UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • George Barnes – 1921 Speech on the Irish Free State

    George Barnes – 1921 Speech on the Irish Free State

    The speech made by George Barnes, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Gorbals, in the House of Commons on 14 December 1921.

    I rise to second the Motion which has been so well and ably put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), and in so doing I need scarcely say that I esteem it a great honour to be called upon to play a small part in the proceedings of this day which I venture to predict will become memorable in our annals. We are called upon to-day to do our part towards ending an age-long controversy which has embittered and poisoned the political life and relations of two countries. We are called upon to-day to offer appeasement both to Ireland and to Great Britain. My hon. and gallant Friend has just said that the efforts to settle the Irish problem have been the undoing of some of our greatest statesmen. Irishmen have been misunderstood by us and we have been continually misunderstood by Irishmen. Ireland has remained an enigma, a weakness and a menace. But to His Majesty the King there came the great good fortune of beginning a new move for peace. His Majesty appealed to the better nature of both sides for forgiveness and forgetfulness of an evil past. He appealed to both sides to get together, to reason together in a spirit of good will, and I venture to say that that appeal has already brought us further on the road to peace and reconciliation than any of the efforts of great statesmen in the past; for the simple reason that it touched the heart. Therefore, in thanking His Majesty the King for the Gracious Speech which has been read to us to-day, we thank him none the less heartily, but rather all the more heartily, for the speech which he made at Belfast, because that speech liberated the kindly feeling on both sides which has brought us together to-day to back up His Majesty’s new effort.

    It seems to me the first thing we have to do is to banish rancour from our minds and to approach the question before us in the same spirit as it was approached in that Belfast Speech; to make up our minds as far as we can that Irishmen and Britishers will in future live on terms of amity in the same way as we are living in amity with the peoples of Canada and Australia and of other overseas Dominions. We are here, I fervently hope, on the eve of a settlement of what has ceased to be a mere Irish question, but has become a world-wide problem, because there is not only one Ireland but there are many Irelands. Irishmen, like Scotchmen, have spread themselves over the whole habitable globe; indeed they may be the meek who are destined, according to Holy Writ, to inherit the earth. Whether that be so or not we know that Irishmen have found a home in every land. There is now, therefore, not only an Irish question so far as it used to be regarded, but we have an American Ireland, we have an Australian Ireland, and we have other Irelands, one of which is included within the confines of our own shores. In the City of Glasgow, a part of which I have the honour to represent in this House, it is said that one-fifth of the population is Irish either by origin, by birth or by descent. We have no quarrel with them. We have no quarrel with the Irishmen who are to be found in all the great cities throughout the length and breadth of this country. On the contrary, they join with us in all our activities; they are not only with us but they are of us, because their blood is commingled with our blood, and in these days they are part of the British stock and we to a large extent are part of them.

    Therefore for us—in this House or elsewhere—to pass any law or do anything which would make them aliens, which would alienate them, would be to cut away from us that which may became vital both to them and to us. We cannot longer deny, consistently with our professions of democratic Government, consistently with our representative institutions, the right of Irishmen to live in their own country in their own way, and under their own form of Government. We cannot withhold from them the right to manage their own affairs, a right for which they have so long fought. I venture, to say that that is the principle which lies at the bottom of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is the principle which has been progressively applied to the Dominions overseas until now without conflict or ill-will, they have come to have, and in fact have, absolutely free hands so far as their own internal affairs are concerned. As to the method by which the principle is to be applied in the document now under review, that is a matter which I am not called upon to go into at present, except on general terms. But I may say here that for my part I honestly confess I do not like the creation of new armies and navies. Their multiplication has been one of the tragedies of the past War. Just as honestly I confess I do not like the bare possibility of tariffs being imposed on trade between this country and Ireland. But these things have been thrashed out by those whose business it was to thrash them out. Certain conclusions have been reached, and those conclusions satisfy the requirements of the Admiralty. They leave Ulster free to remain out if she wishes to remain out, but free also to come in, when time has healed old sores and brought forgetfulness of old feuds.

    Those, to my mind, are the main principles of the agreement that has been reached. Ireland becomes a free State within the Empire entitled to make her own laws and to enforce them. Ireland becomes entitled to the protection of the British Commonwealth and at the same time is expected to be ready to yield her quota to the protection of other parts of the British Empire. The position of the British Dominions overseas and their relation to the Mother Country is, I suppose, one of the paradoxes of Government. They are free, each and every one of them, to go their own way, and yet they are tied by ties of sentiment and common interests and common protection, and it has been found that those common ties of sentiment, of interest, and of protection are stronger than any mechanical ties ever were or probably ever will be. Yet those Dominions have evolved quite naturally as the result of the progressive application of the principle of democratic freedom, the principle upon which, as I have said, the Empire is based. They have reached the stage which others will reach in due fulfilment of destiny. Ireland, with the exception of Ulster, has now become one of the free Dominions, and Ulster, as I think, is entirely a matter for Irishmen themselves, and not for us.

    I hope and believe that this agreement will be ratified by Southern Ireland, and I say so for several reasons. In the first place, and in spite of what has been said within this last day or two in regard to an assumed analogy between this settlement and the, Peace Treaty so far as America was concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that this settlement ought to be ratified, because it bears the signatures of those whom we have been led to believe were the accredited representatives of their country. The agreement was drawn up on that basis, we were told by Mr. de Valera only some two months ago that the men who were here in London were the trusted representatives of a united nation. Therefore, the agreement has been drawn up on that basis, and, that being so, it seems to me that the honour of Ireland is really at stake. In the second place, I think this agreement should be ratified because it does meet and more than meet the aspirations of those Irishmen who have pleaded in this House eloquently and long for the removal of the barriers to the self-expression of their fellow-countrymen. I have heard the late Mr. Redmond and I have read others before him, and I have no hesitation in saying that this agreement goes far beyond anything that has been asked for by any representative Irishman in this House before. Thirdly, I would commend it, because it has the approval of all the political parties in this House. It is not a Party settlement except that the Prime Minister’s good fortune has been to have been in the right place at the right time and to have gathered up and mobilised forces from all political parties. Apart from that, it might be said to be the offer of the nation, tired of fighting and perhaps a little ashamed of its last century’s record.

    This agreement is endorsed by all the political parties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who is the lineal descendant of Mr. Gladstone in this House and the honoured custodian of the Gladstonian tradition, has given it his blessing. The Labour party, which has always stood for Home Rule for Ireland, has claimed it as its own, and, as my hon. Friend who last spoke has reminded us, the Conservatives in the Government have courageously and loyally faced new needs based upon new facts and have accepted the situation. Therefore, it seems to me that there is every probability that there will be no acrimony or discussions of a violent character after this agreement goes through, but, on the other hand, that there is every prospect of good will in its going through. There has been danger sometimes of the Mover or Seconder of the Address to the Throne getting over the border line and saying something which offends the susceptibilities of political parties. To-day there is no such danger, because all political parties are in favour of a settlement.

