PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
G20 and Ukraine - 25 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will update the House on my recent international engagements and our work to strengthen the security of our continent and economy, starting with the situation in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of all our minds. Over recent days, I have had detailed discussions with allies; I met our partners in the coalition of the willing during the G20, and I have spoken a number of times to both President Trump and President Zelensky, who I spoke to again earlier this morning.

We are united in wanting a ceasefire and a permanent end to the horrendous suffering that this war has brought to Ukraine. I have always said that our aim must be a just and lasting peace, and those words “just” and “lasting” are both important. I welcome the continued efforts of the United States to end the war and stop the killing. The initial draft of the 28-point plan included points that were not acceptable, but it also included some important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace. For example, it sets out steps on security guarantees from the US and partners. That is very significant. The discussions in Geneva took important steps forward, with progress between the US and Ukraine on an updated peace framework. I can reassure the House that that work is ongoing to refine the plan.

We are clear about the fundamental principles: that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained; that Ukraine should be able to defend herself in future; and that matters about Ukraine and its future must be determined by Ukraine. We are clear that Ukraine’s voice must always be at the heart of the process, and that elements relating to Europe and NATO will need the consent of Europe and NATO members. There is still a long way to go and a tough road ahead, but we are more committed than ever to the cause and to keep pushing forward on the process. That is why later this afternoon President Macron, Chancellor Merz and I will convene the coalition of the willing, which now has 36 members, to discuss how we can advance the peace process and how we can continue to keep Ukraine in the fight right now.

Ukraine continues to hold the line and Ukrainians continue to mount a fearless defence of their country. They deserve not just our respect but our help and support. After all, it is not just our values that are at risk here; it is our security, too.

In addition to targeting energy and food prices, Putin continues to seek to undermine our security, including by sending Russian ships into our waters. The Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters in the last two weeks. Let me assure the House that we are more ready and determined than ever to protect our territory and protect the British people. As we work towards that end, we will never let up on the support that Ukraine needs: the vital defensive capabilities that it needs to protect its people and the economic pressure that we must continue to mount on Russia to cut off the fuel to its war machine.

The urgent need to take Russian oil and gas off the global market was something that I discussed extensively at the G20. That is vital, especially now as winter begins to bite in Ukraine and Putin continues his barbaric attacks on civilians and civilian energy infrastructure. As the House knows, and the British people know, there is only one nation that wants this war, only one nation that launched this illegal invasion and only one nation that deploys a constant barrage aimed at murdering innocent civilians. We saw that again last night with Russia’s strikes on Kyiv. Indeed, in the last week before last night, Russia had launched over 1,200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukraine, killing children, like seven-year old Amelia, a Polish citizen who was killed alongside her mother by a Russian missile in Ternopil last Wednesday in an attack that took 34 lives in total.

Last night, as a family we celebrated my daughter’s 15th birthday. Later, I saw images on the news of a young girl about the same age being pulled from the rubble of a building in Ukraine, where her mother had just been killed. It is abhorrent—it is beyond belief—yet Ukraine lives that same story every night in its cities and every day on the frontline, where so many Ukrainians are killed fighting for their freedom.

We should not forget that Putin’s aggression, his illegal actions and his total disregard for human life have taken a huge toll on his own people. Thousands of Russian soldiers are killed every single day; 100,000 have been killed attacking Donetsk. In total, more than 1 million Russians have been killed or injured all because of the depraved ambitions of one man. We say again that this country will never falter in our support for the Ukrainian people. We will maintain a unity of purpose with our allies and we will focus on delivering the calm, serious leadership that is needed to advance a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and indeed the whole of Europe.

Let me turn to my broader discussions at the G20. I took the opportunity in South Africa to raise the ongoing and utterly horrifying situation in Sudan. We are working with our partners to break the restrictions on humanitarian aid and demand accountability. We must rally global pressure to stop the slaughter, achieve a sustained ceasefire and ultimately deliver a transition to civilian rule.

In South Africa I also chaired the Global Fund replenishment alongside President Ramaphosa, leading the charge in the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That work has already saved over 70 million lives, yet malaria still kills a child under the age of five nearly every minute, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women still contract HIV every week and TB remains the world’s single deadliest infectious disease, even though we have had a cure for nearly a century. We will keep driving that project forward because it is the right thing to do and because it helps protect the United Kingdom from future pandemics and health emergencies.

A central priority at the G20 was delivering economic security and opportunity, as it is at every international meeting I attend. A strong economy allows us to be strong in the world. Economic security is national security. I can tell the House that we delivered for the British people this weekend, including through deals with South Africa for British firms to upgrade their railways and submarines, a £370 million deal for Rolls-Royce to supply jet engines to Algeria and a £4 billion deal with Indonesia for new ships, delivering 1,000 jobs in Rosyth, Plymouth and Bristol, and, if I may say, delivering another rebuke to all the people who prematurely wrote off British shipbuilding. We can only achieve those things—we can only deliver for the British people—by working with our partners. I think this is a moment to raise our sights.

The House will recall that it was when the global financial crisis struck that the G20 showed its full potential, with my predecessor Gordon Brown marshalling a global response to that crisis to protect the savings and finances of the British people. In this moment of growing fragility and crisis around the world, it is time once again to take a more purposeful, unified approach, focused on global growth and stability. I called for a response based on the right balance of investment and fiscal discipline, open markets, reforming the global trading system and tackling the cost of living crisis. That approach was echoed by the leaders’ declaration from Johannesburg.

I am also pleased to say that the summit confirmed that the UK will take on the presidency of the G20 in 2027—the first time that it has returned to the UK since 2009. It will be a proud moment for our country and part of our work to restore Britain’s international leadership, which was neglected for so long. We will use the presidency to drive the agenda I have been talking about today: to drive growth and opportunity, to create jobs, to cut the cost of living and to fundamentally strengthen the economic security of the British people. That is what we are doing at home and abroad, and I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and our support remains unwavering. Ukraine is battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity in Europe in recent times. We must never forget that the war was started by Putin, who is trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. It is important that we stand together to defend the principle that aggressors should not succeed.

The previous Conservative Government led Europe in support for Ukraine. We were the first country to provide modern, western-made battle tanks and to gift munitions and Storm Shadow missiles. We led the way on sanctions and trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on UK soil. It is now incumbent on this Government to leverage British influence at this crucial time for the west. Putin’s relentless bombardment of Kyiv and KGB-style negotiating tactics show he is not serious about peace, which is why Russia must not be welcomed back into the international fold without a comprehensive peace agreement. Will the Prime Minister rule out support for readmitting Russia to the G7?

