With permission, I would like to update the House on the NATO summit in Ankara, on the building of a stronger Europe within NATO with major increases in European—including UK—defence investment, on our continued and unwavering support for Ukraine, on our discussions with Gulf partners about the strait of Hormuz and on the opportunity that the Prime Minister and I took to raise with other leaders and Foreign Ministers the issue of Sudan. These are all issues that directly affect our national and economic security in the UK. The NATO summit took place at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous than it has been for decades, and we have a war in Europe that has now been going on for longer than the first world war. Drones and missiles are changing the nature of warfare and there are continuing threats to the security of NATO allies, including cyber-threats, hybrid threats, sabotage, industrial scale misinformation, attempts to interfere with undersea cables and drone incursions. Just this week, we have seen Russia engaging in reckless and dangerous activity around our British aircraft carrier, which is on NATO operations in the north Atlantic. Three weeks ago, I went to see the concrete trenches and anti-tank defences being prepared by Polish troops along the Kaliningrad border, a sign of how seriously they take the importance of deterring Russian threats. NATO has been the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security for over 75 years, protecting more than a billion people, but to ensure it remains as strong for the next 75 years, it needs to respond to changing threats. NATO is a defensive alliance, but we maintain our strength and security through deterrence and holding the capabilities to deal with any threat we may face. As the summit made clear, that means building a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO. The United States remains an indispensable and fully committed ally in NATO, but the burdens must be shared. In response to increased threats in Europe, Europe must step up. That is what allies committed to last year in The Hague, and what we are delivering this year in Ankara. European and Canadian allies are spending $140 billion more on defence this year than the year before, a rise of 20%. The UK is the third biggest cash contributor to NATO, including crucial specialist capabilities, such as our nuclear deterrent. Now the defence investment plan involves the biggest sustained increase in UK defence spending since the cold war, spending almost £300 billion over the next four years. As the Defence Secretary has set out, that means new capabilities, a new hybrid Navy, investments in digital and autonomous systems, and enhanced strike and air defence capabilities. In Ankara, we brought together 12 allies to lead a European initiative to step up funding for deep precision strike capabilities, an initiative set to invest more than £37 billion over the next 10 years. We are working jointly with Norway on new frigates, with Italy and Japan on the next generation of fighter jets, and we are strengthening our maritime partnership with the Netherlands, with new amphibious transport ships. We agreed a new security and defence partnership with Turkey, and we discussed the importance of strong collaboration across our defence industries, which support tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom. We are also bolstering UK leadership in NATO by appointing General Nick Perry to head up Joint Force Command Norfolk, which leads the protection of the High North and the US eastern seaboard. NATO met at a critical moment for Ukraine’s resistance against brutal ongoing Russian aggression. Over the last week alone, Russia has launched two of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians overnight last Wednesday and at least 26 civilians overnight on Monday. Throughout this conflict, Putin has underestimated the strength of Ukraine and the solidarity of Ukraine’s friends. As a result of Ukraine’s resistance, Putin now faces deteriorating conditions within his armed forces, on the battlefield and in his economy, suffering a net loss of territory for the first time since 2023. Some 500,000 Russian soldiers have now been killed since the start of the invasion. Ukraine is stepping up attacks deep inside Russia and occupied Crimea, causing Russia’s worst fuel crisis in decades, with queues at the petrol pump and prices rising. This is underpinned by continued sanctions by the UK and our allies against Russian oil and gas, and through action against the Russian shadow fleet. Despite that pressure, Putin still deludes himself that he can outlast Ukraine, and outlast NATO allies in our support for Ukraine. That is why it is so important that our support for Ukraine is enduring. Since 2022, the UK has provided almost £25 billion in support for Ukraine. Two weeks ago, I announced £500 million in support for Ukraine’s recovery and energy security, alongside our military investment. In Ankara, we and allies have together pledged €70 billion in support to Ukraine in 2026, and at least equivalent levels in 2027, so that Ukraine is in the best possible position to negotiate a just and lasting peace. On Tuesday, NATO Foreign Ministers also met with four of our Gulf partners, under the Istanbul convention initiative, to discuss the situation in the strait of Hormuz and in the region. The House will be aware that on Monday night, despite having made a clear commitment that the strait of Hormuz would be reopened, Iran attacked three commercial ships close to the Omani coast. Those attacks are a breach of the memorandum of understanding, a violation of Omani sovereignty and a contravention of the law of the sea. These are international shipping routes that commercial shipping has a right to pass. The United Kingdom condemns unequivocally the recent Iranian attacks on commercial shipping, including on Saudi and Qatari vessels. No country has the right to hijack international shipping or to hold the global economy hostage, so we also condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian attacks on sites in Bahrain and Kuwait. We stand in solidarity with our partners across the region. Iran must halt these attacks on international shipping, support the reopening of the strait and return to de-escalation and diplomacy. The UK stands ready to support a return to talks, because Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon and we need the full reopening of the strait of Hormuz. That is why, alongside France, the UK has established a multilateral maritime mission to support the de-mining of the