    Lastly, I commend this agreement to all concerned because it corresponds with the pledges given in the Manifesto three years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: “No!”] Well, let me put my point. In the Manifesto issued three years ago by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of that time, and upon which the much-talked-of coupon was based, certain statements were made, and amongst them was that if returned again to office the Government was pledged to explore every possible avenue of peace with Ireland on the basis of self-government, with two reservations only, those being the non-separation of Ireland and the non-coercion of Ulster. That statement will be found in the Manifesto. I have it here, but it is not necessary for me to read it. The settlement to which the King’s Speech has led us, and which today we are called upon to endorse, in my humble judgement, fulfils those conditions.

    It is true, as my hon. Friend said a little while ago, that it has been reached only after long guerilla warfare, and that it has been reached only after loss of life under distressing and aggravating circumstances. Let me say further that in my judgement, at all events, it is true that its endorsement means some degree of self-mortification on our part and forgetfulness of recent history, but the mortification and forgetfulness are not expected of one side alone. They are expected of both sides. To my mind, the cardinal virtue of the King’s Speech at Belfast was that it appealed to both sides to forgive and forget the past, and, having regard to that speech and the great spirit underlying it, it is inconceivable to me that either side should now refuse the hand of friendship and again revert to barbarism. There is one aspect of it that might he mentioned, and from which, I think, a lesson might be learned. There is in several respects a similarity between our position to-day and that of the United States of America in 1860. The year before Lincoln had been elected upon the principle of non-separation of the Southern States, just as our Prime Minister was elected three years ago on the principle, among other matters, of non-separation of Ireland. Lincoln, in 1860, made an eloquent appeal for peace, but he failed. Addressing the American people, in his first inaugural address, he said:

    “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not be allowed to break our bonds of affection.”

    Yet passion did break the bonds and brought, four years of dreadful devastating war, and then there was no separation, because separation, as Lincoln truly said, was impossible. Neither can there be separation between this country and Ireland. Let all of us banish it from our minds. Separation is even less practicable now than it was then, because since 1860 science has bridged the seas and brought nations more into inter-dependent life. Therefore, Ireland to-day is nearer to us in a physical as well as a spiritual sense. She is part of our life and we of hers. Let us, bearing those great facts in mind, accept this great opportunity of peace and appeasement between the two countries. Let us see that, so far as we can make it so, Ireland and Britain shall march forward together as friends and neighbours in the future, separate as regards their internal Government, but indivisible in spirit as separate parts only of a great family of free nations.

  • Samuel Hoare – 1921 Speech on the Irish Free State

    Samuel Hoare – 1921 Speech on the Irish Free State

    The speech made by Samuel Hoare, the Conservative MP for Chelsea, in the House of Commons on 14 December 1921.

    Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

    Having taken into consideration the Articles of Agreement presented to us by Your Majesty’s Command, we are ready to confirm and ratify these Articles in order that the same may be established for ever by the mutual consent of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland, and we offer to Your Majesty our humble congratulations on the near accomplishment of that work of reconciliation to which Your Majesty has so largely contributed.”

    It has been the custom of this House for many years past to entrust the duty of moving the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne to some Member who has seldom, if ever, addressed it. It is a very good custom, for, with most of us, the less we speak, the more likely the House is to give us a kind hearing and extend to us its indulgence when chiefly we need it. I am afraid that I cannot urge this merit of past silence upon my colleagues. I cannot claim from them the indulgence that is always given to a first offender. I am afraid that I am a hardened criminal, and, as a hardened criminal, I must simply appeal to the mercy of the judge and the jury. They must forget and forgive my past speeches, and grant me a kind hearing for this sole reason: The Session that is opening to-day is unique in the annals of Parliament, and the Address that I am moving differs both in the intensity of feeling it excites, and in the general body of support it commands, from any previous reply that has ever been moved on the Floor of this House.

    Let me, at any rate, begin my speech upon a field of universal agreement. Since the House adjourned, two events of outstanding importance have taken place, not only in the annals of the Royal family, but in the history of the British Empire—the landing of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in India, and the betrothal of Princess Mary to Lord Lascelles. As we mark the continued successes of the Imperial tours of the Prince of Wales—successes in no way impaired by the efforts of despairing agitators—and as we note the general outburst of affection that has greeted the news of Princess Mary’s engagement, we ought to offer our dutiful congratulations to their Majesties, and to assure the King that, if any further proof were needed to justify a hereditary monarchy, the hereditary charm and talent of his son and daughter would make converts of even the most bigoted Republicans.

    The Gracious Speech from the Throne concentrates the attention of the House upon one question, and one question alone—”the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland.” “The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland”—that is the title of the Paper we have in our hands to-day. What a chequered and tragic history, what hopes and fears, what trials, what a long array of great names have gone to make the Treaty that we are to ratify to-day! Strongbow, Strafford, Cromwell, Gladstone, Pitt, Grattan, O’Connell, Parnell, generation after generation—[HON. MEMBERS: “Redmond!” and “Butt!”]—and Redmond—generation after generation, the great figures of our political history have all had their hand in the work that we are asked to approve to-day. There were some of them who believed, in the sincerity of their hearts, that they could settle Ireland by the sword. It has been left to the British Monarchy, in the person of his Majesty the King, to point a better and surer way to settlement. His Majesty’s Gracious Speech at Belfast was the turning point in the crisis. His Majesty’s Speech to-day asks us to gather the fruits that were sown there. Let the Irish people mark the part that the King has played in this settlement. Let them know the value of the British Monarchy. I remember the year 1916, when I was in charge of our military intelligence in Russia, that I met a Finnish agent who came to give me news of Casement’s doings in Germany. He described to me the efforts Casement had made to induce the Irish prisoners in their internment camp near Berlin to join the Irish Brigade of the German Army. How did those Irish Nationalists respond to Casement’s invitation? They drowned his voice by singing “God Save the King.” A race nurtured in these ancient traditions will not be slow to respond to the invitation of His Majesty the King. May we not hope that, with Irish peace established, the Royal influence in Ireland will be still further strengthened by a Royal residence beyond St. George’s Channel?

