UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • John Healey – 2022 Speech on Support for Ukraine

    John Healey – 2022 Speech on Support for Ukraine

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House condemns Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; stands in solidarity with Ukrainians in their resistance to Russia’s invasion of their sovereign state; supports the UK providing further defensive military, humanitarian and other assistance to Ukraine; recognises the importance of international unity against Russian state aggression; and calls on the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom’s NATO defence and security obligations are fulfilled to counter the threats from Russia.

    This is an Opposition day and a Labour-led motion, but we have called this debate to unite, not divide, this House of Commons. We have called this debate for Parliament, on behalf of the public, to stand united in condemnation of President Putin’s invading of and killing people in a sovereign democratic country; for Parliament to stand united in support of heroic Ukrainian resistance; and for Parliament to stand united with western allies and other countries around the world in confronting Russia’s aggression.

    Putin’s attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy—a grave violation of international law and the United Nations charter. He wants to weaken and divide the west. He will not stop at Ukraine; he wants to re-establish Russian control over neighbouring countries. Britain has a long tradition of standing up to such tyrants. Our country believes in freedom, in democracy, in the rule of law, in the right of nations to be able to decide their own future. These are the very values that Ukrainians are fighting for today. They are showing massive bravery. We must support their resistance in every way we can.

    Putin certainly miscalculated the strength of the Ukrainian military and the resolve of Ukrainians to fight for their country. But this is only day seven, and Russia has such crushing firepower, and Putin such utter ruthlessness, that we must expect more of their military objectives to be taken in the weeks ahead—and I fear that we must expect greater brutality, with more civilian casualties.

    Whatever short-term success Putin may secure, we must make sure that he fails in the longer run. This has to be the beginning of the end for President Putin. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in his remarkable speech on Sunday:

    “The twenty-fourth of February 2022 marks a watershed in the history of our continent.”

    President Biden said in his state of the union speech yesterday:

    “Vladimir Putin sought to shake the very foundations of the free world, thinking he could make it bend to his menacing ways, but he badly miscalculated…the United States and our allies will defend every inch of territory that is NATO territory”.

    When the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and I were in Kyiv in January, we were told time and again that western unity was Ukraine’s best defence. I am proud of the way that we in Britain, with our parties in this House together, have helped to build that western unity in recent weeks, but it will be severely tested in the weeks to come. It must endure, and it must endure for years to come, to ensure that it is Putin who fails in the long run.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    Of course I agree 100% with the tone of what my right hon. Friend is saying: we all want to stand united. Some of us on this side of the House have been arguing for much more substantial sanctions. We need to throw everything at this. It is about artistic sanctions, sporting sanctions, financial ones, educational ones—literally everything. We seem to be going very slowly in this country. The Prime Minister said earlier that we had sanctioned hundreds of people in this country, but that simply is not true. We have sanctioned eight so far. We are going much slower than Europe or the United States. Is there any way that we can get the Government to work with those of us who want to work to help the Government to go faster?

    John Healey

    My hon. Friend has been at the forefront in pushing for this, not just in recent weeks but over several years. I sincerely hope that the answer to his question is an emphatic yes, and that we will hear it from the Minister for the Armed Forces today. From the Labour Benches we have given, and will continue to give, the Government our fullest possible backing for the sanctions they are willing to make and the steps they are willing to take, but this has been too slow, so we will continue to do our job as the official Opposition to push the Government to go further, to meet the imperatives of Putin’s aggression, and to meet our duty to stand by the Ukrainian people.

    Chris Bryant

    Some of the people who have not yet been sanctioned are military leaders who are already active in Ukraine, including the commander-in-chief of the Black sea fleet, Mr Osipov, and the Defence Minister. Surely by now these people should not be able to remove all their possessions from the VTB bank, for instance. They have 30 days to do so unless we manage to sanction them today.

    John Healey

    Our guiding principle must be that the sanctions are swift, severe and sweeping. On those three tests, what has been done so far still falls short, as my hon. Friend says. This House and Members from all parts of it have an important role to play in ensuring that we maintain unity, but also that we do more.

    I say to the Minister that we will give Labour’s full support to the economic crime Bill introduced into this House on Monday, but it was promised more than five years ago. We will give our full support to the reform of Companies House, but that was first announced two and a half years ago and we still have only a White Paper, not legislation. I urge him to urge his colleagues in other Departments to step up, to speed up and to display the kind of leadership that he and his Front-Bench comrades from the Ministry of Defence have shown in recent weeks. We also give them our full support.

    This is a debate for Members far more expert than I to speak in, so I will be brief. I want to emphasise that there are six areas in which action is required and in which our unity will be tested. These are six areas in which the Government have had Labour’s full support in the action they have taken so far. To the extent that the Government go further, they will maintain Labour’s support.

    First, there is military support for Ukraine. As further Ukrainian requests come in—I know the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence are serious about this—we must respond by scouring our inventories, stockpiles and weapon stores to provide the Ukrainians with what they can use immediately. We must reinforce their capability and capacity to defend their country.

    Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We need to ensure a supply of arms for the Ukrainians, but could we also look at the possibility of our Polish and Czech allies furnishing weapons that we backfill? It would be quicker to move them into Ukraine from Poland or the Czech Republic than waiting to move them from the UK.

    John Healey

    My hon. Friend is right, and I expect we may hear from the Minister that exactly that sort of action is being taken. It is certainly what some other European countries are doing, because the premium is on providing the defensive weapons and lethal aid that the Ukrainians require now. The fastest route to do that is required.

    The second area is the requirement to cut Russia out of the international economic system. Putin himself has opened up a new front. The western sanctions are now opening up a new home front for Putin to fight on, because people in Russia are rightly asking why they cannot take their money out of the bank, why they cannot use their credit card and why they cannot use the metro. People in Russia are bravely coming out on to the streets to demonstrate the growing dissent in Russia for Putin’s rule.