strait, verification and reassurance to shipping, and ultimately to support the global economy, and ease the cost of living back home. While in Ankara, I also raised directly with our allies the urgency of sounding the alarm on El Obeid in Sudan. I am deeply fearful that the Sudanese city is at risk of mass bloodshed and civilian casualties, with signs of plans for an assault by advancing Rapid Support Forces that are already encircling the city, as they cut off supply routes and unleash repeated drone attacks on fuel, infrastructure and storage sites. Strikes have already killed civilians and humanitarian workers. An estimated 500,000 civilians are now at risk, many of them women and girls who have already carried an intolerable burden throughout this three-year conflict. Last year, El Fasher became the site of unspeakable violence and suffering, atrocities that the UN’s fact-finding mission concluded bore the hallmarks of genocide. The world must not fail the people of Sudan again. Last week, the UK convened an urgent debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council. A UK-penned resolution condemned atrocities, called for an urgent UN fact finding inquiry and urged the RSF to comply with international law and halt this attack, urging both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces to accept proposals that have been put forward for a truce. We are calling for an end to the external support and arms flows from other countries that are extending this conflict and fuelling this horrendous suffering. The United Nations arms embargo does not cover El Obeid, so it must be extended. We are urging all our allies and countries from across the world, as we discussed in Ankara this week, to maximise the pressure calling on all sides to protect the people of Sudan. Effective foreign policy is domestic policy. Championing freedom of navigation supports UK energy security. Preventing bloodshed in Sudan speaks to our values and our interests. Supporting Ukraine’s security is supporting our own security. Strengthening NATO is how we make our country safer, our economy stronger and our people more secure. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by recognising some of the positive commitments in the NATO summit communiqué, including the important reaffirmation of the alliance’s commitment to collective defence under article 5 and to the transatlantic bond, and the essential new defence procurement announcements. The recognition of Ukraine as a contributor to transatlantic security is overdue, and we back the reiteration of the alliance’s support for Ukraine. I share the Foreign Secretary’s disgust at the Russian attacks in Kyiv in recent days. The outcome of the Ukrainian war matters profoundly to NATO, as does our collective commitment to lead the world in helping Ukraine turn the tide in this war. We all know that the best deterrent against an invasion like this ever happening again is Russia’s expulsion from Ukraine. Now is the time to ramp up our support for Ukraine. Will the Government provide Ukraine with additional military capabilities or broker any new international packages of support, as we did so effectively at the outset of the war? Following the boarding of a Russian shadow fleet ship last month, will there be a sustained effort to disrupt the fleet’s operations? Will the Foreign Secretary commit to leading international pressure on the refineries buying Russian crude oil in order to cut the financial flows that are funding Russia’s illegal war? The NATO communiqué refers to the conflict in Iran and touches on the strait of Hormuz. As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its actions. I put on the record our solidarity with Oman following the outrageous breach of its sovereignty by Iran. We understand that Oman has agreed to work with Britain and France to ensure that its territorial waters remain safe. Last week in a joint statement with the French, Downing Street said: “The UK and France also stand ready to deploy the wider Multinational Military Mission to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” What does that mean in practice? Will there be a deployment? What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran? What opportunity will we have in this House to scrutinise and debate the Government’s plans? As Defence Secretary, my good friend Ben Wallace invested millions in the development of cutting-edge autonomous minehunters. In his previous role as Minister for Defence Procurement, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), delivered Britain’s first ever defence drone strategy in 2024, which emphasised the use of uncrewed drones in the maritime domain, including for mine detection. Will either of those capabilities be deployed in the mission? It is vital that Britain has capabilities to operate in theatres around the world, and of course that requires cash now, which the current Labour Administration are refusing to provide. Britain is already spending less of its GDP on defence than Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the United States, Denmark, Greece and Finland. How can we expect others to find more for defence when we are not leading by example? Because this Labour Government, in the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), have been “unable” and “unwilling” to provide the money we need to keep Britain safe, our country faces a huge shortfall in the years ahead. By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries. There will be a change of Labour leadership in the coming weeks. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been left to find £4.7 billion at his next Budget, and there is no serious detail about the billions of pounds of so-called efficiency savings that this Government have identified. As the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, the Polish Foreign Minister, said of Britain under Labour: “You’re spending something like £65 billion on defence and £360 billion on welfare. Lucky you, you must not feel any danger”. In reality, this Government are prepared to plough billions into welfare while short-changing defence. We want to change that, and I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will she work with us to make progress on this? This is a serious time—Britain is under threat—and we need to step up in a significant way. The Foreign Secretary also mentioned Sudan and the horrific situation in El Obeid. We know that words are not enough; action is needed. I agree with her on the need for the arms embargo to be extended, and the two warring parties must be pressed into a ceasefire.