    Let the House throw its mind back to the moment, six months ago, when His Majesty intervened with such telling effect upon the side of peace. Six months ago there was in Ireland a peace that was not a peace and a war that was not a war. Day after day there were events of grim tragedy. Brave men who had withstood the dangers of the Great War were being daily killed and wounded. [An HON. MEMBER: “Murdered!”] A terrible guerilla struggle was proceeding, and the tragedy was all the greater from the fact that although its blood was being shed, and although terror was gripping the land by the throat, the great body of British people in their inner hearts wished to live at peace with their Irish neighbours. There was the Irish tragedy! A terrible war in progress; a great body of British people here wishing to live in peace with their Irish neighbours, yet caught in a vice that seemed to make it almost impossible to escape from the orgy of battle, murder and sudden death.

    The real tragedies of history are not the battles between right and wrong, where the issue is clear and the merits of the question undisputed; it is when there is right on both sides that the real tragedies of history are enacted. Such a tragedy was the Irish tragedy. On the one hand the passionate desire of the Irish Nationalists to rebuild the Irish nation; on the other hand the stubborn determination of the forces of the Crown to restore law and order; and behind those two ideals a background set in 800 years of mutual misunderstanding. We might have allowed the tragedy to proceed to its inevitable end. We might have attempted a military solution. No one can deny that had we attempted a military solution the armed forces of the Crown would have carried out the task. The Army and Navy that beat the German Empire would certainly have been victorious. What then? The Irish problem is not a military problem. A military solution could not touch it. If we had killed every Sinn Feiner in Ireland, if we had burned every city in the South and West, if we had laid waste the land, should we have been a day nearer to Irish peace?

    We know something of war in this country. There are 5,000,000 of men who went through it three years ago. Does any one of those 5,000,000 men, who weighs the consequences, wish to embark upon a terrible war with his Irish fellow-citizens? In spite of this repugnance, in spite of the general desire for peace, there might have been war. With a quarrel whose roots have sunk so deep and whose poison is spread so wide that it seemed almost impossible to wrench up by the roots the deadly plant. The Prime Minister and his colleagues made the attempt, and we are here to-day to ratify their work. Is it a British surrender this Treaty of Peace that we are discussing to-day? Certainly Mr. de Valera and his “die-hards” in Dublin do not regard it as a British surrender. The British Empire does not surrender to anyone. Our power is so strong, our might so unquestioned, that no one can say that we surrender to anybody. We are so strong that we can make big and generous concessions such as no small and weak country would dare to make. We are making a peace with Ireland, not because we have to make a peace, but because we wish to make a peace. We wish to be the friends, not the enemies, of Ireland. We wish to make our friendship permanent and secure. When the British people make up their minds they do not higgle about details. The British people are a very generous people, and because we are a generous people we say to our former enemies: “Come in and take your part in the British Commonwealth as full partners.” We ask Ireland to take her place as a peer at the Round Table of the Empire’s governors. Not only do we make the invitation. It is an invitation from every one of the great self-governing Dominions of the British Empire.

    Not so many years ago we made a similar offer to our former enemies in South Africa. Do we regret the offer we made to our former enemies? Do they regret the agreement they made with their new friends? Ireland, however, is not as the other Dominions. Ireland is a mother country. When Europe was plunged in darkness Irish learning flooded every corner of the Continent. Ireland has her citizens beyond the seas, a company of colonists greater than any possessed by practically every great country except our own. Ireland can bring to the service of the Empire a wealth of history and tradition and foreign influence such as is not possessed by any of the Dominions. More than that, she can bring to the service of the Irish Free State a unique wealth of political experience. No Parliament has passed, but there has been in our Debates here some Irish leader of outstanding.

    For a century, from the Irish Benches on this side of the House and on the other, there has arisen a long and unbroken line of great Parliamentary leaders. Henceforth the scene of the triumph of Irish statesmen will be transferred from the sterile deserts of opposition in this House to the fertile field of reconstruction in Ireland. We are taking to-day a long step forward upon the path of peace. We are thankful that we are on the right road. We must not, however, forget the many boulders that have been placed across our steps by past convulsions. The controversy of eight centuries cannot be ended by a Resolution of this House. A battle that has stirred the blood of generations of Englishmen and Irishmen cannot suddenly be stayed by the signature of any political leader.

    The Irish Free State has before it a most difficult task—the consolidation of a new, and stable government after centuries of agitation and unrest. Even to-day the first engagement in this struggle is being fought in Dublin. The wreckers of Dublin are attacking the peace. Let us in this House not make more difficult the task of the men of good will. For the first time in modern history Irishmen are to have the full responsibility of governing themselves. Let them show in the service of their own Government the political genius and courage they have shown overseas, and particularly let them show their political courage and genius in their dealings with their fellow Irishmen. If the Treaty is to succeed, the Government of the Irish Free State must at the very outset recognise the solid fact of Irish disunion, and if Ireland is to take the place that is due to it in the world this disunion must be closed and a reconciliation reached between the North and the South. Reconciliation cannot be brought about by Act of Parliament. Reconciliation is the work of the spirit, not of the letter of any statute. The Government of the Irish Free State must give its mind to the great work of reconciliation. Its leaders have made a wise beginning by their offer of fair play to the Southern Unionists. Let this be a good omen for the greater peace between North and South.

    As for Ulster, Ulster is free to choose the path that she desires to take. I have great confidence in the political wisdom of Sir James Craig, and I am glad to see that, in his own words, he is

    “not dissatisfied at the moment with the outlook.”

    I have confidence in the solid sense of the men of the North. They must make their choice. If now or hereafter they find themselves able to join the Irish Free State, how great will be our satisfaction! They will take to the service of a united Ireland their stubborn character, their business talent, their political courage and their burning patriotism. How eagerly we hope that these priceless qualities will not be lost to the new Irish State.

    The Conservative party has not always found itself behind the Prime Minister. He would be the first to admit it and the last to resent it. But to-day I venture to say to him from this bench what I believe is in the minds of many other Conservatives. By his resourcefulness, by his energy, by his intuition, he has succeeded where the greatest names in our political history have failed. We offer him our thanks and congratulations for the part that he has played at a critical moment of the Empire’s history. As a Conservative I welcome from the bottom of my heart the hope for reconciliation between English Conservatives and a people that reverences history, tradition and religion.
    As a Unionist I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the brave and honest part that he and the Lord Chancellor have played in these difficult negotiations. The union that we have honestly tried to maintain is being transmuted into a union of purer essence. As a party we have played no dishonourable part in Irish affairs. We may have made mistakes, but who in Irish politics has not made mistakes? If we have fought for a lost cause, that cause has not been lost through any fault of our own. We have had our policy, and who shall say that it was not honourably and successfully carried out by men like the Lord President of the Council, like George Wyndham, and like Lord Long? Having done our best I ask my Conservative colleagues to throw their weight into the scale of peace. Is it too much to hope that the Address will be voted without controversy, and that the treaty between England and Ireland will mark, not only the end of a long feud between two great peoples, but the beginning of that new world for which we fought through the long years of the great and terrible War?