    But to be effective, we must do more and act faster. As I said a moment ago in response to interventions, to the extent that the Government are willing to act, they will continue to have Labour’s full support.

    John Howell (Henley) (Con)

    I agree that Russia must be cut out of the international economic system, but does this not go further? We cannot have Russia as part of an organisation that sponsors the rule of law, democracy and human rights, which is why my colleagues and I were very firm in getting Russia suspended from the Council of Europe.

    John Healey

    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the action he and his Council of Europe colleagues from all parties and all nations took last week.

    Russia must feel that Putin is leading it in the wrong direction, towards increasing isolation, increasing cost, increasing damage and increasing uncertainty. We must ensure the people of Russia see that, whatever success he may secure in the short term in Ukraine, he fails in the longer run. As I said earlier, this must be the beginning of the end for President Putin.

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)

    The right hon. Member probably has not had time to see it, because it has only just appeared on the wires, but there is a manifesto from socialists across Russia who absolutely condemn this war and absolutely condemn Putin and the oligarchs. They say the war is actually being fought on behalf of the very wealthy, and they look for a different Russia, one of peace that is not at war with Ukraine. We should send a message of support from this House to people in Russia who are opposed to the war, as well as supporting the people of Ukraine in the horror they are going through at the present time.

    John Healey

    My right hon. Friend is right: I have not had time to see that declaration. To that extent that it has been made, it is clearly welcome, brave and part of a growing chorus of brave voices within Russia of those who are ready to resist the way Putin has run their country and to stand up and say, “This invasion, this killing, this contravention of international law by President Putin is not being done in my name.” To the extent that they are taking that stand, I am sure that we in all parts of this House would honour them and support them.

    I said that I wanted to mention six areas. Further military support for Ukraine is essential. Cutting Russia out of, and taking further steps to isolate it within, the international economic system is essential. The third thing is pursuing Russia for the war crimes it is committing in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor has confirmed that he already has seen evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He wants to launch an official investigation, and he requires the backing of ICC states such as the UK. This will be a difficult job: identifying, gathering and protecting evidence, and investigating in the middle of a war zone. He will need resources and expert technical investigators. Britain can help with both, so I hope we are going to hear from the UK Government, sooner not later, that they formally support the ICC opening the investigation and that they will support that investigation with the resources that we, as a long-standing, committed member of the ICC, are rightly in a position to provide.

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

    I very much commend the right hon. Gentleman on his motion. Does he agree that this war, like no other before it, is capable of such a thing, as the evidence will be that much easier to collect, and that there must be no stone that these individuals can crawl under when this is all over that will hide them or protect them? The message must go out loud and clear: if you are in any way complicit in the horrors being perpetrated in Ukraine at the moment, you will be found out and you will be held to account. You will be pilloried internationally, in the appropriate legal setting, for the crimes you have committed.

    John Healey

    I simply endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is very much in the spirit of the unity of this House on all necessary fronts. I say to the Minister, as I have said on the other dimensions of action required in this crisis, that if the Government are willing to take that step to ensure the ICC can pursue those aims, they will have Labour’s full support.

    Chris Bryant

    I am sorry to be irritating, but would my right hon. Friend mind giving way again?

    John Healey

    My hon. Friend is never irritating. He is a constant presence in this Chamber and I have so much respect for him that I would not dream of doing anything other than give way when he asks.

    Chris Bryant

    I am enormously grateful. I completely agree with the point that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has made, but there is a difficulty here, as international law has not yet recognised that initiating a war of aggression is itself a war crime. I think it should be, and the British alternate judge at the Nuremberg trials said it should be and declared that it was, but this has not actually been put into law. We need to change that, as I hope my right hon. Friend would agree.

    John Healey

    That was certainly a point raised with the Prime Minister earlier today. For me, action immediately, in the current crisis, given the current invasion and the killing going on in Ukraine, is more important than constitutional change in the ICC. The fact that the chief prosecutor already says that he can see evidence of war crimes and of crimes against humanity, giving him the grounds to investigate and, I hope, pursue and prosecute, means that, as a starter, that is where I want to see the concentration at present.

    The fourth area is not within the Minister’s brief. As the Official Opposition, we have urged the Government to take action on this, backed the steps that they have been willing to take, but pointed out that so much more needs to be done, and this, of course, is in helping Ukrainians fleeing the war—Ukrainians who need a safe route to sanctuary. We welcome the Home Secretary’s further steps yesterday, but there are questions about how this scheme will work. There are still gaps and there are still likely to be delays, but to the extent that this really is a route for the reunion of families, it is welcome, and we want to see it in place and working as soon as possible.

    However, the fact is that many of those now fleeing Ukraine are leaving behind family members. Their first preference will be to stay as close to their country as it is safe for them to do. What we have not yet heard from the Home Secretary is what the UK Government will do to help those countries that, certainly in the weeks and months ahead, most immediately are likely to bear the biggest burden and have to offer the greatest refuge to those fleeing war. On behalf of the Labour party, may I say that, to the extent that the Government are willing to step up and play that part alongside other European countries, they will, again, deservedly have Labour’s full backing.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

    Although I share the comments about the Government stepping up and helping those countries and those who have family in this country, does the right hon. Member agree that we have to do more to help refugees in general? When people are fleeing for their lives, often in the middle of the night, under attack, leaving everything they know, everything they own and everything they love literally with what they can put their hands on at that moment, it is unreasonable to expect them to be thinking and planning for making a visa application. We should simply waive it and make it easier for them.

    John Healey

    The first thing that I want Ukrainians now forced to flee Ukraine to know is that if they have family in Britain, they can be reunited. This is about extended family members who need to get out of that country and seek the sanctuary that Britain has a proud record of providing for many decades. That is our first priority. The second must be to support those countries on the refugee frontline, on the borders of this country that is now beset by war caused by President Putin. That is what I want to see the Government doing and that is where I want to see their first priority.

    Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that resistance takes many forms and that one of its forms is that of independent journalism? I know that a number of journalists are now trapped in Ukraine. Many of them have chosen to stay in Ukraine, but some are trapped. They are worried about their families. They want to know that they can have safe passage to the UK or to Europe. Like Members on both sides of the House, I believe that all these restrictions should be lifted, but in the interim I urge the Government to pay particular attention to journalists who are doing an admirable job in reporting on what is happening. We know what Putin thinks of these journalists—he has already attacked the UN public service broadcasting tower. They know what is in store for them. They are potentially on lists. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make a comment on that.

    John Healey

    Indeed, one of our fundamental values as a British democracy is the right to free speech and information. Those freedoms come at a price, and that is often the price that journalists, under pressure, have to pay. Those brave Ukrainian journalists, especially those who are staying in the country to try to make sure that those of us beyond their boundaries know what is really going on, deserve our honour and our respect. If necessary, we need to be willing to act where we can to assist them.

    John Howell

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    John Healey

    I did promise to be quite brief, but I will of course give way.

    John Howell

    I promise to be as brief as possible. Yesterday, when the Home Secretary made her statement, I made her an offer, which I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman heard. He is right to say that we need to keep contact with the neighbouring countries to Ukraine. I offered to use the good offices of the delegation to the Council of Europe, which knows these countries and their leaders very well, to make sure that we maintain that contact and to help her in taking forward the discussions that she needed to have with them.

    John Healey

    I did not hear the hon. Gentleman’s offer to the Home Secretary, so I did not hear her response, but I sincerely hope she bit his hand off for that assistance —if not, I am sure he will follow it up directly with her.

    John Howell

    She did indeed.

    John Healey

    Then the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question; I am delighted he was able to answer it with an emphatic yes.

    I turn now to the fifth dimension, where the Government will have Labour’s full support if they act as they should. It is one thing to confront Russian aggression abroad, but we must also strengthen our defences at home. We know that the UK is not immune to Russia’s aggression. We have had chemical weapons used on our soil to kill people. We have had dissidents murdered on British soil. We have had cyber-attacks against UK Government Departments, our defence agencies and even the organisations trying to develop our covid vaccines.

    I say to the Minister that for too long that has been the poor relation of our national security and our national resilience. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report in 2020 said:

    “Russia’s cyber capability…poses an immediate and urgent threat to our national security.”

    The recommendations of that report have still not been implemented in full. The Government’s integrated review, almost a year ago, promised a national resilience strategy, but that has not yet been published. Our armed forces are essential to both our national defence and our national resilience. With the Army already cut to its smallest size for 300 years, in the light of the circumstances and the threats we now face, Ministers’ plans to cut a further 10,000 troops from Army numbers over the next three years must now be halted.

    Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is making. I asked the Prime Minister about Russian cyber-activity last week, particularly with the well-known history of bot farms and misinformation, and he did not have a response in terms of taking action. Bot farm activity has reduced in recent days because Russia has limited access to the internet. Is it not the case that we as a sovereign nation should be looking to take action to limit the influence of Russia’s bot farms and misinformation on our economy and society, rather than leaving it to the Russians?

    John Healey

    Indeed, we have been slow to appreciate the scale of the disinformation driven by the Russian state directly and by its proxies. We have been slow to realise the extent to which it is corrupting our public discourse and in some cases interfering with our elections. Once again, the steps the Government could be taking, but that they seem very slow to take, have been set out in this House by my hon. Friend and others who are experts in that area.

    Finally, on the sixth dimension, talking is always better than fighting. Even in these circumstances, President Zelensky in Ukraine has displayed outstanding leadership. Even as Russia continued to intensify its attacks, he was willing to hold talks, saying that there was

    “still a chance, however small”.

    He is also right to say:

    “It’s necessary to at least stop bombing people…and then sit down at the negotiating table.”

    I see as a significant development today’s confirmation that China is ready to play a role, saying that it is

    “looking forward to China playing a role in realising a ceasefire”.

    Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)

    I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the six dimensions that he has laid out: I wholeheartedly support him on all those points. There are so many other things that I am sure other colleagues across the House would want to add. I just wanted to make my own personal tribute to President Zelensky. He has shown outstanding leadership during this brutal war. He has been asked to step up in the most difficult and most challenging situation facing his country, and he has demonstrated great leadership and incredible resilience. I am sure the whole House would support him, and it was wonderful to be able to show our support for the Ukrainian ambassador today.

    John Healey

    I thank my hon. Friend and endorse what he has said. I hope he will endorse the fact that as a party and, I hope, as a House, we are ready to back calls for a ceasefire. We want to see serious negotiations and we want to see a Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.

    Finally, let me turn to NATO. Labour’s post-war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was the principal architect of NATO and, in particular, its article 5 commitment to collective defence. When he introduced the North Atlantic treaty to Parliament in 1949, he told this House:

    “Unity against aggression has…become more than ever important”

    and that this aggression

    “usually comes when one man, or a small number of men, start by getting complete control of their own country and then create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among those around them.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2016-17.]

    Bevin could have been talking then about President Putin today. NATO remains a defensive alliance built on diplomacy and deterrence, with not just collective security but democracy, peace and the rule of law enshrined in its founding statutes.

    Over 70 years on from Bevin’s speech, NATO has proven to be one of Britain’s most essential and most successful alliances. However, a decade-plus of Russian aggression, cyber-attacks, assassinations, annexations, disinformation and mercenary groups, culminating now in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, demands that NATO change. New security priorities, longer-term deployments, more integrated operations, more advanced technologies, better spending to match threats, and closer co-ordination with the Joint Expeditionary Force, with the European Union and with other democratic nations beyond the alliance should become the hallmarks of a stronger NATO.

    We have taken settled peace and security in Europe for granted since the end of the cold war. We cannot do so any longer. We will be dealing with the consequences of this illegal Russian invasion for years to come. But for now, through these very darkest days that Ukraine is facing, we must simply stand united with Ukraine.