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, particularly her support for the commitments made in Ankara and the continuing condemnation of the Russian strikes. It has been an important part of the cross-party debates in this House and across the whole country that we have stood united behind Ukraine and in solidarity with it, and long must that continue. The right hon. Lady is right that we will need to maintain the pressure on Russia. We see that as being about increasing sanctions; continuing to apply pressure through sanctions and maritime services bans; continuing with our military support for Ukraine, both directly and in partnership with our European allies, including through the loans for Ukraine that we continue to provide; and, crucially, providing energy infrastructure support and resilience—Ukraine needs the resilience to get through the winter, which we know is when Russia most heavily targets the civilian population. We will maintain that support. In fact, it is because of our commitment to the long-term future of Ukraine that we have signed a 100-year partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine in the spirit of solidarity. I welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of Iran’s behaviour. It is telling that, despite having signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States, Iran seems to persist in the view that it has the right to control the strait of Hormuz, which is an international shipping route, and to attack commercial ships in Omani waters. That is a violation of Oman’s sovereignty, as well as a violation of the law of the sea. That is why we have been so strong in our condemnation and in seeking to mobilise countries across the world to put pressure on Iran and to get it to recognise the importance of the whole world’s support for freedom of navigation, the law of the sea and getting the global economy moving again. The right hon. Lady raised the issue of defence investment. She will understand that we are increasing investment in defence at a rapid pace—at the steepest pace since the cold war—and have made commitments to go further, but I should point out that it was her party that cut defence spending by 20%.