  • King George V – 1921 Statement in the House of Lords on the Irish Free State

    King George V – 1921 Statement in the House of Lords on the Irish Free State

    The statement made by King George V in the House of Lords on 14 December 1921.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I have summoned you to meet at this unusual time in order that the Articles of Agreement which have been signed by My Ministers and the Irish Delegation may be at once submitted for your approval.

    No other business will be brought before you in the present Session.

    It was with heartfelt joy that I learnt of the Agreement reached after negotiations protracted for many months and affecting the welfare not only of Ireland, but of the British and Irish races throughout the world.

    It is my earnest hope that by the Articles of Agreement now submitted to you the strife of centuries may be ended, and that Ireland, as a free partner in the Commonwealth of Nations forming the British Empire, will secure the fulfilment of her national ideals.

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Comments on Hosting G7

    Liz Truss – 2021 Comments on Hosting G7

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 11 December 2021.

    This weekend the world’s most influential democracies will take a stand against aggressors who seek to undermine liberty and send a clear message that we are a united front.

    I want G7 countries to deepen ties in areas like trade, investment, technology and security so we can defend and advance freedom and democracy across the world. I will be pushing that point over the next few days.

  • Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on UK Troops Assisting Poland

    Ben Wallace – 2021 Statement on UK Troops Assisting Poland

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2021.

    I am today informing the House of the deployment of UK military personnel to Poland to provide assistance to the Polish armed forces.

    For a number of months Poland, along with their Baltic neighbours Latvia and Lithuania, have been under significant pressure from irregular migration originating across their border with Belarus, and facilitated by the Lukashenko regime. Poland has every right to protect its borders within international law in the face of an unprecedented and volatile situation. The UK is committed to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our close allies as part of our commitment to European security.

    For this reason, the UK is deploying a squadron of Royal Engineers, along with associated support elements, to Poland in order to support Polish troops with specific engineering tasks. This follows the deployment on 11 November 2021 of an initial engineer reconnaissance element. This is not a combat deployment.

    This engineer squadron will be in addition to, but separate from, the 150 UK personnel based in Poland since 2017 as part of the US-led multinational battlegroup under NATO’s enhanced forward presence. The engineering personnel will be deploying on a bilateral basis, as UK national activity in support of a close ally. They are not deploying as part of a NATO response or operation and will not be under NATO command or control. The engineers are planned to be deployed until the end of April 2022.

  • Vicky Ford – 2021 Statement on Ukraine

    Vicky Ford – 2021 Statement on Ukraine

    The statement made by Vicky Ford, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2021.

    I thank my hon. Friend for the close interest that he takes in foreign affairs. We are deeply concerned by Russia’s pattern of military build-ups in and around Ukraine, and we are closely monitoring the situation. The UK is very clear: any military incursion by Russia into Ukraine would be a strategic mistake, and the Russian Government should expect significant strategic consequences. The cost of an incursion would be catastrophically high.

    At the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Riga last week, and at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Ministerial Council, the Foreign Secretary, alongside our allies, made crystal clear our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Foreign Secretary repeated that support bilaterally to her Ukrainian counterpart last Wednesday, 1 December, and to her Russian counterpart on Thursday 2 December. The Prime Minister has also spoken to President Zelensky on a number of occasions, to reiterate the UK’s support. He raised the issue of Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine directly with President Putin when they spoke ahead of COP26.

    Our vocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is backed by our actions. The Foreign Secretary will host Foreign Minister Kuleba in London tomorrow for the first UK-Ukraine strategic dialogue. Diplomatically, we operate at the heart of the international community’s efforts. Hon. Members will be aware that President Biden is meeting President Putin later today. Yesterday, our Prime Minister met President Biden, and the leaders of France, Germany, and Italy, to ensure that a joint message will be given to President Putin. We have also helped to frame international sanctions against Russia, deepened NATO’s partnership with Ukraine, and led efforts in the UN and OSCE to hold Russia to account.

    Militarily, we are providing defensive military support, primarily through Operation Orbital, the UK’s training mission to Ukraine, and since it launched in 2015 we have trained more than 20,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces. The UK is one of the largest contributors to the OSCE special monitoring mission to Ukraine, and that is playing a critical role in providing impartial reporting on the situation on the ground in eastern Ukraine. Earlier this year, we reaffirmed our commitment to that in the integrated review.

    Last year alone, we allocated £40 million in official development assistance and other funding in support of programmes that support prosperity, resilience and stability in Ukraine. We have also deepened our bilateral ties with Ukraine, in particular through our political free trade and strategic partnership agreement. In conclusion, the UK is unwavering in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its territorial integrity, including of its territorial waters, within its internationally recognised borders. Russia should uphold the OSCE principles and commitments that it freely signed up to, which it is violating through its ongoing aggression against Ukraine.

    Mr Speaker

    Can we try to stick to the time that is allocated in future, please? Minister, are you listening?

    Vicky Ford indicated assent.

    Bob Seely

    We may be weeks away from a major war in eastern Europe. First, will the Government confirm that the 1994 Budapest memorandum commits the UK and others to respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity? What do the Government believe those treaty obligations amount to? Secondly, does the Minister agree that the tools for preventing war are few, but one of them is an insistence that Nord Stream 2 does not go ahead, and an insistence that gas continues to flow through Ukraine and, indeed, Poland? Do the Government understand that the potential to cut Russia out of the SWIFT international payments system, Iran-style, may amount to a devastating economic blow? In the case of war, is the UK prepared for Russian actions in cyber and espionage, aimed at the UK, and in the UK?

    Finally, regardless of whether Russia invades this month or this year, do the Government accept the assessment that Putin will probably try to achieve three things in his last decade in power—first, dismembering Ukraine, whose borders, as he said this summer, he no longer respects; secondly, shattering the unity of NATO; and thirdly, cementing Russia’s identity as a state opposed and viscerally hostile to the west, rather than allied with it? What can the Government do in the long term to militate against these dangerous outcomes?

    Vicky Ford

    My hon. Friend raises a lot of questions. The UK position on Nord Stream 2 has not changed. We have repeatedly aired our concerns about the construction of Nord Stream 2, which would undermine European security by allowing Russia to tighten its grip on those nations that rely on its gas. Nord Stream 2 would divert supplies away from Ukraine, and the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine is regarded as a deterrent against further Russian aggression, so it is a vital part of Ukraine’s national security.