We all want this terrible war to end, and as the Prime Minister rightly said, elements of that draft 28-point plan were unacceptable. Conservatives are clear that the blanket surrender of Ukrainian territory would mean rewarding Putin’s unprovoked aggression. What is the Government’s position on reports that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is on the table? If Putin is seen to emerge stronger from these negotiations, all our potential adversaries will be emboldened. Let us be in no doubt, the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to destabilise the west, aided by China, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops for Putin.

It is precisely for these reasons that the Government must continue to work extremely closely with the US and to understand its objectives. Parties such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, who are encouraging us to decouple from the US, are putting their anti-American prejudice above national security. Also, given that in the last fortnight the Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters, and with Russian spy ships pointing lasers at RAF pilots, it is a disgrace that Reform is still blaming NATO for Russia’s aggression, although perhaps it should come as no surprise when its former leader in Wales was sent to prison last week for taking bribes from Putin.

Earlier this year, many countries came together to form the coalition of the willing, pledging to strengthen support for Ukraine. Can the Prime Minister update us on the planning and readiness of the coalition of the willing? What is its scope and terms of mission? What can he tell us about a counter-proposal that is reportedly being submitted by the EU?

To stand with Ukraine, we need to know that we can also stand on our own two feet. Last week, the Commons Defence Committee warned that Britain was unprepared for a major attack and that the Government were making “glacial” progress towards conflict readiness, so it is concerning that reports indicate that the Ministry of Defence faces a potential budget cut this financial year of £2.6 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is true or false? Meanwhile, the EU is reportedly demanding nearly €7 billion for the UK to buy into its defence fund. Conservatives warned that this would happen. At the time the UK-EU reset deal was being negotiated, the shadow Defence Secretary said that Labour had given away 12 years of British fishing rights in exchange for nothing. He was right. Will the Prime Minister rule out paying the EU for access to the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—programme?

It is extremely disappointing that Europe is still buying Russian oil and gas. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline. I believe that the Prime Minister agrees with that sentiment, so what pressure will he put on European countries to stop them buying Russian oil and gas?

The UK’s genuinely world-leading support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to fight back against Russia’s illegal invasion—support that I remind the Prime Minister began under the Conservatives. Let us not forget that, in 2022, Russia thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. So let us wake up and face that threat from Russia. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that we will be boosting our own defence capabilities, as well as using our influence to ensure that secure future for Ukraine?

May I start by thanking the right hon. Lady for her support on Ukraine? It is really important that we stay united in this House. I readily acknowledge the role of the previous Government in leading on Ukraine and in bringing the whole House together on this issue, which they did for a number of years. This allowed us a platform on which to build the support that we are now putting in place.

In relation to membership of the G7 or G8, the focus at the moment is on a ceasefire so anything along those lines is a long way off. We have to remember that Putin is the aggressor here. He is the one who started this war. On territorial integrity, the sovereignty of Ukraine is paramount. That is why any questions about the future of Ukraine must be determined by Ukraine, and that is why I have been speaking frequently to President Trump and President Zelensky. I have spoken to President Zelensky probably five or six times in the last two or three days on a whole range of issues.

May I join the right hon. Lady in her comments about Reform? It is shocking that a senior official, its leader in Wales, has been jailed for over 10 years—a very significant sentence—for pro-Russia bribes. That is extraordinary. That is why I say again that the Reform leadership should have the courage to launch an investigation. How on earth did that happen in their party, and what other links are there? Today, this statement and the questions across the House will reinforce once again that Reform with its pro-Putin approach would have absolutely no role in bringing allies together on important issues across the globe.

The right hon. Lady asks about the coalition of the willing. Nine months ago, President Macron and I brought the coalition of the willing together. There are now 36 like-minded countries that meet and discuss frequently and align our positions and our support. That is a considerable achievement, and we have plans for security guarantees in relation to air, sea and land. On the text of the agreement that is being worked on in Geneva, there was, as she would have expected, an intensive discussion about this at the G20 involving a number of key allies, including the E3+3 and coalition of the willing allies. The strong consensus was that we should work with the text that is in existence—unacceptable though some parts of it are, because other parts are essential—rather than with a different text. That is the process that is going on in Geneva, and I think that is the right approach.

On defence spending, I have made my position clear, and it goes with the strategic review of defence as to how we take that forward. The SAFE negotiations are going on with the EU in the usual way, and one commitment I made in relation to our reset with the EU was that we would do it by quiet diplomacy, rather than by shouting from megaphones across the channel. The right hon. Lady asks about oil and gas, and this is really important. We are taking every opportunity to have extensive discussions to take Russian oil and gas off the market. This has to be done across Europe and beyond Europe, and I have had discussions beyond Europe on this issue. It is vital that we press ahead and we are taking every opportunity to do so.

May I return to where I started? I genuinely think it is important that we in this House are united on Ukraine. The only winner, if we divide on party political grounds, will be Putin. I again recognise the work and the lead that the previous Government took, which I was proud to support in opposition and I am proud to take forward as Prime Minister. I am grateful for the support that we are getting from the Opposition.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

May I begin by complimenting the Prime Minister on his work on the international stage? Is he aware that a statement was put out yesterday by the Chairs of Foreign Affairs Committees of 22 Parliaments across Europe, in which we made it clear that we are united in the belief that Ukraine’s sovereignty is vital not just for brave Ukrainians but for the continued security of Europe? We are therefore pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure the House that any plan that is to be agreed will be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, but can he also assure the House that there will be “nothing about Europe without Europe”?

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I did see that letter that was put out yesterday. She is absolutely right to say that this conflict affects not only Ukraine and its sovereignty but the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, in our values and our security, and materially in relation to things like the cost of living and the price of energy. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about Europe without Europe and nothing about NATO without NATO are key principles that sit behind the work that we are doing.

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. If this is the end game for Putin’s illegal and murderous war, we have one chance to get it right and to safeguard the future of Ukraine and Europe. The stakes could not be higher. Many of us fear that President Trump is gearing up to betray the rights of Ukrainians, who have fought valiantly in the face of war crimes, torture and the abduction of thousands of children. The White House has tried to deny that Trump’s original 28-point plan was a Russian wish list, but that is precisely what it was.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the statement from the Prime Minister that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained. When the Prime Minister speaks with the coalition of the willing this afternoon, will he relay that all major parties in this House agree with him on unequivocally ruling out any proposals that would limit Ukraine’s sovereignty to defend itself now or in the future, including its right to join defence alliances such as NATO? Will the Prime Minister also offer his support and that of the coalition of the willing by joining President Zelensky for any future negotiations with President Trump, so that President Zelensky does not have to suffer the indignity of being bullied by Trump on his own once again and so that Europe can show a strong and united stand?