  • Alex Burghart – 2022 Statement on the Level 2 and Below Qualifications Update

    Alex Burghart – 2022 Statement on the Level 2 and Below Qualifications Update

    The statement made by Alex Burghart, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2022.

    Consultation on level 2 and below qualifications

    I am pleased to announce the next stage of the review of post-16 qualifications in England. It is vital in a fast-moving and high-tech economy that education closes the gap between what people study and the needs of employers. Priorities change rapidly and we need an education system that is dynamic and forward looking. It must deliver the skills we will need in the future to strengthen the economy, not only as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic but as we move forward in the 21st century.

    We set out our plans for the reform of level 3 qualifications in July 2021, and we are now consulting on proposals to reform level 2, level 1 and entry level qualifications. The current landscape at level 2 and below is complex, with over 8,000 qualifications approved for funding for students aged 16 and above. While many of these qualifications are likely to be excellent, it is not a consistent picture. It is hard to tell which ones are high quality and will lead to good outcomes. Improving the quality of qualifications at these levels will contribute to levelling up our country and building back better.

    We recognise the diversity of the cohort studying at level 2 and below. Individuals who take these qualifications will have very different backgrounds, achievements, needs, aspirations and motivations. They are also more likely to be taken post-16 by students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with special educational needs or disabilities. These students can have complex needs ranging from emotional, behavioural and mental health issues; physical disabilities; cognitive or developmental conditions; and others including hearing impairments and sensory issues. It is more vital than ever that these students can benefit from high-quality provision that provides the support they need to unlock their potential and benefit from great progression opportunities. Our proposed landscape will serve all students better.

    Our proposals aim to streamline and improve the quality of qualifications at level 2 and below for both 16 to 19-year-olds and adults. At the end of 2020, 21% of 16-year-olds were in full-time education studying at level 2 and below1. These qualifications are also important for adults, who in 2018-19 accounted for around 57% of ESFA-funded enrolments at these levels2. We want to ensure that all qualifications that receive public funding in future are high quality, have a clear purpose and will lead to strong progression outcomes, with every student having a range of options leading into either employment or further study—or, for a small minority of students, independent living.

    The proposals I am setting out today are open for consultation until 27 April. They have been developed following an extensive call for evidence which ran from November 2020 to February 2021. I am very grateful to those who engaged positively with, and responded to, this exercise.

    As previously set out, GCSEs, functional skills qualifications (FSQs) and essential digital skills qualifications (EDSQs) are not in scope for this consultation.

    Proposals—Level 2

    We propose that qualifications at level 2 should prepare students for further study or training at level 3 where possible, including T-Levels (through the T-Level transition programme), other level 3 technical qualifications and apprenticeships. With employers at the heart of their design and by aligning to employer-led standards, some level 2 qualifications will also provide a great opportunity to move directly into skilled jobs in some sectors.

    For 16 to 19-year-olds studying at level 2 who are aiming to get a job at level 2, we propose a two-year study programme to prepare them for the world of work.

    Proposals—Level 1 and below

    We propose the focus of study for most learners at level 1 and below should be progression to a qualification at level 2 or above that provides entry into a skilled occupation, or progression to a work-based pathway such as supported internships, traineeships and apprenticeships. Basic skills qualifications in English, maths and digital will continue to be vital for many of these students.

    Proposals—Personal, social and employability qualifications

    We recognise that some students will leave education with their highest achievement being level 1 or entry level, and for a small minority their main aim will be independent living. Personal, social and employability provision is an integral part of study for many of these students, and we propose to set national standards and core content for these qualifications to be designed against. Aligning these qualifications with national standards will ensure greater consistency and confidence in their quality. As part of the consultation, we are specifically seeking views from employers about the value and recognition of these qualifications.

    Consultation response on basic digital skills

    We consulted in the call for evidence on proposals to remove public funding approval from basic digital skills qualifications at level 2 (ICT user and ICT functional skills qualifications). We are publishing our response alongside the consultation, which confirms and sets out our decision to remove public funding approval from all level 2 ICT user qualifications and all level 2 ICT functional skills qualifications.

    I look forward to further engagement with the sector on these reforms. In response to this consultation, I will set out the next steps for implementing reforms at level 2 and below.

    Update on level 3 implementation

    In July 2021 we set out our plans for the reform of level 3 qualifications. In November, recognising the need to allow sufficient time for awarding organisations and providers to prepare, we announced an extra year for the reforms to be implemented. To support this, we are also moving the pathfinder for approving qualifications in the digital route into the first full cycle of approvals for other technical qualifications. The pathfinder would have seen the introduction of reformed qualifications in the digital route for 2024, ahead of our other reforms. These approvals processes will now be merged and first delivery of reformed qualifications will be from 2025.

    1 https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/ac2c9345-145c-46d0-aabc-055e9f92936b

    2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/933584/Ad-hoc_3_Level_3_and_below_-_contextual_information.pdf

  • Greg Hands – 2022 Statement on Bulb Energy

    Greg Hands – 2022 Statement on Bulb Energy

    The statement made by Greg Hands, the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, in the House of Commons on 2 March 2022.

    Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a contingent liability arising from the issuance of a letter of credit for the energy administrators acting in the special administration regime for Bulb Energy Ltd (Bulb). This letter of credit replaces a previous one provided in December, announced within a written ministerial statement on 6 January, which has now expired.

    It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.

    I regret that, due to negotiations with the counterparty only just concluding, I have not been able to follow the usual notification timelines to allow consideration of these issues in advance of issuing the letter of credit.

    Bulb entered the energy supply company special administration regime on 24 November 2021. Energy administrators were appointed by court to achieve the statutory objective of continuing energy supplies at the lowest reasonable practicable cost until such time as it becomes unnecessary for the special administration to remain in force for that purpose.

    My Department has agreed to provide a facility to the energy administrators, with a letter of credit issued, with my approval, to guarantee such contract, code, licence, or other document obligations of the company consistent with the special administration’s statutory objective. I will update the House if any letters of credit are drawn against.