    We have already put in place a number of sanctions against those responsible for the illegal annexation of Crimea. We are co-ordinating with international partners, but as my hon. Friend knows, we never speculate about future sanctions, because to do so would undermine their effectiveness.

    Let us be very clear: we stand by Ukraine, and we are considering an extension of purely defensive support to Ukraine to help it defend itself. Putin needs to de-escalate now and return to diplomatic channels.

    Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)

    I welcome the Minister’s comments. It is important at moments such as these that we send the united message from all sides of this House that the UK is resolute in our support for the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Ukrainians want a democratic future; they want to choose their own path and their own political destiny.

    It is essential that, alongside our NATO allies, we make it crystal clear to the Russian Government that any attempt to further undermine Ukraine’s integrity will be met with a strong, consistent and resolute response. We welcome the diplomatic steps that have been taken already, and recognise the importance of the forthcoming dialogue between President Biden and President Putin.

    With that in mind, what reassurance are we providing to NATO allies in eastern Europe? Does the Minister believe that this is part of a wider pattern of dangerous behaviour by Russia, with tensions raised in Ukraine, Belarus and Bosnia? Will she engage with the incoming German Government to discuss the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 in order to ensure that Russia is not able to increase Europe’s energy dependency or weaken our unity?

    As well as working with our allies, we must ensure that we are doing all we can at home to challenge the Russian Government’s behaviour. We know that the UK continues to be a soft touch for corrupt elites and the dirty money that helps sustain the Putin regime. More than 18 months after the Russia report was published, none of its recommendations has been fully implemented. Will the Minister commit to taking those steps?

    Vicky Ford

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for demonstrating the united front in this country in supporting the people of Ukraine—we are absolutely united in standing by Ukraine at this time. To demonstrate Ukraine’s resilience, we need a co-ordinated, increased approach not just defensively but economically, and we especially need support for Ukraine on the energy front. That is precisely why we are working with our NATO partners and other leading allies and why the Prime Minister spoke to not only President Biden but the leaders of France, Germany and Italy yesterday.

    We have repeatedly aired our concerns about the construction of Nord Stream 2 and its implications for European security, and we will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that we have already put in place a number of sanctions, and we always stand ready to put in place sanctions against those responsible for human rights and other abuses. We have put in place sanctions against those who led the illegal annexation of Crimea, and we will continue to work with international partners on that front.

    Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)

    I recently visited Ukraine with Foreign Office Ministers as part of the Crimea forum, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the current situation is not only an early foreign policy challenge but an opportunity for the new German Government to set out their future policy with regards to Russian aggression? Does she also agree, as she mentioned in her statement, that it is through unity that we send a message to Russia? The United States, the United Kingdom and the whole European Union—particularly France and Germany—need to send a united, robust, clear and unequivocal message to Putin that any aggression will be met with severe penalties.

    Vicky Ford

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: any Russian incursion into Ukraine would be a strategic mistake, and the costs of such an incursion would be catastrophically high. This needs to be a co-ordinated effort between partners to maximise its impact. I have no doubt that the incoming German Government will have a key role to play, and that is precisely why the Prime Minister spoke to the leaders of France, Germany, Italy and the US yesterday to make sure that the message being given by President Biden to President Putin today is a co-ordinated one.

    We were very clear in the integrated review that Russian actions pose an acute and direct threat to the national security of the UK and its allies, and we have shown that we take that threat seriously. The current relationship with Russia is not the one that we want, but we will continue to respond to, and call out, Russian aggression wherever it occurs.

    Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)

    I will not have been alone in being chilled by today’s Financial Times article mentioning an essay written by Vladimir Putin that ends with the words:

    “For we are one people”

    when talking about Ukraine and Russia. Well, that is not what international law says. We have seen this pattern of behaviour from the Russian state in cyber-attacks in Latvia, in the use of migrants on the Polish border to foment a crisis, in Bosnia and in the continued illegal annexation of parts of eastern Ukraine. There must be consequences to further action, and the Scottish National party will be part of that coalition. I am glad to hear of the international co-ordination that is going on.

    I have two concrete proposals and a plea. We have heard already—we have not had an answer—that the SWIFT payment system and Nord Stream 2 must be on the table. Magnitsky sanctions will do so much, but we are dealing with people who do not greatly care, so there must be an elevation of the sanctions available.

    I have just pledged SNP support for UK Government actions, so I am not trying to make a political point. However, we are two years out from the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report. There is credible evidence of dirty Russian money washing around the UK’s democracy, and the Conservative party in particular. There are Members of the House of Lords who I do not believe should be there, and there must be consequences at home as well as abroad. When will we see serious action on implementing the Russia report recommendations? Vigilance must start at home, as well as abroad.

    Vicky Ford

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the UK Government. He raises a number of issues. On disinformation, we have seen time and again from the Russians transparent attempts at disinformation and at providing a pretext for reckless and illegal military action.

    On tackling illicit finance and dirty money, this Government continue to step up our activity both domestically and internationally to tackle illicit finance entering our country. We cracked down on illicit finance through the groundbreaking legislation introduced in 2017, the Criminal Finances Act, and we published our economic crime plan in 2019. However, we are going further in tackling dirty money. The National Crime Agency has increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites. Let me be clear: serious criminals, corrupt elites and individuals who seek to threaten the security of the UK and its allies are not welcome here. I am afraid I cannot comment on the SWIFT payment system, as I understand it is also a US issue.

    Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK has a special responsibility as a signatory of the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine? Indeed, Russia was also a signatory. Will the Government look to increase the support we give not just to the Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region, but to those defending the Ukrainian ports on the Black sea from any possible incursions from Russian-occupied Crimea?

    Vicky Ford

    Russia is very clearly in breach of the commitments it signed up to under the Budapest memorandum through its failure to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and through its use of force against Ukraine. We remain willing to engage in consultations, as provided for under that memorandum, as we did back in March 2014 in Paris after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. Russia is refusing to engage, despite the fact that the memorandum obliges it to do so in circumstances where the memorandum is questioned.

    We will stand by the people of Ukraine. We are considering extending the support we are giving to Ukraine to help it defend itself, but I need this to be clear: there is nothing in that support that could be construed as offensive or as a threat towards Russia. NATO is a purely defensive organisation and itself poses no threat to Russia.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    The difficulty is that Russia under Putin has behaved with extraordinary consistency. If we look at what it did in Georgia and its activities in Greece, in North Macedonia and in Republika Srpska, in so many different places it has engaged in a deliberate act of semi-war, trying to engineer difficulties in each of those democracies. Do we not need to match that consistency with internal consistency of our own, tackling the dirty money in the British public and ensuring that the whole of our democratic and political system is safe from assault by the Russians?