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to request that Reform UK conducts an investigation into pro-Russian bribes. Will he also commission a second Russia report into Russian interference in our democracy? My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has brought forward a Bill enabling the unilateral seizure of Russian state assets in the UK. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether in his discussions with G20 partners he has secured any progress on plans to seize those frozen Russian assets, and if not, why not?

Will the Prime Minister use his role as the penholder for Sudan to take the lead at the United Nations to secure and enforce a country-wide arms embargo?

Finally, the Prime Minister did not mention China, despite reports that he met the Chinese premier at the G20. The apparent imminent approval of the Chinese super-embassy would be a moment of shame for this Government. Will the Prime Minister block this application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament, or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our communities?

I thank the hon. Member for her support in relation to Ukraine—support which is important. Certainly, I will make a point this afternoon of expressing to the coalition of the willing how united this House is on the key principles. We are, I think, the closest respected and trusted ally of Ukraine, and that is why I have not only spoken intensively and extensively to President Zelensky over many months and years, but I have done so in particular over the past few days—a number of times a day, sometimes—including this morning, to do what we can to guide this into the right place.

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments about Reform. It is extraordinary that, in this Chamber, we are having a debate about a war which Russia has perpetrated on Ukraine, and a senior member of Reform has been convicted of pro-Russian bribes. Interference with democracy is of deep concern. We are having extensive discussions, including at the G20 and elsewhere, about what more can be done on the assets, and we are making progress. It is not straightforward, as she will know, but it is the subject of very extensive discussions to see what more we can do.

On the Chinese premier, let me just be clear: I said hello and shook the hand of the Chinese premier at the G20. We were in the leaders’ lounge together. It would have been a little bizarre and discourteous not to have done so, but we did not actually engage in any substantive discussion. The hon. Member raises the question of the embassy. That is obviously a quasi-judicial decision that will be taken in accordance with those processes.

I call the chair of the Defence Committee.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement updating the House, but let us be under no illusions: President Trump’s originally proposed peace plan is humiliating and unpalatable to the Ukrainians, would be detrimental to our own European security and would reward the invading, annexing aggressor. That is why yesterday the cross-party House of Commons Defence Committee issued a very robust statement calling on the Government urgently to give full moral and practical support in whatever way they could, especially diplomatically, to our Ukrainian friends. Does the Prime Minister agree that at this critical juncture it is imperative that the UK, along with its European allies, shows clear and determined leadership and is actually around the table to negotiate, so that we can be a voice for our Ukrainian friends, because if we are not at the table, we will be on the menu?

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. In relation to the original plan, clearly there were elements that were unacceptable, and that is why I am pleased that progress has now been made in relation to it. I can assure him that we are giving support to President Zelensky and Ukraine at every level, and extensively, as my hon. Friend would expect. He is quite right that part of the reason we can have influence with our allies is that we are present at the international table in a way that we have not been over recent years.

I call the Father of the House.

The Prime Minister has done a pretty good job of getting close to President Trump. Can he convince the tyrant bear that to reward him with land he has already taken would be bad enough, but it would be utterly egregious and appalling to allow him—the ruthless bear—to take land he has not even taken yet, in fortress Donbas? That would make Ukraine utterly defenceless, just as we allowed Czechoslovakia to be utterly defenceless when we forced it to give up the Sudetenland 85 years ago.

I agree with the right hon. Member. The very idea of negotiating land that has not been taken in nearly four years of a conflict and has cost tens of thousands of lives is so obviously unacceptable that it should not be put forward or seen as a serious proposition. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

I once more thank the Prime Minister for his unstinting support for Ukraine, and for saying that nothing can be done for Ukraine without Ukraine. In the last few moments, a media source in the US has reported that Ukraine has agreed to the peace proposal brokered by the Trump Administration. I know the Prime Minister will not have the detail of that, but if that is the case—I know that he is making a statement now—will he come back and give the House the full details of what has been agreed by Ukraine, the US and potentially Russia?

Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if Ukraine has agreed to a proposal that has been brokered by the United States, it must be made acceptable to Russia and that we need to exert every possible pressure on Russia through increased military support, sanctions and the use of frozen assets to make Russia accept a ceasefire?

I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. We will see; I suspect it is the version that emerged from Geneva yesterday that is being talked about, but of course the next step is Russia, and we need to exert every pressure, whether that is capability, the assets, or oil and gas, on which we have been bearing down for a considerable period of time.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Order. I am sorry but that is just not within the rules of the House. I do not expect this from somebody who is so well established here. The right hon. Gentleman may by all means raise a point of order straight after the statement if it relates to the topic, but the rules of the House come first. I call Stella Creasy.

I think we all understand that this is a breaking situation. In such an uncertain world, we know that allyship is integral to our security. The post-war generation created the NHS and NATO because they understood the power of collective solidarity. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about the importance of the Security Action for Europe negotiations, because our work with Europe is not about replacing our relationships with NATO but about strengthening them. Did he raise the SAFE negotiations with the President of the European Commission? This situation reminds us that we must get the European defence industry into a shape in which it can address the threats that we face from Russia. The UK must be part of those conversations.

I can assure my hon. Friend that negotiations are going on in the ordinary way in relation to SAFE and a number of other issues.

I am endeavouring the get the best information I can in relation to what is developing, and I will weave it into an answer if I get anything that will help the House.

And will you come back?

I will certainly come back, but if I am able to update the House as we go along, I will endeavour to do so, so that others can ask questions about it.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that decisions about Ukraine are not taken without Ukraine, and to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty. Yet we know that Russia is trying to use this negotiation to undermine the future security not only of Ukraine but of Europe. In the light of the ongoing negotiations, will the Prime Minister confirm that any future deal will reject Russia’s references to

“ambiguities of the last 30 years”—

code for unravelling NATO back to 1997—and reject attempts to determine which nations may join NATO or where NATO may put its military assets?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because we must always remember that this is about Europe as well as Ukraine. Putin’s ambitions are not limited to Ukraine, as the bordering countries are intensely aware. It is therefore important that we see this for what it is, and act accordingly as European allies.

