally on Tuesday, why is it on Wednesday that the UK was so keen to hang on Trump’s military coat-tails when it did not have the courage to call out and condemn his breaking of international law earlier in the week? If the UK is so very committed to enforcing sanctions, given the concerns in the report published last year by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation about the extremely high likelihood of UK financial services companies being complicit in supporting breaches of sanctions, can the Secretary of State assure the House, hand on heart, that the UK has done everything in its power to prevent the complicity of the UK financial services sector?

If there is sound evidence of breaches of sanctions, we will look at that and we will act. In response to the hon. Lady’s first question, quite simply, the US asked for our UK military support because it wanted and needed our UK military support to conduct this operation. The legal basis for us doing so was sound and the purpose for this action and operation was strong. We were proud to support that action, which is part of bearing down on the sanctions-busting shadow fleet operations.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their leadership on defending Ukraine not just in wartime but in peacetime, which will really reassure the many Ukrainian families who have sought refuge in Milton Keynes and across the UK. I would like to ask the Secretary of State’s advice. It is clear that Russia is challenging not just Ukraine, but the UK. It is carrying out incursions into our airspace and our waters, using cyber-attacks to undermine us and using social media to undermine our democracy. What advice would the Secretary of State give the British public on creating vigilance against the Russian attacks we are seeing increasing, over and over, on the UK?

My hon. Friend is right; this rising Russian aggression is not just directed at the UK. At the same time as fighting a war in Ukraine, Putin is testing the boundaries of other NATO nations like the UK. The simple response to say to people is that we are in a new era of threat. This demands a new era for defence and it demands a stronger NATO, and that is exactly what we are working to deliver.

I welcome the action today, and I commend our armed forces on their action. Much of the discussion has focused on troops in the event of peace. I would like to take us one step further. The right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday the UK agreed that we will participate in US-led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. Can he please clarify whether that means physical monitoring or remote intelligence? What if the terms of a ceasefire are unacceptable to Ukraine and to the UK? The agreement signed yesterday says that we “will” do so, but does it require us to accept, police and monitor any ceasefire, or would we be able to withdraw if the terms were not acceptable to either us or to our ally, Ukraine?

I understand why the hon. Lady, who is very expert in these matters, asks those questions. She is getting rather ahead of the stage of the peace negotiations, and of the detail and technicalities of any potential ceasefire monitoring. The commitment was a political commitment that we would play a role. It is likely to be led by the US in the context of a peace deal. The important aspect is that what the Prime Minister was part of agreeing, signing and announcing yesterday significantly advances the work towards securing and putting in place security guarantees. By doing so, it also significantly advances the work towards peace.

The people of Rochdale are extremely proud of our long-standing Ukrainian community, which is made up of both those who fled Soviet terror in the 20th century and those who sought refuge from Putin’s crimes in the 21st century. Does the Secretary of State agree that what Putin fears most is western unity, and cross-party consensus and unity in Houses like this one in democracies across the west? Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that if Reform MPs vote against deployment of our brave British troops in Ukraine, it would be the biggest gift to Putin since Nathan Gill took that bribe from the Russians?

I do agree. My hon. Friend speaks warmly and rightly of the strong pride that Rochdale has in its Ukrainian community. He is right to point out that Putin’s purpose is to divide and weaken NATO, and to set nations against each other and people within nations against each other. We in this House should all determine that we will not let that happen.

I thank the Secretary of State for his update. He is a serious and experienced politician, and I have no doubt that he always acts in the national interest. What concerns me is the gap between the coherence of NATO and its approach—the approach that he has set out that we will take if a peace agreement can be found in Ukraine—and the determination that we are seen to have to meet the new level of threat from Russia and elsewhere in the world with respect to our commitment on defence spending. I respect that he asserts that the Government are committed to 3% between 2029 and 2034, but with the greatest respect, there is a great difference in the timeframe between the start and end of that five-year window. In previous generations this country has had to make sacrifices to defend itself. I think that he needs to think about whether we should be making that case now, so that we can be ready for what may be ahead of us.

The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Government and Treasury Minister in his time. He will recognise that the commitment we have made and the plan we have now mark the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. He will also recognise that we are building a new deal for European security. It is an important part of NATO, but it goes beyond NATO, and we will continue to do that.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The unity of the House in opposing those states who would do us harm is a key foundation of our strong national security framework. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that when a senior leader in Reform accepts Russian bribes and when the shadow Attorney General is actively working to undermine a key policy in support of Ukraine, that damages public perception of the unity of purpose of the House and, in doing so, impacts our national security?

It does damage the unity of this House—it damages the unity of purpose. It also damages the status of Britain when we have a party leader who says that the politician and leader he most admires is Vladimir Putin.