    The legal basis for a letter of credit is section 165 of the Energy Act 2004, as applied and modified by section 96 of the Energy Act 2011.

    HM Treasury has approved the arrangements in principle.

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on Invasion of Ukraine

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on Invasion of Ukraine

    The comments made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 4 March 2022.

    President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is an attack on our freedoms, our values and the security of Europe. He has sought to break our defensive alliances, which is why now, more than at any point in the history of the JEF, our partnership is so vital.

    We are united in our resolve across the JEF nations to support Ukraine. Our values are Ukraine’s values and we will continue to provide lethal and non-lethal aid, alongside sending additional forces to Estonia serving with our Danish allies.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on the Ukraine Family Scheme

    Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on the Ukraine Family Scheme

    The comments made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 4 March 2022.

    It’s heart-breaking to have met families, women and children forced from their homeland because of the monstrous Russian invasion.

    Our expanded Ukraine Family Scheme is now fully open and to see the first people who will apply was wonderful. While we want people to be able to return to their homes at the end of this diabolical invasion, giving thousands of people a route to the UK is the right thing to do.

    The whole of the UK is united in our condemnation of Russia’s barbaric and cold-blooded actions and the government is doing everything possible to make certain our humanitarian support is in Ukraine’s best interests.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Russian Aggression Against Ukraine

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Russian Aggression Against Ukraine

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, at the European Parliament Plenary on 1 March 2022.

    Madam President of the European Parliament,

    Mr President of the Council,

    High Representative,

    Mr President of the Ukraine, dear Volodymyr,

    Mr Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament,

    My Honourable Members,

    War has returned to Europe. Almost thirty years after the Balkan Wars, and over half a century after Soviet troops marched into Prague and Budapest, civil defence sirens again went off in the heart of a European capital. Thousands of people fleeing from bombs, camped in underground stations – holding hands, crying silently, trying to cheer each other up. Cars lined up towards Ukrainian Western borders, and when many of them ran out of fuel, people picked up their children and their backpacks and marched for tens of kilometres towards our Union. They sought refuge inside our borders, because their country was not safe any longer. Because inside Ukraine, a gruesome death count has begun. Men, women, children are dying, once again, because a foreign leader, President Putin, decided that their country, Ukraine, has no right to exist. And we will never ever let that happen and never ever accept that.

    Honourable Members,

    This is a moment of truth for Europe. Let me quote the editorial of one Ukrainian newspaper, the Kyiv Independent, published just hours before the invasion began: ‘This is not just about Ukraine. It is a clash of two worlds, two polar sets of values.’ They are so right. This is a clash between the rule of law and the rule of the gun; between democracies and autocracies; between a rules-based order and a world of naked aggression. How we respond today to what Russia is doing will determine the future of the international system. The destiny of Ukraine is at stake, but our own fate also lies in the balance. We must show the power that lies in our democracies; we must show the power of people that choose their independent paths, freely and democratically. This is our show of force.

    Today, a Union of almost half a billion people has mobilised for Ukraine. The people of Europe are demonstrating in front of Russian embassies all across our Union. Many of them have opened their homes to Ukrainians – fleeing from Putin’s bombs. And let me thank especially Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary for welcoming these women, men and children. Europe will be there for them, not only in the first days, but also in the weeks and months to come. That must be our promise altogether. And this is why we are proposing to activate the temporary protection mechanism to provide them with a secure status and access to schools, medical care and work. They deserve it. We need to do that now. We know this is only the beginning. More Ukrainians will need our protection and solidarity. We are and we will be there for them.

    Our Union is showing a unity of purpose that makes me proud. At the speed of light, the European Union has adopted three waves of heavy sanctions against Russia’s financial system, its high-tech industries and its corrupt elite. This is the largest sanctions package in our Union’s history. We do not take these measures lightly, but we feel we had to act. These sanctions will take a heavy toll on the Russian economy and on the Kremlin. We are disconnecting key Russian banks from the SWIFT network. We also banned the transactions of Russia’s central bank, the single most important financial institution in Russia. This paralyses billions in foreign reserves, turning off the tap on Russia’s and Putin’s war. We have to end this financing of his war.

    Second, we target important sectors of the Russian economy. We are making it impossible for Russia to upgrade its oil refineries; to repair and modernise its air fleet; and to access many important technologies it needs to build a prosperous future. We have closed our skies to Russian aircraft, including the private jets of oligarchs. And make no mistake: We will freeze their other assets as well – be it yachts or fancy cars or luxury properties. We will freeze that altogether.

    Thirdly, in another unprecedented step, we are suspending the licences of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. The state-owned Russia Today and Sputnik, and all of their subsidiaries, will no longer be able to spread their lies to justify Putin’s war and to divide our Union. These are unprecedented actions by the European Union and our partners in response to an unprecedented aggression by Russia.

    Each one of these steps has been closely coordinated with our partners and allies, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Norway, but also, for example, Japan, South Korea and Australia. All of these days, you see that more than 30 countries – representing well over half of the world’s economy – have also announced sanctions and export controls on Russia. If Putin was seeking to divide the European Union, to weaken NATO, and to break the international community, he has achieved exactly the opposite. We are more united than ever and we will stand up in this war, that is for sure that we will overcome and we will prevail. We are united and we stay united.

    Honourable Members,

    I am well aware that these sanctions will come at a cost for our economy, too. I know this, and I want to speak honestly to the people of Europe. We have endured two years of pandemic. And we all wished that we could focus on our economic and social recovery. But I believe that the people of Europe understand very well that we must stand up against this cruel aggression. Yes, protecting our liberty comes at a price. But this is a defining moment. And this is the cost we are willing to pay. Because freedom is priceless, Honourable Members. This is our principle: Freedom is priceless.