I appreciate that this is a developing situation, but we know that at least 19,546 children from Ukraine have been stolen by Russia and sent to more than 400 locations across eight time zones. We know that 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subjected to militarisation and indoctrination. We know that 200 military training camps turn Ukrainian children into Russian soldiers. And we know that one in 10 of the Ukrainian children rescued from Russia have reported that they have been sexually abused. Will the Prime Minister remind President Trump that behind every one of those figures is a child? Will he assure the House that any peace plan agreed will deliver the safe return of all the Ukrainian children who have been stolen, and that Russia will be held to account for the war crimes that it continues to commit?

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and all her efforts to keep a constant light on that appalling situation. It is shocking that Russia is treating those children as a weapon of war, kidnapping and subjecting them to all sorts of abuse and ill treatment. We are doing and must do everything we can to safeguard those children and get them back to their families, where they belong.

May I ask the Prime Minister to focus on the question of effective security guarantees? Security guarantees deter aggression only if there is no doubt that the guarantor will act in accordance with the guarantee that he has given. Therefore, if there is a security guarantee to unoccupied Ukraine, it is absolutely essential that the guarantor has some forces on the ground, because otherwise a guarantee to an unoccupied region that is a strategic vacuum can lead to a wider war by miscalculation by the killer in the Kremlin.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. That is why we have done so much work with the coalition of the willing on the capability and planning for land and sea; detailed plans are now as advanced as they can be until we know the next stage of the proceedings. It is also why I have worked so hard with the US to get a US security guarantee going alongside the coalition of the willing, so that the two go together. He will have seen that that is part of the discussion in Geneva, on which we have managed to make some progress.

I join many others here in welcoming the recent progress on the war in Ukraine at the G20, in Geneva and most recently. Putin is continuing to circumvent sanctions via other countries. Will the coalition of the willing work with those other countries, as the Prime Minister has explained will happen, to ensure that that money, which is continuing to fuel the war, is cut off? That will enable a just and lasting peace and the rebuilding of Ukraine.

The question of sanctions is absolutely vital, as is bearing down on any individuals trying to circumvent those sanctions. That is why we put in place the sanctions and the measures behind them. We work with allies to make them enforceable.

I think it is important to begin by stating that those on the far right who parrot the views of Putin, and those on the far left who seek to undermine NATO, are no friends of Ukraine. I was pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s statement his unequivocal approach to responsibility in this regard—he rightly pinned it on one person: Vladimir Putin. The Prime Minister did, however, equivocate in response to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the G8. Kaja Kallas of the European Union was very clear in her comments this morning that Russia cannot be in the G8—she said, “definitely not”. Surely he agrees?

Russia is the aggressor here. Obviously these are questions for the G7 to determine, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the focus is very much on the process at the moment, which is to get a ceasefire and an end to this conflict.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his point about those on the left. The Green party, of course, says that we should pull out of NATO—at a moment like this. It also says that it would make renting out a property—landlords—unlawful, but make selling drugs lawful, outside the school gate. I have to say, I find that a little odd.

Last week in Rochdale, I joined our proud Ukrainian community to mark the Holodomor, which was Stalin’s forced famine of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. There is a modern-day Holodomor going on in Ukraine through the drone strikes and air strikes by Putin’s regime. Does the Prime Minister share my absolute disgust at the treacherous actions of the former leader of Reform in Wales, who lined his own pockets with cash from the Russian regime, and does he agree that Reform UK’s refusal to carry out a full investigation proves that they really are Putin’s poodles?

I agree. This is clearly a really serious case. Any other party would want to investigate to assure itself of how this could happen. This is not a minor transgression; it has now been visited with a 10-year sentence because it undermines our country. Surely the Reform leadership want to know how that happened on their watch, and what other links there are between their party and Russia. No wonder they are Putin-friendly. How on earth could they respond to a situation like this? There is no point in standing up and saying that you support Ukraine if within your own party, you are pro-Russian.

The Prime Minister’s role in marshalling European co-operation is essential and very welcome, but would it not be obscene and unconscionable for any country—indeed, one of the permanent five at the United Nations—to invade its neighbour and murder its citizens, and to get away with it and profit from it, let alone to rejoin the G7? Have we not seen this film before? Do we not know how it ends?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this. That is why it is really important that we make the case for, and ensure that it is, a just and lasting peace—because we have seen this before. We have seen agreements brokered before without security guarantees, with the inevitable result that Putin will go again. That is why, in relation to all the principles I have been operating on, in setting up the coalition of the willing and in all my discussions, it has got to be a just and lasting peace. It has got to be one that actually deters Putin from doing this again, because we know that without that deterrence and those consequences, he has the ambition to go again, and he will go again, and we must guard against that.

I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership on Ukraine. My constituent Roksolana is one of tens of thousands of Ukrainian people with a loved one “missing under special circumstances”. These families do not know whether their loved ones are detained, a prisoner of war or even alive. It is likely that Russia has not notified the International Committee of the Red Cross on the status of thousands more prisoners of war. On behalf of Roksolana and all the Ukrainian families I met this weekend at St Mary’s Ukrainian school who are seeking answers about their loved ones, can the Prime Minister assure this House that the UK will support every effort to ensure that Russia complies with international humanitarian law regarding the treatment and identification of prisoners of war?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this and for her work bearing down on this, in particular the meeting she had at the weekend. This is a really serious issue. We are raising it with our allies. It is further evidence of the total disregard that Russia has for any of the principles of war, even in an unjust war, and we will continue to bear down on it.

Over the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be influential and purposeful at significant times in this crisis, so I thank him for that. While events may be superseding the statement this afternoon, there are some principles that should not change. Aggression must not be rewarded. Violence should not pay. There has always been an alternative to violence. But when the Prime Minister says, rightly, that there should be a “just and lasting peace”, does he recognise that it may be difficult to sell a lasting peace to the people of Ukraine if so-called allies are forcing President Zelensky to accept an encroachment on his sovereign territory, and that those allies should be robustly defending Ukraine, rather than allowing so-called friends to allow the loss of territory?

I thank the right hon. Member and give him my assurance that I am acutely aware of the need for this to be a lasting peace for Ukrainians. A large part of my discussion with President Zelensky is how we bring that about, but I am extremely mindful of the fact that this has to be just and lasting for the Ukrainians, who did not start this war, do not want this war, have suffered hugely under this war and need to be reassured that if there is a peace, it is going to last and they are not going to be subject to the same thing in just a few years’ time.