Many of our constituents will be anxious about UK involvement in US operations given Trump’s vocal drive for American imperialism. Of course, Plaid Cymru is unequivocal that any action taken by the UK military must respect international law; that includes today’s events and all others. With oil further politicised following the US seizure of the Bella 1, with UK support, what steps will be taken to secure critical UK oil and port infrastructure at key sites such as Milford Haven and Holyhead given recent global developments in energy and shipping?

If the right hon. Lady considers and reflects on the strategic defence review that we published in June, she will see that it set out a strong case not just for the rising threats but for action to step up defence of the homeland. That strategic defence review sets out the vision that we will pursue and the action that we will take over the next 10 years.

I welcome the Government’s statement this evening. I am proud that Suffolk is home to one of the largest air bases in the country. British military families have been in contact with me this afternoon as they are alarmed at the deterioration in the security situation. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to them?

I say to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those who are serving in the military that that growing anxiety is quite widely shared. It underlines the recognition of the new threats that we face, and it argues for exactly the sort of commitments to defence funding, for the strategy that the Government have set out, and for the actions and decisions that we are now taking. I hope that his constituents will both support the Prime Minister’s declaration of intent in Paris yesterday—because of the importance of Ukraine to our long-term security—and support and recognise the professionalism of the US operation on the Bella 1 today.

Do the Government accept that if you will the ends, you must will the means? The end of the cold war has been mentioned a number of times. It is a fact that at the end of the cold war, we were spending 4.3% of GDP on defence—that was 3.5% under the old way of calculating it—and in the early years of the cold war we were spending in excess of 7%. Can the Secretary of State at least indicate to the House: what is the earliest year in which a Labour Government anticipate spending 3% of GDP on defence?

Of course, at the end of the last Labour Government, we were spending 2.5% on defence: a level that the 14 successive Conservative years came nowhere near matching. We have a job to make up for that lost time and to make up for the hollowed-out forces that the previous Government left. The commitment that the Government have made alongside other NATO allies—to see a path to ensure that by 2035 we spend a full 5% of GDP on our security and core defence—is our guarantee for strong defence and deterrence in the future.

For five years, against Russian aggression, Ukraine has been bravely defending not only its own border but the eastern flank of Europe. That means that security guarantees for Ukraine are also security guarantees for all of Europe. Given that, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the leader of Reform today suggesting that he would vote against those security guarantees?

I do indeed. My hon. Friend is right: a secure Ukraine is at the heart of a secure Europe and at the heart of a secure UK. That will be a consideration for all Members of this House if we get to the stage when we have a peace deal and a decision to deploy and command the multinational force in Ukraine.

President Trump is supposed to be working on a peace deal for Ukraine, but he has been so much more focused on invading Venezuela and making threats against Greenland. What assurance can the Secretary of State give to the House on the US’s continued commitment to getting a deal in Ukraine? What contingencies are in place to revisit the EU-led proposals should they be necessary?

I have no doubt, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady has any doubt, about the determination of President Trump to help secure that peace deal in Ukraine. In fact, he has a role that only he can play in making that potentially possible. It is our job to lend every support that we can both to the Ukrainians and to the US in securing that peace deal.

Given that what is proposed today is a peacekeeping force, does the Secretary of State wonder, as I do, when the leader of Reform will cease his adulation of Putin, ensure that there are no further traitors among his ranks, support the peace process in Ukraine and stand up for British interests?

Just to be clear to my hon. Friend, the primary purpose of the multinational force for Ukraine is not peacekeeping; it is there to reassure Ukraine and help it to regenerate and rebuild the strength of its military for itself. In the end, Ukrainian forces are their own country’s best deterrence and defence against potential future Russian aggression.

Given Russia’s stated refusal to accept any deployment of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, is there a danger that the agreement will make Russia less likely to accept a settlement and that it will instead step up its military campaign? If that is the case, will the Secretary of State say whether there was any agreement among the western allies about how we can massively increase the pressure on Russia—perhaps through further sanctions and their strong enforcement, as we have seen in the last 24 hours?

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on hypothetical what ifs. What I can say is that security guarantees that are being agreed at this point are an essential element of any potentially successful peace negotiations. If they reach agreement, those negotiations will test what, at the moment, Putin says is his approach to Ukraine and its future.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and leadership. As the Member for Portsmouth North, the home of the Royal Navy, I pay tribute to all our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that continued strong UK leadership from our Prime Minister and commitment and consensus across the whole of this House with our allies is vital to enforcing sanctions on Russia and to strengthening security and achieving peace in Ukraine, and in doing so, ensuring security in my port city and in Britain too?

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the statement and the wise words that she has set out for the House. She speaks with great authority and great strength for her home city, and I think the House will have welcomed her words.