    Our investments today will make us more independent tomorrow. I am thinking, first and foremost, about our energy security. We simply cannot rely so much on a supplier that explicitly threatens us. This is why we reached out to other global suppliers. And they responded. Norway is stepping up. In January, we had a record supply of LNG gas. We are building new LNG terminals and working on interconnectors. But in the long run, it is our switch to renewables and hydrogen that will make us truly independent. We have to accelerate the green transition. Because every kilowatt-hour of electricity Europe generates from solar, wind, hydropower or biomass reduces our dependency on Russian gas and other energy sources. This is a strategic investment. And my Honourable Members, this is a strategic investment, because on top, less dependency on Russian gas and other fossil fuel sources also means less money for the Kremlin’s war chest. This is also a truth.

    We are resolute, Europe can rise up to the challenge. The same is true on defence. European security and defence has evolved more in the last six days than in the last two decades. Most Member States have promised deliveries of military equipment to Ukraine. Germany announced that it will meet the 2% goal of NATO as soon as possible. And our Union, for the first time ever, is using the European budget to purchase and deliver military equipment to a country that is under attack. EUR 500 million from the European Peace Facility, to support Ukraine’s defence. As a first batch, we will now also match this by at least EUR 500 million from the EU budget to deal with the humanitarian consequences of this tragic war, both in the country and for the refugees.

    Honourable Members,

    This is a watershed moment for our Union. We cannot take our security and the protection of people for granted. We have to stand up for it. We have to invest in it. We have to carry our fair share of the responsibility.

    This crisis is changing Europe. But Russia has also reached a crossroads. The actions of the Kremlin are severely damaging the long-term interests of Russia and its people. More and more Russians understand this as well. They are marching for peace and freedom. And how does the Kremlin respond to this? By arresting thousands of them. But ultimately, the longing for peace and freedom cannot be silenced. There is another Russia besides Putin’s tanks. And we extend our hand of friendship to this other Russia. Be assured, they have our support.

    Honourable Members,

    In these days, independent Ukraine is facing its darkest hour. At the same time, the Ukrainian people are holding up the torch of freedom for all of us. They are showing immense courage. They are defending their lives. But they are also fighting for universal values and they are willing to die for them. President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people are a true inspiration. When we last spoke, he told me again about his people’s dream to join our Union. Today, the European Union and Ukraine are already closer than ever before. There is still a long path ahead. We have to end this war. And we should talk about the next steps. But I am sure: Nobody in this hemicycle can doubt that a people that stands up so bravely for our European values belongs in our European family.

    And therefore, Honourable Members, I say: Long live Europe. And long live a free and independent Ukraine.

    My z vamy. Slava Ukraini.

  • David Rutley – 2022 Statement on the Benefit Cap

    David Rutley – 2022 Statement on the Benefit Cap

    The statement made by David Rutley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing the debate. I know that he has strong views on this issue—that is very clear from the debate. This was second time lucky for him in terms of having this debate, which is thanks to the Chair and the Speaker. I am really pleased that he was able to get through his coronavirus unscathed, hopefully, and is now able to participate. I am also grateful to him for mentioning how important these democratic processes are, however much we might disagree—as he and I do on a lot. None the less, this is the way to express our differences—through debate and through the democratic processes. This stands in marked contrast to the unacceptable and abhorrent actions of President Putin, which both he and I roundly condemn, along with the whole House. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine and for peace.

    The Government remain committed to providing a financial safety net for those who need it, with support available for those on low incomes or who are unable to work at all. We will, this year, spend more than £250 billion through the welfare system, including £41 billion on universal credit and more than £110 billion on working age benefits. The Government have focused on making sure that more money gets to those vulnerable people who need it most, with over £58 billion of welfare support going to people with disabilities and health conditions this year alone.

    The pandemic has been a very challenging time for many, and universal credit has stood up to the challenge of covid-19, providing a vital safety net for 6 million people. I know that the hon. Gentleman has concerns about universal credit, but the system stood up well; it was resilient and it was able to pay people on time.

    David Linden

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Yes, like everybody on these Benches, I welcome the fact that the universal credit payment was uplifted by £20 a week, but does he not accept that that was a clear concession and recognition that social security in its current form was inadequate before the pandemic, and if it was inadequate then, what has changed since?

    David Rutley

    As the Chancellor spelled out clearly during the pandemic, this was a response to the worst parts of the pandemic and the shock it would provide to people. The hard-working staff in the Department for Work and Pensions, including thousands of work coaches, worked tirelessly to ensure that the benefits system did its job.

    Since the start of the pandemic, we have spent more than £400 billion protecting people’s lives and livelihoods, and supporting businesses and public services. As well as providing support where it is needed, the Government have a responsibility to taxpayers. We must ensure that we use our resources in the most effective and efficient way possible, and the benefit cap is a vital part of that.

    The hon. Gentleman and I probably disagree on this, but let me set it out and we will see how it takes the debate further forward.

    Alan Brown

    It is a few years since the National Audit Office said that there was no system in place to measure the outcomes associated with universal credit. For years the Government have continued to say that UC helps people into work. So what changes in the assessment process for measuring outcomes have the Government made since that NAO report?

    David Rutley

    The internal assessments we have produced—and we have produced several—showed that UC does help more people get into work. At the moment, in an economic environment where there are record vacancies, which I will touch on later, we are helping more people get into work.

    The benefit cap was introduced as part of a strategy to reform the system of benefits for people of working age. The cap limits the combined sum of prescribed welfare benefits that households may be entitled to. The aims of the benefit cap policy are: to incentivise behaviours; to encourage people to work and to reduce long-term dependency on benefits; and to introduce greater fairness in the welfare system between those receiving out-of-work benefits and those in work, by putting in place a reasonable limit on the amount a household can receive in welfare benefits. For context, let me say that about four in 10 households earn less than the annual benefit cap’s limits of £23,000 in London and about £20,000 in the rest of Great Britain. The final aim is to make the system more affordable, better balancing the burden on taxpayers. Let us not forget that households can still receive benefits up to the equivalent salary of £24,000—or £28,000 in London.