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to engage our allies in support for Ukraine. Does he agree that resolve, unity and support from the west are vital to give Ukraine the guarantees it needs for a lasting peace? How optimistic is he about the resolve and commitment he will secure from the coalition of the willing later today?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very confident about the assurance from the coalition of the willing, because we have already agreed plans between the countries in the coalition of the willing that are as advanced now as they can be until we know the next stage of the process. Obviously, I want to ensure that that is forged or welded together with US guarantees alongside the coalition of the willing, which will then be the strongest possible guarantee.

The Prime Minister welcomed the inclusion in the 28-point peace plan of security guarantees. Point 10 of the proposed plan says that if Russia invades Ukraine, it would lead to

“a decisive coordinated military response”.

Who would co-ordinate that response, and what does the Prime Minister anticipate would be the UK’s part in it?

Without going into the details, the plans that the coalition of the willing have drawn up are about capability, co-ordination and command structure. A huge amount of military work has gone into exactly how that would operate in practice. These are not simply countries saying, “Here’s some capability that we’re prepared to put on the table,” as it were. They are military plans capable of being put into effect when they are needed.

I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving?

A proposal has been put forward in relation to how the assets could be used. Obviously, that requires a high level of agreement by various interested parties. That is why extensive discussions are going on as to how we can make that progress. There is no pretending that it is simple and straightforward—it is not—but that should not stop us trying to make further progress.

I understand that the order of the day when dealing with Mr Trump is flattery. I am afraid that 42 years of experience in this House have not yet qualified me for that level of sycophancy. The presentation of a Kremlin wish list by the White House as a peace plan is risible, which the Prime Minister indicated rather more elegantly than I have. Will the Prime Minister seriously consider—if necessary, unilaterally—ensuring that legislation goes through so that the frozen Russian assets can be used to support the Ukrainian war effort?

On the assets, I do want to make progress. My strong view is that if we are to make progress, it is better that as many countries as possible act at the same time. That is what we are trying to achieve. If we do that, obviously, we will take whatever steps are necessary. At the moment, my focus is on trying to progress this discussion, which has been difficult and fraught with risk. None the less, there is a willingness, I think, to move forward on it. Other discussions I had in the margins of the G20 were with countries outside of Europe to see whether they will act at the same time along with us if we get that far, because I think it is important to do so.

I am very proud to represent Cardiff West in this place. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was elected to serve the people of Wales in the European Parliament, but as we now know, he served not only himself but the interests of Russia. Having admitted not one, not two, but eight counts of bribery, he is now serving 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. I know the Prime Minister will join me in condemning that treachery, but will he also join me in demanding that the leadership of Reform UK—who, typically, cannot be present here today—launch an independent investigation into this act of treason?

My hon. Friend puts the point very powerfully. It must be uncomfortable for the Reform party to hear this. This is completely undermining our national security. It cannot be right for a political party represented in this House to simply close its eyes and ears to this. There has to be an investigation. There has to be a level of reassurance that there are not other links to Russia within the Reform party, and on how this came about in the first place. His question is very good. It should be deeply uncomfortable for Reform MPs to hear this, knowing that they are sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing about it.

May I remind the House that last year I personally donated a five-figure sum, bought a pick-up truck, filled it with first aid supplies, drove it with friends and colleagues to Ukraine, and donated it to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. My support and Reform’s support for Ukraine has been rock-solid throughout, Prime Minister.

It is important that this House is united, which it is. Last week, when the 28-point plan emerged, we rejected it immediately. Just yesterday, I was with a Ukrainian delegation, and we were talking specifically about the leverage that European nations have with regard to the frozen assets, the majority of which are here in Europe. I urge the Prime Minister, among all the noise, to utilise that leverage, because that, I think, is one of the most powerful negotiating points that the west has against the vile dictator, Putin.

The hon. Gentleman could have said that Reform has seen sense and decided that it will have an investigation into what happened in the bribery case. I do not doubt that he drove that truck and personally committed that support, but the simple fact is that you cannot be pro-Putin and pro-Ukraine; you have to decide between the two, and Reform is pro-Putin—

Rubbish!

Well, a Reform politician has just been convicted and given a 10-year sentence for taking pro-Russian bribes, so the case could not be clearer than that. There is an unwillingness for Reform to say, “We need to investigate how on earth that happened.” Can the hon. Gentleman not see the inconsistency in what he is saying?

It is feared that the brutality in El Fasher will only intensify and spread to Tawila and beyond if international action is not convened and focused on the resolutions that are needed, not least to stop the incursions with drones supplied via the United Arab Emirates and mercenaries. Will the Prime Minister say more about what happened in South Africa to put the necessary focus in place, and about the next steps to stop the expansion of the atrocities we are witnessing in Sudan?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Sudan, because what was an appalling situation has become even more appalling over recent days and weeks. We discussed it pretty extensively at the G20. We support the work of the Quad that is aimed predominantly at a ceasefire, the provision of humanitarian aid—it is the worst humanitarian situation in the world—and bringing about a better resolution.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I do my best to update the House in relation to the latest news about Ukraine? It is coming to me second hand, so if it turns out to be not entirely accurate, I hope that the House will forgive me and I will come back to correct the record. My understanding is that there is not a new agreement, but Ukraine has confirmed that it is happy with the draft that emerged in Geneva yesterday, which does not cover the question of territory. My best understanding is that this is a confirmation of what came out of Geneva, not a new set of proposals or agreements—I think that is what it is—but if I get more information, I will update the House and we can discuss it in due course.

The Prime Minister talks of having extensive discussions about limiting the export of oil and gas from Russia—the engine driving the Russian war machine. Danish waters could offer the key to killing the shadow fleet. An international convention regulating shipping going through those straits would stop the shadow fleet and stop a significant part of its activity supporting Russia. It would also drive environmental support through stronger regulations set out in such a convention. What considerations have the Prime Minister and his colleagues given to this?

We regularly discuss how we deal with the shadow fleet. The Danish authorities do a lot in their waters, as do the authorities in Norway and other countries in the region, and we are looking at what further we can do in relation to the shadow fleet. His underlying point about the oil and gas that are fuelling Russia’s aggression is hugely important. We need to ensure that that oil and gas is taken off the market, and that can only happen if we deal with the shadow fleet, among other things.