I start by recognising the US service personnel from my constituency, who played a part in the co-ordination of the interdiction operation to seize the MV Bella 1 via the joint intelligence analytics centre, Europe at RAF Molesworth, which is part of the US-European command.

I am slightly worried that this might be a moot point, but turning to the coalition of the willing, the presence of boots on the ground in Ukraine was a red line for Putin, and potentially it might be a stick that he beats us with in order to push back on any peace deal. If we workshop that idea, with a force of 7,500, as is being reported in the press, we clearly cannot realistically maintain a deterrence force posture, which underlines the paucity of our anti-access and area-denial options. That would also explain the commitment to military hubs, and I would appreciate clarification as to what exactly they are. With Ajax off games for the foreseeable—maybe for years—and no viable recce-strike capability, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the urgency to bring forward the next iteration of Project Asgard from quarter 2 to quarter 1, given its urgent requirement as a force multiplier on the eastern flank defensive line?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point to the importance of Project Asgard. It is breaking new ground. It is demonstrating new technologies and new military techniques. It is Britain at the forefront of creative military innovation and technology, and we are determined to accelerate it. On the wider question of the peace negotiations and red lines, the nature of any negotiations is always that declared initial positions are tested. If a successful process of peace negotiations is secured, we want to be ready, and we are ensuring that we are ready, to play a role in securing that peace for the long term through the multinational force for Ukraine.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite Reform UK banning the showing of support for Ukraine in my county of Northamptonshire, my constituents and those across the whole of the UK should be proud of the extraordinary skill of our British men and women who are involved in this operation?

I share my hon. Friend’s dismay at the decision of his Reform-led council. I am proud that our Ministry of Defence building flies the Ukrainian flag.

The Secretary of State has explained that he does not want to be drawn on the questions from the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and others on troop numbers or the exact nature of the force that is being conceptualised and put together, but it is more than reasonable for Members of this House to want to ensure that the correct amounts of financial resources are being put in, so has the decision made yesterday changed his assumptions and plans regarding investment, procurement and spending over the next year?

The political declaration that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky and President Macron will sit alongside, and is developed from, the detailed work on the military planning for the coalition of the willing and the deployment of the multinational force for Ukraine, and it is an important part of the contribution that the UK will make in the future to the security of the UK and the security of Europe.

Unlike the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I am very concerned that the leader of Reform UK has gone on television today to reject sending British troops to Ukraine to help secure a sustainable peace—

That is not what he said.

That is exactly what he said. Does the Secretary of State agree that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) should be ashamed, because we owe so much to the Ukrainian people who have fought so hard to secure democracy in Europe, and that this shows for real how much closer the leader of Reform is to Putin’s priorities than to the priorities of the UK?

You are inadvertently misleading the House—

Order. We do not need chuntering from the Back Benches, and I can determine whether the House has or has not been misled.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s observations. I think this is a test for the leader of Reform: are the interests that he declares closer to those of President Putin or closer to those of the British people?

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is really reaffirming to see the whole House express its unwavering support for Ukraine, and we hope our Ukrainian friends take heart from it. We have discussed this evening the heartbreaking situation of over 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia. Is it the Government’s position that, for this act alone, President Putin should be hauled in front of the International Criminal Court?

Our focus at this point is to ensure that we give maximum support and step that up, alongside allies, to keep Ukraine in the fight, and that if there is a peace deal we are ready from day one to play our part in helping to lead efforts to secure that peace for the long term. That peace must involve the full return of all those abducted children. It must also involve the pursuit of justice.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the generosity of his answers at this late hour. I express my sincere gratitude to the British forces men and women who have helped seize this tanker—part of the Russian shadow fleet being used to fuel Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. I also thank this Labour Government for their record investment in our defence. Concerning the Russian shadow fleet specifically, can my right hon. Friend assure me that no stone will be left unturned in protecting our critical undersea infrastructure, which is at regular threat from the Russian shadow fleet? If it were terminally interrupted, that would cause absolute chaos here in the UK.

My hon. Friend is gently chiding me for overlong answers, and I take that point. He is entirely right about how our way of life, the operation of our economy and the way we live are dependent on undersea infrastructure. That is why we are stepping up our vigilance, surveillance and defence of that.

The Secretary of State will know that the NATO Secretary-General said in September that we must “prevent spreading” NATO forces “too thinly”. Could he provide some reassurance to the House on the implications of this potential deployment for the Joint Expeditionary Force and our leadership of that in Estonia?