    Vicky Ford

    I have been very clear, and it is very clear in the integrated review, that Russia’s actions pose an acute and direct threat to the national security of not only the UK but its allies. We maintain functional channels of engagement with the Russian Government to ensure we can make points to them on those issues, and as a fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council we engage with them, but that does not mean we do not call them out. The Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Lavrov last Thursday, 2 December, when she absolutely restated the UK’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and urged the Russians to de-escalate the situation. The Ministers also discussed Belarus, Iran and Afghanistan.

    Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)

    Ukraine, Bosnia, Ethiopia, the Solomon Islands—the time for a cross-Government atrocity prevention strategy is now. Will the Minister please advise whether we have seen any build-up of Russian troops around Mariupol to block off the Black sea? Will she also confirm that, if Republika Srpska and Russia try to use hostilities in Ukraine to hide aggression in Bosnia, we will stand firm behind our friends in both Ukraine and Bosnia?

    Vicky Ford

    We are monitoring the situation very closely and are deeply concerned by the pattern of Russian military build-ups on the border of Ukraine and the illegally annexed Crimea. We call on the Russian Government to uphold the OSCE principles and commitments: they signed up to them and they should uphold them, but they are violating them through their aggression towards Ukraine. We stand by both the people of Ukraine and the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as I made very clear from this Dispatch Box just last week.

    Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)

    The Minister has made clear, I think in the same words that President Biden used, that there would be “catastrophic” consequences were there to be any Russian invasion of Ukraine, but one thing we know is that we already have Russian-activated troops in the Donbass region. They may not wear Russian uniforms, but they come under Russian control. If we see a hybrid attack on Ukraine, will there be catastrophic consequences then? That is the really important issue.

    Vicky Ford

    The Russians should stop supporting those who are trying to destabilise Ukraine in the Donbass region.

    Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) that the Budapest memorandum means we have a special obligation towards Ukraine. Can the Minister give us an update on the membership action plan, the prelude to NATO membership? When Poland joined in 1999, we were told it was a step too far; when Romania joined NATO in 2004, we were told it was a step too far. Is not now the time to start a debate on whether we can give our Ukrainian allies membership of this important defence pact?

    Vicky Ford

    We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration, in which NATO allies agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. Allies have reiterated that commitment at every summit since.

    Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)

    The White House statement released yesterday after President Biden’s call with his European counterparts did not mention sanctions. Although I appreciate they are not a magic bullet, significant sanctions might serve as an effective deterrent. Can the Minister confirm that on yesterday’s national security call, the Prime Minister pushed for significant and co-ordinated sanctions? Can she also confirm that any such sanctions would target those in Putin’s inner circle, limiting their ability to travel and potentially cutting off access to US, UK and EU banking and credit card systems?

    Vicky Ford

    We never speculate on future sanctions designations; to do so could undermine their effectiveness if they are put in place. However, we are closely monitoring the situation. We have taken action against Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea, in co-ordination with international partners. We worked closely with the EU, the US, Australia and Canada to impose costs on those facilitating Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol through sanctions. We will continue to work closely with international partners to ensure that those sanctions remain in place as long as Russia’s illegitimate control of the peninsula continues.

    Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)

    President Putin is clearly testing us. If there is a strong enough reaction, he may back off this time, but the softer our response, the more likely he is to go. That makes this an important test of our ability to engage in collective action. We need to reach and make public a consensus on specific sanctions that would apply in the event of Russian action. At the moment, I hear from the Minister and the other world leaders stern words, but not specific sanctions that will apply in the event of Russian aggression.

    Vicky Ford

    Let me be very clear: the Russian Government’s intent is to destabilise Ukraine. Beyond that, we cannot speculate, but we are monitoring the situation closely. We are deeply concerned, but it is critical that we avoid miscalculations. We call on the Russian Government to abide by their international commitments—the commitments to which they have signed up. Any military incursion would be a strategic mistake by the Russian Government and they should expect massive strategic consequences, including severe economic sanctions.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    Experience shows that President Putin respects only strength of purpose and resolve. Many Members have raised the issue of the SWIFT system. I am not asking the Minister whether that is a sanction that the Government are proposing to take, but I would like to know how that decision would be reached. When Iran was excluded from the SWIFT system in 2012, it required an EU regulation to make SWIFT do that, because SWIFT is incorporated under Belgian law. Would such a regulation be required this time if the UK Government and other Governments decided to proceed with excluding Russia from the SWIFT payment system?

    Vicky Ford

    I cannot comment on hypotheticals. Let me just say again that any military excursion would be a terrible miscalculation and the Russian Government should expect massive strategic consequences, including severe economic sanctions.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on being granted this urgent question, but may I express my disappointment that this matter has had to be raised in an urgent question and that the Government have not volunteered a statement? There was a NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week. We have a crisis in the Balkans. We have Russia spiking our gas supplies. We have Russia creating the migration crisis in Belarus, and we have Russia on aggressive military manoeuvres around Europe with its massively renewed military hardware. When will the Government take on board the fact that we are in a hybrid war against Russia now and that there needs to be a comprehensive and united western response, because, at the moment, NATO is weak and divided?

    Vicky Ford

    We have been very clear about the threat that Russia poses not only to our own security, but to the security of our allies as well. That is precisely why the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been working so closely with our friends and allies. The priority of our foreign policy is to build that network of liberty with our friends and allies, working on the defence not only of our own country, but of that of our allies. We absolutely stand by those on the Russian borders, including those facing the situation in Belarus, the Baltic countries and Poland—which I discussed only last week—as well as our friends in Ukraine.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    Given that our energy strategy, which stems from the climate policies followed by the EU and the UK, has made us dependent on Russian oil and gas, does the Minister not accept that President Putin, with his ability to use energy blackmail against the west, has no belief that we can implement effective sanctions against Russia?

    Vicky Ford

    We have continually voiced our concerns about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and we will continue to do so. It has serious implications for undermining European security, especially energy security, and as a destabilising tool. It allows Russia to tighten its grip on those nations that rely on Russian gas. We will continue to voice our serious concerns about this reliance on Russian gas.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    If Ukraine had been a member of NATO, there would now be a grisly roll call of British Army dead. Economic sanctions, yes, but will the Minister confirm that the frozen steppes of eastern Ukraine, with all its historical complexities, are not worth the life of a single British soldier? Like it or not, Russians know that, for 300 years, Crimea was part of Russia. It is almost entirely Russian speaking, as is eastern Ukraine, so we should be aware of Russian opinion. We may not agree with it, but let us not be dragged into any military confrontation.