I thank the Prime Minister for his continued support of Ukraine. Going back to the announcement about the £4 billion deal with Indonesia at the G20, may I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts in securing that maritime partnership programme for Babcock? It will benefit people in my constituency and secure hundreds of jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership is testament to the skills and experience of the workforce at Rosyth, and will he continue to do everything he can to support shipbuilding in Scotland, and at Rosyth in particular?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Winning such deals, whether they be the Indonesian deal, which we finally concluded while we were at the G20, or the frigate deal with Norway, means competing against others in the world—we competed against France, Germany and the United States for the frigate deal—and that is only possible for us as a country because of the quality of the workforce, their professionalism and their commitment to delivering on time. After the frigate deal with Norway, I went up to the Clyde to see the workforce and to thank them for putting me in a position where we could secure that deal. I would be grateful if he passes those thanks on to his constituents.

Signals matter. Right now, Putin thinks he is getting his own way but, as a point of principle, would the Prime Minister sit around a table if the indicted war criminal Putin was sitting at it?

No, I would not. When I was at the United Nations Security Council last year, I took my first opportunity as Prime Minister to be very clear about where I stand. In that case, it was in relation to the Security Council, but the principle applies elsewhere. Leaders cannot subscribe to international law and the UN charter if they are in breach of it through this illegal war.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work to secure peace in Ukraine and for his very good comments about BAE Systems, which is partially located in my constituency of Glasgow West. Point 24 of the Trump plan indicates that

“all civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.”

The kidnapping of children is heinous and a war crime in and of itself. Surely, as a mark of good faith, Putin should not wait for any agreement on this or other plans, and should release those children immediately. In saying that, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her work over many months on this issue. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that point 26 of that plan, that

“all parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and will agree not to make any future claims or pursue any grievances”,

cannot be tolerated?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both fronts. Of course those children should be released straight away. They should never have been taken in the first place and it is heartbreaking, as well as intolerable, that they are held for a moment longer. As for amnesty, no, I do not agree with amnesty for Putin and others for their illegal acts.

I am deeply concerned that it appears that American negotiators have been listening more to the unreasonable demands of the Russian aggressors than to the security needs of the Ukrainians. Will the Prime Minister assure me that in his conversations with President Trump he has made absolutely clear that the voices of Ukrainians have to be front and centre in securing any just and lasting peace?

I assure the hon. Lady that the principles that I have set out to the House—that matters on the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine—have been the guiding principles in all our discussions and in everything that we have done.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and actions. If we achieve peace, as we all hope, the efforts to rebuild Ukraine cannot be only about infrastructure. They also have to focus on rebuilding people’s lives, from those who have been devastatingly injured or have lost loved ones, to civil society, which has been really tested. What will the UK Government do to ensure that funding and support is in place to allow not only the rebuilding of buildings, but the rebuilding of civil society?

My hon. Friend is right. This will not just be about rebuilding infrastructure; it will be about the rebuilding of society. That is why I was really pleased last year to sign the 100-year agreement we have with Ukraine, which was intended to and does show that this is not just an agreement for the duration of the conflict, but something that goes well beyond the conflict to the lasting relationship that I hope our two countries will have.

I was very pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned Sudan; we cannot be blind to Russia’s malign interest there or across the Sahel. What discussions has he had with Prime Minister Modi about his approach to Russian oil and what appear to be his overly friendly social media posts towards President Putin?

I will not disclose all the details of my discussions, but the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the principles I have set out to the House guide me in all those discussions.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for updating us all—this is obviously a fast-moving situation. Last week, at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we harrowingly heard from our Ukrainian counterparts how 20,000 children have been abducted by Russia since this war began. May I ask him to reiterate that in the just and lasting peace we all seek, they are at the centre of all this? Will he send a clear and immediate message to say, as Pink Floyd might have put it, “Hey, Putin! Leave those kids alone!”?

I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend puts forward; I am not sure I would put it in quite the terms that she does, but the sentiment is shared. This is just shocking—the idea of kidnapping children as an act of war and a weapon of war is just so disgusting, frankly. We should do absolutely everything we can to ensure not only that the children are safe, secure and returned, but that there is full accountability.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but if I may, I will caution him. I understand that the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) are from a single source—an unnamed US official. I think we might be falling into a trap here, which others want us to fall into, of bouncing the Ukrainians ahead of an arbitrary deadline of Thanksgiving day. We need to ensure that officials and all of us are able to verify sources and corroborate them, even if they are reported in the mainstream media and repeated in the United Kingdom.

I believe I am still allowed to ask a question. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of this country and of Ukraine that President Trump’s very bad 28-point plan will not now be replaced by a bad 19-point plan? We all know from history that Ukraine, Europe, the United Kingdom and even our allies, the United States, will rue the day that we roll over for Putin. If we reward the aggressor, history tells us and we know that they come back for more.

My instinct is with the right hon. Gentleman on the breaking news. I spoke to President Zelensky about four hours ago—I have obviously spoken to him extensively, so I have a pretty good sense of where he is at on this matter—and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon.

Will there be another statement?

My instinct is that this probably is not anything of greater significance than what was coming out yesterday. If it is, of course I will make another statement. I spoke to President Zelensky this morning and got a very clear sense of where he is at, and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon. We have the coalition of the willing, and if there is anything, I will of course update the House.

The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) is right to caution, and he is right in the underlying point he makes. We must hold to the principle that matters about the future of Ukraine are for Ukraine. That means that we must engage as extensively as we are doing with the President and the Ukrainians to ensure that, every step of the way, we are taking into account in a practical sense that matters for Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that can happen only if we are talking to them in the way that we are.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown on Ukraine.

Year 6 students from St Margaret Clitherow Catholic primary school in Bracknell have written to me to express their deep concern about the ongoing crisis in Sudan, so I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership at the G20 on this conflict. What message does he have for those students who are concerned about this deep tragedy?

Will my hon. Friend please pass a message back to them to say, “Thank you for raising this”? It is important that they have done so. The fact that they raised it with him means that it has now been raised through him on the Floor of this House, so they are directly inputting into our democracy and accountability. I assure them that we are working with partners to bring about an end to the appalling situation in Sudan. It has been the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world not just in recent days and weeks, but for a very long time—it is simply worse and more intense. Will he reassure the students that we are doing everything we can with partners to bring an end to this awful situation and thank them for their input?

The Prime Minister referred to Putin’s barbaric attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. What discussions has he had with his G20 counterparts about learning from Ukraine’s experience to protect energy supplies and infrastructure from hostile Russian action?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The attacks on energy supplies are intended to inflict damage on civilians in Ukraine, as they do on a regular basis, particularly as we go into the winter. We are doing two things: we are working with the Ukrainians on what more support we can give them to safeguard their energy supplies, and of course with allies we are looking at whether there are any issues we need to address in relation to any vulnerabilities we may have.