I hope the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman asks for can be provided by the fact that SACEUR has been at the heart of the discussions and developments, close to the military planning for the deployment of the multinational force for Ukraine, and an important figure in the discussions of security guarantees.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for the leadership they have shown both at home and internationally on this issue. I pay tribute to 3 Rifles from Edinburgh South West, which deployed to Finland late last year and trained right up to the border with Russia with their brothers and sisters from the Finnish army. Westminster might feel cold in some places today; it was -28°C when they were in Finland—absolutely incredible. I do not doubt, though, that the same troops are thinking about what this statement today means for them. I know from past deployments that their families will also be thinking about what it means for them. Will the Secretary of State commit to any plan coming to this House for a vote also including consideration of support for families, and that if troops are deployed from Scotland, that will include input from Forces Children Scotland?

We are going out of our way as a Government to ensure that our British forces and their families can feel that we are a Government on their side and that we take seriously and want to hear their voices. It is one of the reasons that we have already legislated for a new Armed Forces Commissioner, which will be the independent challenge to Government and Ministers and the independent voice for those forces and their families.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We are all encouraged by him and what he has said, and encouraged by his and this Government’s leadership. That gives us heart, so I thank him for that.

Russian fighter planes are contravening fellow NATO countries’ skies, cables under the sea are being interfered with and damaged by Russian forces, and there has been interference with Royal Navy ships, but on the sea and in the air, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will not be messed with. It is time that Russia got a bloody nose, and today it got just that—not before time. This is a fraught international matter, and maritime laws are not my forte. However, something I am certain of is that Russia is no ally of ours. Its words never, ever meet its actions, and the sanctions need to be strengthened. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions have taken place with the US and NATO on a way forward that sends a clear message to Russia that the time of pushing boundaries is over, and that today is a clear expression that we will stand firm against aggression within the confines of international law?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s congratulations on the operation. I hope that he will see that this is part of the UK working to support our closest defence ally and the US taking action to ensure that sanctions regimes that are designed to bear down on countries like Iran and Russia for illegal shipping activity will be stepped up and enforced, which will help to put economic pressure on those nations to change their ways.

I, too, commend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and determined resolve in defence of Ukraine. Beyond that, Ukraine has no truer friend than this country. Putin knows that too, which is why he would never tolerate a democracy such as ours, nor have a debate and questioning such as we have had here this evening. Because of that, he will do everything to undermine this country. What can not only my right hon. Friend’s Department, but the Government as a whole, do to ensure that we as a country have the resilience to take whatever Russia may throw at us?

If my hon. Friend refers back to the strategic defence review that we published in June last year, he will see the identification and explanation of the sort of increasing threats and risks that we face, as well as the recommendations that we have accepted and will implement in full, including for how we deal with the need for greater resilience and the need for stronger homeland defence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the strong diplomatic and military leadership that he set out in his statement, it is, wherever possible, the unity of this House, and indeed unity in the country at large, that really counts in sending a clear and strong message to our friends and foe alike that this country believes in the international rules-based system, international law, standing up to bullies and valuing our alliances?

I do indeed, and my hon. Friend is right. This new era of threat also demands hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy, but all that is based on a domestic political unity of values and unity of intent. I am proud of the way that the UK sets the standard for that.

I call Mark Sewards for the final question.

I welcome this evening’s statement. I say, primarily to those outside this Chamber, that any deployment of British forces in Ukraine is not going to be a tripwire to a wider conflict. If we do not deploy those forces, put that deterrent in place and back Ukraine—if we allow Putin to take Ukraine either now or at some point in the future—there will be devastating consequences for British interests and global stability.

With British interests in mind, although I fully appreciate the answer the Defence Secretary gave on troop numbers—I understand his reasoning for not wanting to share those—can he reassure the House that this country has the soldiers, the resources and the equipment to ensure that we can provide an effective deterrent in Ukraine without compromising and undermining the other commitments we have made to allies around the world?

I can indeed. In recent months, I have been making sure that Defence has been putting in the investment to ensure that, at the point of peace, we are ready to move and to deploy and, above all, with the safety of our forces in mind, that they are properly equipped and protected to do the job.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I left home in Newcastle-under-Lyme on Monday to travel down to Parliament, the weather was already very bad after heavy snow on Sunday night. However, for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the situation at home has got worse, thanks to both the weather and the complete and utter failure of Staffordshire county council to grit our roads and keep those who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme safe.

I have had reports of empty grit bins on Sterndale Drive in Westbury Park and on Plymouth Grove, of our town centre being an ice rink, of the A34 from Newcastle to Talke not being fit for purpose and of the roads through Chesterton, Audley and Madeley being cut off, just like roads in Wolstanton. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me of the best way to raise this issue in the House? [Interruption.] This is serious. How can I get Staffordshire county council and its leadership to do what my constituents pay for and want: to do their job and grit our roads, and to do so now?

I do not doubt that the matter is indeed serious, but it is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair, whose powers do not extend to Staffordshire county council. The hon. Member has nonetheless got his very important matter on the record.