    Vicky Ford

    It is vital that we stand by countries that share our vision of being free and democratically run. That is why we are unwavering in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, why we are working with NATO partners and why we are considering an extension of purely defensive support to Ukraine to help it defend itself. Defending itself against any Russian incursion will be vital, but let me remind Members what I have said again and again: making an incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake for Russia.

    Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

    This is an extremely concerning situation both in Ukraine and across other parts of our continent. May I urge the Minister and the British Government to do all that they can to ensure that NATO speaks with one voice? Russia feeds off mixed messages and, while we have a very strong voice coming out of the United States, the NATO Secretary-General, Stoltenberg, is saying that NATO has no obligation to defend Ukraine. Those are the mixed messages that do not help. What more can Her Majesty’s Government do to ensure that the alliance speaks with one voice?

    Vicky Ford

    The hon. Member is right: it is vital that we speak with one voice, which is why our Prime Minister was speaking with the leaders of the US, Germany, France and Italy yesterday. The message is clear: any incursion by Russia into Ukraine would be a strategic mistake. The costs of such an incursion would be catastrophically high and result in massive strategic consequences, including economic sanctions.

    Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)

    The Minister has said several times during this session that any incursion into Ukraine would be catastrophic for Russia and a big strategic mistake. Can she confirm that all diplomatic channels are being used, as well as economic sanctions that may come in, and that we are doing our very best to make sure that Ukraine is safe as a sovereign country?

    Vicky Ford

    The UK is at the forefront of the international community’s efforts. The issue is that Russia needs to de-escalate now and return to diplomatic channels.

    Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)

    As well as being concerned about the situation in Ukraine, I know that the Minister is also concerned about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and about the involvement of Russia in Belarus. Does she think that there is a need for the Prime Minister to speak not just to individual Governments, but collectively to NATO and collectively to the European Union to make sure that we have a truly united front?

    Vicky Ford

    We were raising all those issues at NATO last week to make sure that there is a consistent approach on the situation not only in Ukraine, but in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Belarus.

    Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)

    Do our treaty obligations under the Budapest memorandum include the forward deployment of NATO troops to defensive positions in theatre if invited by the Ukraine Government?

    Vicky Ford

    We have signed the Budapest memorandum. The Russians have signed the Budapest memorandum. Russia is clearly in breach of its commitment under that memorandum.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    Foreign policy begins at home—our ability to project influence around the world depends on the credibility, integrity and transparency of our Government and our economy here at home—and yet London is awash with dirty Russian money, and the Government have failed for almost two years to implement the recommendations of the Russia report. Will the Minister explain why the Government are dragging their feet on that, because it connects directly to our ability to achieve the objectives that she set out on Ukraine and beyond?

    Vicky Ford

    I absolutely refute the suggestion that we are dragging our feet. We already have a number of sanctions in place. We work with our international partners—we are a leading voice, for example at NATO last week—and we will continue to do so. I will not comment on specific future sanctions, because to do so would make them ineffective. However, I have made it very clear that any incursion into Ukraine by Russia would be a massive mistake and would lead to severe consequences, including severe economic sanctions.

    Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)

    I welcome my hon. Friend’s tone and particularly the training of the 21,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces by our armed forces as an important game-changer over the past five years. However, in return for our very strong support, will she continue to remind the Ukrainian authorities that they need to address the issues of corruption and human rights in their country so that we can be properly proud in giving them full support?

    Vicky Ford

    The UK stands up for human rights and against corruption all across the world.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that Putin has consistently responded to strength and taken advantage of weakness. Although the Minister has continually told us today that she is being very clear, the extent of any British boots on the ground in defence of the Ukrainians is unclear, as are the sanctions that she will propose. Will she be a bit clearer about the defensive posture that we may ask members of the British armed forces to take in Ukraine in support of a country that we all wish to express our support for?

    Vicky Ford

    The UK and our allies are providing a range of support to Ukraine, including through work that is enhancing Ukraine’s defence capability. It is really important that we continue to reiterate that the support is fundamentally defensive in nature and that neither NATO nor Ukraine pose any aggressive threat to Russia.

    Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

    As we see the build-up of troops on the Ukraine-Russian border, I would be keen to know whether the grey zone sub-threshold attacks, such as cyber and disinformation, are also increasing at the same pace. What do the Government have in place to deal with those attacks to ensure that we control the threat?

    Vicky Ford

    I will not comment on intelligence matters from the Dispatch Box.

    Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)

    Russia’s actions are deliberate, not accidental, and they are against a clear strategy and sequence. The threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty is clear, but so is the threat to our NATO allies in the Baltic states. Will the Minister set out very clearly that the article 5 protection of our NATO allies in the Baltic states stands firm and will be unquestionable, and that Britain will not renege on our enhanced forward presence, which is protecting the Baltic states from any Russian aggression?

    Vicky Ford

    The UK stands by our NATO allies in the Baltic states.

    Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)

    The Foreign Secretary has tweeted that

    “allies stand with Ukraine and will defend the frontiers of freedom and democracy.”

    Will the Minister confirm that we will use every tool to ensure that our NATO allies stand just as steadfast in ensuring that Ukraine is protected, including in relation to the suggestion that Putin will deploy 175 Russian troops to the area?

    Vicky Ford

    Let me be very clear: we are standing with our NATO allies. And there is a very clear message from our allies: any incursion by Russia into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake.

    Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)

    I recently returned from the Lithuanian-Belarus border, where I saw at first hand the malign behaviour of Russia on Europe’s borders. We understand that this situation is clearly very grave and I am not sure that that was reflected in the Foreign Secretary’s photo opportunity with a tank in Estonia. If the issue is taken very seriously, can we get a grip on the Putin wallets running amok in London, with free rein to do whatever they like? That is how we will get some attention to the situation.

    Vicky Ford

    The Foreign Secretary flies the flag for freedom and stands by our troops.

    Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)

    I am very proud to represent a vibrant Ukrainian community in my Colne Valley and neighbouring Huddersfield constituency, and I will celebrate Ukrainian Christmas with that community in January, as I do every year. It will be watching what we are saying here today very closely. Will the Minister again reaffirm that we will work with our NATO allies to send out an unequivocal message that we steadfastly support the sovereignty of Ukraine?

    Vicky Ford

    We stand with our NATO allies in steadfastly supporting the sovereignty of Ukraine, and I take this opportunity to wish them a very happy Christmas—lucky you, getting two Christmases.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    Ukraine and NATO are concerned that Russia will seize the Suwalki corridor by pushing migrants into the area and stoking unrest. That would allow Russian forces to join Belarus. What assessment have the Government and allies made of the likelihood of that scenario, and what humanitarian support would be provided to migrants caught in the fold?