I thank the Prime Minister for his updates on the G20 and, in particular, for his commitment to the Global Fund, which we should be really proud of. I was also very pleased to see Sudan referenced in the joint declaration of the G20 leaders—as the Prime Minister has said, it is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, but we are also hearing appalling accounts of war crimes. What more will the Prime Minister now do with global partners to secure a ceasefire, protect civilians and hold the warring parties to account for their crimes?

In particular, the Global Fund is so important—my hon. Friend heard the statistics that I went through. In relation to the wider situation, the focus is very much on a cessation of hostilities and on humanitarian support, which is desperately needed.

Does the Prime Minister agree with many assessments that make it clear that Russia is actually in a far weaker position than President Putin pretends, so long as we continue to support the war effort in Ukraine? That depends on us developing more independent, non-American capability, and the best way to do that is to fund the Ukrainians to develop their own capabilities so that they can continue to defend their own country.

It is important that we make it clear that Russia is in a much weaker position than it pretends. We should always remember that the early briefings and intelligence in relation to this conflict indicated, at the very beginning of the war, that Russia would achieve its end in a matter of a few weeks. Here we are, nearly four years in, and because of the fearless defence of the Ukrainians, supported by others, that has not been the case.

In relation to the damage being done to Russia’s economy by sanctions and other financial issues, we can see that they are doing real damage if we look at the inflation rate and the impact on its economy. The hon. Gentleman’s central point is really important. The plans of the coalition of the willing are premised on Ukraine having the capability that it needs, around which the plans that we have put in place would operate—not as a substitute or an alternative, but based on the Ukrainians having the ability and capability within Ukraine to do what it needs to do to safeguard and self-protect.

Trains, planes and submarines—the Prime Minister put the pride of Derby manufacturing front and centre at this G20. Millions saw him halfway around the world in Johannesburg on a train made in Derby, showing the world what our city is famous for. Will he tell us more about what the deals he has secured mean for my constituents who work at Rolls-Royce and in the rail sector? Will he continue his focus on winning international deals for more high-productivity, high-skills and high-wage jobs?

My hon. Friend is an incredible champion for Derby. It was incredible to be in Johannesburg, sitting in a train that had been made in Derby. It is significant that countries around the world want to do deals with the United Kingdom because of the quality, professionalism and commitment of our workforce, whether they are in Derby in her particular case, or in other places across the country. Those particular trains will be used for the run to the airport and back, so they will be heavily relied upon in South Africa. I am proud that other countries are saying that it is the UK they want to do deals with, whether that is in relation to frigates, submarines or trains. She should be very proud of the workforce in Derby. If she could pass on my thanks to them for allowing us to do this work, I would be grateful.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The draft deal states:

“It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries”.

To say it is “expected” is wholly inadequate, given that we cannot place our trust in the words of leaders such as Vladimir Putin. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that this agreement includes clear, enforceable safeguards? What measures are being implemented to strengthen the UK’s resilience against Russian interference?

On the security guarantees, planning has taken place with the coalition of the willing. That needs to be put together with the US guarantee to ensure that it is not an expectation that Putin does not invade Ukraine again, but that there is an absolutely clear message that if he does, there will be consequences. It is only if that is in place, with strong guarantees and credibility, that we will be able to deter Putin. Without those guarantees, he will, as we have seen in the past, simply breach any agreement that was reached in due course. We need to bear down on Russian interference in our democracy, and we will continue to do so.

My friend the Scottish journalist Jen Stout has just returned from the grey zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, where to try to evacuate the wounded or even to wander outside for a moment is to invite death from the sky by drones. The message she brings back from Ukrainians on the frontline is that they will not give up this territory that they have defended for years. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the message that comes from here—apart from the Lord Haw-Haws paid by Putin—is that their frontline is our frontline, that Ukrainian sovereignty must be respected and that we will stand with Ukraine?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change in the use of drone warfare over the past three to four years has been accelerated and intense, to the point that now, as he reflects, if you are seen, you are dead. That is the effect of drone warfare, and everybody on the frontline understands that. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost defending particular lines, particularly in Donetsk. I will never forget visiting a hospital in Kyiv where I met those who had been burned very badly on the frontline. They were receiving treatment in those hospitals, and it was a poignant reminder of the impact that the war is having on Ukrainians. It is no wonder that they are not going to give that up after so much sacrifice.

What indication was there that Putin would accept even the earlier iteration of this agreement?

I am not able to say, because I have not been involved in any discussions with Putin, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. The main thing is to be clear that the draft was not acceptable in a number of respects, but it did have essential elements that will be required. That is why work is being done to ensure that we get to a place that is acceptable to Ukraine and that can then be used as a basis, I hope, for some sort of negotiated outcome.

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on a just and lasting peace. Does he agree that while it is noble to want the fighting to stop, that can always be achieved in any conflict by giving in to the aggressor’s demands? History shows that that is not peace, but appeasement. Does he further agree that Ukraine must not be forced to give up its territory and long-term security needs, not only for its defence, but because it would weaken the very principles of sovereignty and the rules-based system, endangering us all?

I agree with the principles that my hon. Friend sets out. I assure him that at the meeting of the coalition this afternoon, I will make the point that I always make when we meet: while we are working for peace and trying to put in place security guarantees, we must not let up on keeping Ukraine in the fight now. That would be a big mistake, and I worry that because of the hope of peace, it is always possible that the focus goes off the fact that Ukraine needs support now to stay in the fight. We must never lose that focus.

The Prime Minister’s statement says that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Can the Prime Minister give this House an assurance that when a deal is done to the satisfaction of Ukraine, our preparations for our security and defence against Putin—and he will not give up—will continue.

I can give the hon. Member that reassurance, but we will not wait until there is some agreement in place; we are taking those measures now.

On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Prime Minister on demonstrating UK leadership by supporting the Ukrainian Government and President Zelensky in turning the 28-point peace plan, which very much appears to have been authored by Russia, into a much more acceptable 19-point peace plan, which clearly needs to be built on. Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with the majority of my constituents who contact me, that it is vital that the UK and Europe remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine to achieve a lasting and just peace?

I agree with my hon. Friend and his constituents. We are doing everything we can to ensure that. It is remarkable that through the coalition of the willing, which is mainly European countries but not just European countries—Japan, Canada and Australia were centrally involved in our discussions over the weekend—there has been such a singular purpose in supporting Ukraine.