    We continue to protect vulnerable claimants for whom work may not currently be a viable option. In recognition of the additional costs related to a disability, households are exempt from the cap if someone is receiving disability living allowance or a personal independence payment. UC claimants who receive the limited capability for work-related activity element—that phrase is a bit of a mouthful—or employment and support allowance claimants in receipt of the support component are also exempt from the cap.

    The Government recognise and appreciate the vital contribution made by carers, which is why there are exemptions for those entitled to carer’s allowance, the carer’s element in UC and guardian’s allowance. Households in receipt of UC are exempt from the cap if their earnings reach just £617 a month, to help encourage people into work. Those who still receive housing benefit are also exempt if they are entitled to working tax credits. Eligible childcare costs that are repaid through UC payments are exempt from the cap. That also supports people getting into work and progressing in employment.

    I also want to support those with a strong recent work history who find themselves without work or whose earnings reduce. As a result, the benefit cap is not applied for nine months for those receiving UC where the claimant, their partner or ex-partner has received at least the benefit cap earnings threshold of £617 in each of the previous 12 consecutive months.

    I should also remind the House that the proportion of capped households remains low in comparison with the overall working-age benefit case load, at 2.7% across Great Britain. In Scotland, the proportion is even lower, at 1.1%. In the last quarter, to August 2021, on average 710 households every week moved off the cap through increasing their earnings or starting work. There is a statutory duty to review the benefit cap levels once in each Parliament; the country has been through very challenging times, which has delayed that statutory review, but it will happen at the appropriate time in this Parliament, to be determined by the Secretary of State. When the Secretary of State decides to undertake that review, which must currently happen by December 2024, she will consider the national economic situation and any other matters she deems vital at that time.

    Chris Stephens rose—

    David Rutley

    I will give way to the esteemed member of the Work and Pensions Committee.

    Chris Stephens

    The Minister is being very generous. Can he tell us then, with the assessments the Department is doing of the benefit cap, whether it will do further assessments alongside its much-awaited review on the drivers of food bank use and food aid provision, which the House has waited 18 months for the Department to place in the Commons Library?

    David Rutley

    That report will come forward—I think there have been exchanges between the Committee and the Secretary of State’s office—but we are talking here about a statutory requirement, which certainly will happen during the course of this Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman, a well-respected member of the Committee, will be aware, we have gone through very uncertain times; we must ensure that review is done when we have the proper body of evidence and at the right time. I am sure he will seek to hold the Secretary of State to account during that process, as he rightly should as a member of the Select Committee.

    There is clear evidence that work, particularly full-time work, substantially reduces the likelihood of being in poverty. Children living in workless households were around six times more likely to be in absolute poverty before housing costs in 2019-20 than those where all adults worked. At a time of record vacancies, we are not only focusing on getting people into jobs, but taking action to boost the take-home pay of lower-income working households by giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year through our cut—

    David Linden

    Cut to universal credit.

    David Rutley

    Through our cut to the universal credit taper rate, if I may finish, and the increase in work allowances. The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly cheeky, but we will let him get away with it once. In addition, the national living wage will increase to £9.50 from April, meaning an extra £1,000 a year for full-time workers.

    Getting claimants back into work remains the primary focus of the Secretary of State and the whole ministerial team, myself included. We know that having a job has many benefits, including a routine, a sense of purpose and increased confidence. We would also like as many people as possible to feel those positive effects—not forgetting, of course, that people on UC securing employment will significantly decrease the likelihood of their household’s being affected by the cap.

    There are nearly 1.3 million vacancies across the United Kingdom, 43,000 more than last month and 513,000 more than at the start of the pandemic. Those vacancies provide opportunities for people to move into and progress in work, as well as to increase their earnings. To help people to take advantage of that record number of vacancies, our plan for jobs is supporting people at any age and any stage of their career. People currently affected by the benefit cap can access support provided by the “Plan for Jobs”, and since the start of the pandemic we have recruited 13,500 new work coaches to ensure that, no matter where they live across the country, claimants can access support and opportunities to get a job, to progress and to realise their potential.

    David Linden

    The point I want to pick the Minister up on is that, if the Government have put in place all those work coaches—I pay tribute to the work they do—and they all have contracts that go on longer because there is anticipation that the unemployment figures will be higher, why did they cut universal credit when they understood that people were going to be relying on the social security system?

    David Rutley

    I know the hon. Gentleman likes to put the word “cut” into a sentence, but we withdrew a temporary increase in universal credit that was put in place for a specific reason during the pandemic. We have now got into a stage in the economic cycle where there are more vacancies and we want to get people into work so they can stand on their own two feet and be less dependent on benefits. I know we have different views, but I am sure even he would want to get more people standing on their own two feet and given the opportunity to have their own work.

    Another way we are doing that is by working with a specific group of 500,000 benefit claimants, helping them into work by the end of June through the way to work initiative, which will increase communication between employers and claimants to help get people into work faster, so that they can experience the positive benefits associated with it. There is a range of other support available to help those people who may be affected by the cap through the flexible support fund, ensuring they have access to higher support for childcare—up to 85% of the cost of which is available on universal credit—and through the discretionary housing payments and, of course, the household support fund.

    It is not just helping people into work; we have also provided support. The Chancellor set out just recently the additional support that would be available to tackle to cost of energy through the three-part plan, involving a £200 rebate for households that is delivered through their energy bill. We have covered at lot in this debate; we are very keen to help people into work and we are providing support for those who face challenges. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to address this debate.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Chris Bryant’s Decision to Withdraw Invite Given to Russian Ambassador

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Chris Bryant’s Decision to Withdraw Invite Given to Russian Ambassador

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 28 February 2022.

    Before we begin today’s business, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for withdrawing his invitation to the Russian ambassador to address the all-party group on Russia. I was very uneasy about the visit and did not think it appropriate to invite a Russian official who had said only weeks before that there would be no invasion. Therefore, I am grateful for that decision.