    Vicky Ford

    We have no doubt that there is Russian action in Ukraine and in other countries that attempts to destabilise Europe, NATO and our allies. We are absolutely clear in our integrated review that Russian actions pose an acute and direct threat to national security. As I said from the Dispatch Box last week, we are providing humanitarian aid to those caught up in the middle of the crisis.

    Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)

    I very much welcome the Minister’s strong statement of support for Ukraine today. Will she confirm that the firm deterrent and clear warnings that she is giving in this Chamber about President Putin’s behaviour towards Ukraine are also being delivered directly to the Kremlin in a manner that cannot be misunderstood?

    Vicky Ford

    It is very important that we speak with one voice with our allies. That is why the Prime Minister spoke to President Biden and the leaders of France, Germany and Italy yesterday. We are all giving that same clear message on the call that will happen between Biden and President Putin this afternoon: any military incursion by Russia into Ukraine would be a massive and strategic mistake.

    Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)

    The focus on physical incursions into Ukraine by Russia shows that we still have a lot to learn about its way of operating. Will the Minister confirm that when we look at the defensive options that we might be able to provide to Ukraine to help them to deter that threat, we will also look at cyber-security and information, because that is where the Russians are now operating?

    Vicky Ford

    It is very helpful to have the Minister for the Armed Forces right beside me today, so that it can be very clear that we are considering responses in all domains.

    Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)

    As part of our response to this situation and a potential disinformation campaign, will my hon. Friend support a strengthening of our £23 million counter-disinformation and development aid package to Ukraine, which can help Ukrainians to discern fact from Russian fiction on social media?

    Vicky Ford

    I am obviously not able to comment on particular projects from the Dispatch Box today, but as I have said, we stand by the people of Ukraine. We are already providing a range of support to Ukraine to help it to enhance its defence capability, and we will continue to assess that situation alongside our NATO allies.

  • David Lammy – 2021 Comments on Foreign Office Whistleblower

    David Lammy – 2021 Comments on Foreign Office Whistleblower

    The comments made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 7 December 2021.

    This devastating testimony alleges that while Kabul fell and British troops risked their lives, the Foreign Secretary was asleep at the wheel and the department’s response was shambolic and incompetent.

    This whistleblower paints a picture of chaos and dysfunction, for which innocent Afghans have paid the ultimate price. Crucial emails left unread. The crisis centre chronically understaffed. Afghan allies abandoned. Only 5% of those needing help receiving it. And a foreign secretary – and still the Deputy Prime Minister – who was lounging on the beach and had lost all grip of his department.

    This evidence raises the most serious questions of competence during a moment of international crisis. The Foreign Secretary must urgently come to the House and address these claims.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2006 Speech on the Finnish Presidency

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2006 Speech on the Finnish Presidency

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope, the Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 5 July 2006.

    President, President-in-Office,

    The new Presidency wants to develop a transparent and effective Union. The issues of transparency and openness are ones British Conservatives have been championing for many years. The opening of Council meetings is a step in the right direction and has been taken despite the crass attempts by the new British Foreign Secretary to preserve secrecy. We will watch carefully to see that the letter and spirit of openness is upheld in the coming months. Equally, the Presidency’s wish to scrutinise the effects of legislation and improving its clarity is something I welcome. But British Conservatives have long argued for proper assessments on whether some legislation is actually required at all. The initial presumption must always be, in my view, against legislating. There shall also be proper impact assessments undertaken before embarking on new laws. I hope that the Presidency will make progress in creating a new culture in the EU which lays emphasis on less legislation and less regulation. This is an essential part of the reform agenda that I want Europe to develop.

    The Presidency also wants to see more effective decision-making in judicial co-operation in criminal matters. I hope the emphasis here will be on better inter-governmental co-operation and not harmonisation. The announcement by Commissioner Frattini last week that he will urge Member States to make use of the passerelle clauses to move to qualified majority voting in the third pillar is unwelcome news. People do want governments to work together more effectively to prevent terrorism, combat human trafficking and fight the scourge of drugs. I do too. But this does not require the ending of the veto in these areas. Harmonisation is a flawed approach. It denies the police and security services the flexibility and adaptability they need to stay one step ahead of the terrorists and the drug traffickers. Giving Parliament and the Court of Justice ‘second guess’ powers will hamper and undermine the work of law enforcement agencies across Europe.

    I am strongly against any proposal that would see national parliaments ceding power over drugs policy, the Serious Fraud Office in the UK ceding power over anti-corruption investigations to Europol and the police ceding powers over criminal investigations to Eurojust and the Court of Justice. These are matters that go to the heart of the powers of the nation state. People elect governments to protect them from internal and external threats to security. If governments give away these powers and deny themselves the flexibility they need to contain threats to security, all in the name of European integration, people will rightly judge this as simply another attempt by Brussels to intervene in their domestic affairs. The case for harmonisation has not been made and the evidence that qualified majority voting will make us safer and more secure is not there. So, I urge the Presidency not to pursue this course.

    I hope the Presidency will work closely with President Barroso on the economic reform agenda. There is no room for complacency here. The drive to make Europe more competitive does not begin and end with Summit conclusions. The need for reform is as urgent as ever and I hope the Presidency will champion the kind of liberalising, reformist economic agenda that I have long urged. The protectionists and those who champion the outdated concept of national champions are still with us – I hope the Prime Minister and his Presidency will resist them.

    I also want the Presidency to sort out the vexed question of the seat of the European Parliament. We have been in the forefront of the campaign to end the Strasbourg sessions. Having two seats is expensive, wasteful and a major burden on taxpayers. Over half a million people have already signed the petition to end Strasbourg, including myself and my British Conservative colleagues. We must have some action on the matter.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on Aung San Suu Kyi

    Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on Aung San Suu Kyi

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 6 December 2021.

    The sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi is another appalling attempt by Myanmar’s military regime to stifle opposition and suppress freedom and democracy.

    The United Kingdom calls on the regime to release political prisoners, engage in dialogue and allow a return to democracy. The arbitrary detention of elected politicians only risks further unrest.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s Visit to US

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s Visit to US

    The comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, on 5 December 2021.

    The Government have long promised that a Free Trade Agreement with the United States would be top of the priority list. We are two years on from the General Election and no deal is even in place.

    The Secretary of State must use her visit to Washington to prioritise British jobs and industry and kickstart the negotiations.

    She must also – urgently – work with the US Government to lift the damaging steel and aluminium tariffs imposed in 2018. The Conservatives have not taken this issue seriously enough – they must stop letting steel workers down.