I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity?

We had a pretty good tone up until now. I am not here waving some piece of paper; I am working with Ukraine and with other countries to try to bring about a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We all want a just and lasting peace, but it will not happen if we do not have negotiations. We have to have those negotiations with clear principles about accountability and with strong security guarantees. The hon. Member is not doing this House a service by undermining a serious effort by international partners to bring about a just and lasting peace. It is very easy to speak in this House; it is much harder in practice to negotiate an end to a conflict on just grounds. We will do so, as we have done from beginning to end—and as the last Government did, in all fairness—by being clear that we are the closest ally of Ukraine and the most supportive country. I am proud that that is the approach we have taken in this House.

The Prime Minister rightly said in his statement that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Those efforts were aided and abetted by Reform’s Nathan Gill when he took Russian bribes. He is a traitor to this country. How plausible does the Prime Minister think it is for that just to have been an isolated incident? Does he think that Reform’s refusal to investigate its own party and find out how many more Putin puppets and traitors lurk there tells its own story?

The way I would put it is this: if the leadership of Reform were confident that there are no other pro-Russia activities and links in their party, they would surely want to have the investigation. The very fact that they will not look at this tells me that they are not confident of that, and they do not want any of us to know about it.

Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he will oppose any peace deal that rewards Russia for its aggression, whether that means carving up Ukraine’s territory or allowing Russia to join the G7? If Putin gets what he wants, this will never end.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that we will absolutely fight for a just outcome and a lasting outcome. He can tell his constituents that we are working very, very closely with the Ukrainians on this, as we always have, and supporting them for as long as they may need that support.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, and for his continued leadership on a global scale, particularly in respect of Ukraine. I also welcome what he said about the investment that the Government will put into the Global Fund, because I recognise the importance of tackling HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. However, may I put in a personal plea for my constituent Anne Strike, a Paralympian and a polio victim, and ask that we continue to lead on the world stage in the eradication of polio? We are so close, but global conflicts such the one in Ukraine will obviously lead to more instances of polio in the future.

My hon. Friend is a proud champion for Harlow, and I am pleased that he has raised polio in that context, linking it to his constituency. We must not lose sight of the devastating impact of polio, HIV/AIDS and TB. They are having a devastating effect across the globe, and they will be a threat to us as well if we do not act.

I, too, thank the Prime Minister for reaffirming his commitment to the Global Fund. I secured a Backbench Business debate about the fund last week, so we really do appreciate that.

The Army Training Regiment Winchester trains about 20% of new recruits, putting them through basic training. I was there last week to see the passing-out parade. However, it is scheduled to close next summer, and the replacement facility at Pirbright is not due to open until 2030 at the earliest, although we have heard that the opening will be delayed. Will the Prime Minister review that decision? A four-year gap between one facility closing and another opening, at a time when we are rightly trying to increase troop numbers, does not really make sense to anyone.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I do not have the details to hand, but I will ensure that I provide a full response in writing to the point he has raised.

Many of the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency have welcomed the continuity between the last Government and the current Government in respect of their support for Ukraine. President Zelensky is under great pressure from some within the American Administration to accept an unreasonable deal. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will give his commitment to the President of Ukraine to ensure that he does not have to give in to the unreasonable demands for land surrender, for a restriction of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in future, and for Russia not to pay for the crimes that it has committed in Ukraine? That is important for Ukraine, but it is also important to send Russia the message that we will not reward the aggressor.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I can give him that reassurance. That is why we are working as closely as we are with the Ukrainians, particularly with the President but at all levels.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the host of a Ukrainian.

Given the growing instability around the world and the absence of the US President from both the G20 summit and COP30, how will the Prime Minister use the close relationship between the UK and America to ensure that Trump does not undermine the ability of global partnerships and agencies to keep us all safe from all types of problems in the future?

It is very important that we make the case for multilateral work across the globe, whether it is done by the G20 or by COP30. We will constantly make that case, because it is important for a rules-based system throughout the world—of which the United Nations is one part and the principles of war are another—but it is also in our own interests as the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister has told the House today that he and the United Kingdom will never falter in support of Ukraine. Does that mean that the United Kingdom is not part of the pressure on Ukraine to concede territory that is already occupied? How could the ceding of territory be anything other than the rewarding of aggression and the whetting of the appetite of the aggressor?

The approach that we have taken is based on the principles that I have set out to the House, and is absolutely rooted in what the Ukrainians want out of this. That is why we are speaking to and working with them so extensively in relation to these negotiations. All matters involving the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that is the guiding principle in everything that I have been doing.

I was pleased to see that Sudan was included in the G20 consensus. Will the Prime Minister set out what that will look like in practice, given that the atrocities of El Fasher seem likely to be repeated in Kordofan? What protections will be in place for the safe passage of civilians and humanitarian workers, what will be done about the assistance funding gap, and, importantly, what conversations are taking place with or about states that are said to be funding the belligerents and keeping the war going, including the United Arab Emirates?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can reassure her that we are having extensive conversations with the Quad, which is driving this forward, on all fronts but most immediately about the humanitarian situation, and we will keep the House updated.

I thank the Prime Minister for all that he does for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, indeed, for the western world. It is appreciated by many.

There is a plan that we all hope can end the war in Ukraine and stop the devastation and the killings. Our eyes are focused on that plan. I think of the innocents killed, the women and children targeted, and the massacres carried out by Russians. I think of the children as young as eight and women as old as 80 who have been raped by Russian monsters, and of the massacres in Bakhmut, where more than 200 people were found in a mass grave. And there is more: we can watch video of Russian soldiers torturing people and murdering people. I suggest that whatever peace will bring, it must ensure that the Russians who have carried out those terrible crimes are held accountable, so can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be retribution? As a Christian, I know that there will be retribution in the next world, but what I want to see is retribution in this world, and eternal damnation for the rest of their lives.

That may have been the last question, but it is a very important one, given the atrocities and the impact that this has had on all Ukrainians. I remember, in the early days of the conflict, seeing the images of civilians handcuffed and shot in the head, lying in the streets just outside Kyiv. It was shocking. I went to visit those communities when I was over there, and talked to the individuals. It was their brothers, their sisters, their families and their colleagues who had had their hands tied and been shot in the head, and it fell to them to pick the bodies up, put them in shopping trolleys, wheel them to their church, and try to give them the best burial they could in the circumstances. We should never lose sight of the human impact that these atrocities have, not only on those individuals but on all of us, myself included.