    I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for his successful efforts in ensuring the suspension of the Russian Federation’s right of representation in the Council of Europe.

    I also say to all hon. Members, and all those who follow our proceedings: we stand in solidarity with Ukraine and its people and have raised their flag at the House of Commons. I will send around an email about further events planned this week to show our support for them and their fight for freedom.

  • Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on Sanctions on Russia

    Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on Sanctions on Russia

    The speech made by Alyn Smith, the SNP MP for Stirling, in the House of Commons on 28 February 2022.

    I am grateful for sight of the statement. The SNP is part of the global coalition in defence of Ukraine in international law. I commend the Foreign Secretary and her Ministers on the openness with which they have dealt with Opposition Members. That trust will be reciprocated; this is too serious a time.

    If anything, I urge more. I support the statement and we will support the sanctions measures as they come forward, but I urge more and I urge faster ambition, particularly on refugees. The UK needs to waive visas, not wave flags. The EU has really given the lie to the generosity of the UK’s response on refugees by waiving visas for three years for all Ukrainian nationals. The UK needs to do the same. I appreciate that it is not in the Secretary of State’s remit, but I really urge the Government to act on the issue, because it is certainly the one most raised with me.

    The EU’s response through the civil protection mechanism and the peace facility dwarfs the UK’s. The EU has acted with one voice: 27 member states are acting together. I really urge the UK to complement those efforts and match their scale and ambition in its measures, which we support but wish to see more of.

    I have some specific questions about sanctions. We all agree about tackling oligarchs, but what plans are there to tackle and target the family members of oligarchs? When we were in Kyiv recently, that was mentioned as a particularly effective way of putting on pressure. I also note that there will be an advice facility for UK businesses affected by the sanctions. Is any consideration being given to providing financial aid for UK businesses hit by the sanctions? That seems the morally correct thing to do.

    The Foreign Secretary will be aware of reports of a Russian tanker heading for Orkney to pick up oil. Will the legal powers to impound such vessels be in place in time for us to do so?

  • David Lammy – 2022 Speech on Sanctions on Russia

    David Lammy – 2022 Speech on Sanctions on Russia

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 February 2022.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and for the briefing that she continues to give me on Privy Council terms.

    We have all been inspired by the gallant and tenacious actions of Ukrainians in defence of their country. This is true courage under fire. President Zelensky has epitomised the bravery, dignity and resolve of a nation fighting back, and fighting for values that we all share—democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Foreign Secretary is right when she says that Putin’s invasion is not so far going to plan, but does she agree that we must not let our focus slip for even a second? We will continue to stand united with our allies and partners, supporting Ukraine and opposing this outrageous campaign of aggression.

    This morning, I had the honour, with the shadow Defence Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), of meeting Ukraine’s ambassador. He thanks all sides of this House for the united opposition we have shown to Vladimir Putin’s illegal war and the support we continue to show for Ukrainian sovereignty. Putin is not only facing a united west; he is facing a truly United Kingdom. Together, we have enacted sanctions that are having a strong effect. The rouble has crashed by over 40%, the main borrowing rate is up 20%, and inflation is reportedly hitting about 65% per year. Oligarchs are being frozen out of their bank accounts and the central bank of Russia is being blocked from part of the $640 billion war chest that it holds in foreign reserves. Labour’s priority is to cut off Putin’s rogue state from our economic system and to undermine his campaign of aggression in Ukraine.

    We recognise that on 24 February the European security order changed. Our continent faces a transformed strategic context. Our world is at the start of a new era. I pay tribute to the political courage shown by all our partners, particularly our allies in Germany who have recognised that by taking the difficult and brave decisions to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons for its fight and to commit to the significant increases in defence spending that this new reality demands.

    Yesterday, President Putin raised the alert level of Russian nuclear forces. As the five nuclear weapon states, including Russia, reaffirmed in January, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of that decision, given the understandable concern it will have caused among the public?

    Turning to sanctions, we welcome the further steps the Government have announced today. Labour has been calling for some time for progress by the UK, the EU and the US on cutting off Russian banks from SWIFT. The moves finally to clamp down on dirty money—so long demanded by Labour and colleagues across the House—are long overdue. It is regrettable that it has taken so long and a crisis of this nature for such action, but we welcome the steps and will study them carefully. However, there is still more the Government can do.

    The last time I stood at the Dispatch Box, I asked what steps the Government had taken to ensure that members of Russia’s legislature, the Duma, could be sanctioned. Still today, I am waiting for that answer. Similarly, although I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s action against Russia’s financial sector, the Government should go further to ensure sanctions can also be placed against Russia’s extractive industries, energy industries and technological industries. We must ensure that the insurance industry cannot underwrite and de-risk Putin’s war. As I said at my last time at the Dispatch Box, it is vital that the sanctions are broad enough to inflict damage on every aspect of Russia’s economy. We welcome the moves the Government have taken to ensure Russia is cut out of the SWIFT banking system, but can the Foreign Secretary explain what dialogue she has had with our allies on cutting the country out of the Visa-Mastercard system, too?

    Finally, can the Foreign Secretary give assurances that Putin will also feel the consequences of his despicable actions in terms of international opportunities available to the country in sports and culture? The diplomatic unity of the west is crucial, but we must also widen the global coalition opposing the war. Some countries, such as Kenya, have spoken out with clarity and elegance against Putin’s imperialism, but others have stayed silent. Some are even allies of the UK and fellow democracies. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure the widest possible range of voices speaks up in opposition to this war?

    As well as commending the bravery of the Ukrainians defending their country, we must also praise the courage of the ordinary Russians taking to the streets of Moscow, St Petersburg and beyond under the threat of repression to show their opposition to this despot. This is the fifth day of fighting. Ukraine is still facing an all-out war from Putin’s army. It is a mark of the bravery of Ukraine’s forces that neither Kyiv nor Kharkiv have fallen. We salute their courage, and this whole House will continue to stand with them.