Times have changed.

The shadow Foreign Secretary says from a sedentary position that times have changed. She is right: times did change. Times changed when Russia invaded Crimea. That was the evidence that the post-cold war peace dividend had gone, and yet it took her party 10 years to recognise that defence spending needed to increase. [Interruption.] For most of that period—

Order. My constituents and, I am certain, everybody’s constituents will be very interested in what the Foreign Secretary has to say.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. For most of the period before the election, defence spending was nearer 2% of GDP. That is just too low, which is why we are increasing it; we have already increased it from 2.3% to 2.7%, and we have committed to go further. That has involved some difficult decisions, including on official development assistance and other areas. I hope the whole House will support that increased investment in defence, because ultimately, it underpins the security of our country and the security of our future.

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The alliance is growing stronger by the week, but it is clear now that national security rests on economic security. Can she update the House on what conversations she had about how the allies will come together to build and enlarge an arsenal of democracy for the 21st century, whereby we collaborate on defence industrial policy and defence finance strategy on a wholly new scale that is fit for this new age of insecurity?

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. There are links between our national security and our economic security; they are closely intertwined. That comes from the fact that if our economic security is jeopardised, including through things such as the closure of the strait of Hormuz, it has an impact on our national security and particularly on supply chains for critical minerals, for example, which may be crucial to our defence. As we increase the demand and procurement for and investment in defence, it is crucial that our supply chains and our defence industry collaboration across allies can keep up. That is why we had a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Ankara specifically about how we can better collaborate and integrate aspects of our defence industry. That is what supports tens of thousands of jobs here in the UK, but we need to do it in collaboration with other countries.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. As we have come to expect of all major international summits, NATO’s meeting in Ankara was taken over entirely by Donald Trump’s tantrums and threats. He restated his claim that Greenland should become American, threatened the withdrawal of all remaining US troops from Europe, and once again lambasted allies for not joining his and Netanyahu’s calamitous war in Iran, which has upended the world economy and worsened a spiralling cost of living crisis for millions across Britain. That is no way to conduct international diplomacy. Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Donald Trump that his threats against Greenland are totally unacceptable? However, there were some positive moments from the summit. NATO allies reaffirmed support for Ukraine, and the Prime Minister announced plans for the development of a new deep strike capability with our European partners. Will the Secretary of State outline how exactly the UK will provide its share of the £37 billion of funding for that capability? Even before that new commitment, as has been pointed out, the Government’s own defence investment plan delivered only just over half of what military chiefs deem necessary for our national defence. Together with the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will she consider how defence bonds could be used rapidly to support the UK’s contribution to that initiative, bolster the confidence of our allies and send a clear signal to our adversaries? Have these plans been drawn up together with the Ukrainians? They have shown with incredible effect how deep strike capability can be developed fast and much, much more cheaply than £37 billion. On defence funding, the Prime Minister discussed the possibility of collective financing and procurement models as a critical way to generate cheaper loans for military programmes and support greater interoperability. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether any progress was made at the summit to bring together the existing Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and our own multilateral defence mechanism into a single European rearmament bank? Finally, the Secretary of State mentions El Obeid in Sudan and the thousands of lives at risk. The UK has the power to act, so will she proscribe the RSF, as has just been done with the IRGC? Will she suspend all UK arms sales to the UAE, given its role in arming the RSF?

The hon. Gentleman mentions a range of issues. In terms of the areas of agreement and disagreement, there will be areas where we continue to disagree with the President of the United States and have said so, including in our continued support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, which we have always made clear. That is why we worked in NATO and with the support of the United States for a new Arctic Sentry in NATO. The UK carrier strike group is operating as part of that. That is an important way of having a multilateral and shared defence of the High North, which is about protecting Canada, the United States, Norway and the western flank of Europe, including the United Kingdom, as well as the whole of Europe. That is the way in which we approach our Arctic security. That has strong agreement from the United States, which I think is a reflection of the way that we have worked to deal with those issues. On the £37 billion for deep precision strike, we have allocated £3 billion over the first four years from the defence investment plan. That will help to fund some of the work we are doing with Germany and some separate work we are doing with France and Italy as part of a series of programmes all about deep precision strike, which we have brought European allies together on. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism. He may have seen that the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister put out a joint statement over the last couple of days to set out how we seek to work together to ensure that those initiatives, which do slightly different things, can combine and collaborate to ensure that we get the best possible impact. On Sudan, we continue to raise the issue of arms flows, and we take that immensely seriously. That is exactly why we want to extend the arms embargo and believe that that needs to continue across the whole of Sudan. That is also why I have raised this issue with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are members of the Quad, and we will continue to pursue it. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of proscription. He will know that that is a matter for the Home Office, but we believe that there should be a full arms embargo on Sudan.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for the work that she and the Prime Minister have done at the NATO summit. May I register my huge concern, and that of my constituents, that the ceasefire between the US and Iran appears to be over, due to the egregious breaches by Iran? The situation has escalated, with the US taking military action. May I ask for reassurance that those who helped to bring about the first ceasefire, including the UK, by working very closely with allies behind the scenes, will now do everything to try to bring about a new ceasefire, so that we can get a deal in place that will lead to a permanent peace? That will be good for the region and much better for the UK and the world economy.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. We need to see an end to Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping in the strait. Crucially, that means Iran must give up its claim that it somehow has the right to control international shipping routes and Omani waters, because it does not. We want to see a return to talks, and we want the ceasefire to be sustained. We have offered to support the technical talks around preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and the reopening of the strait through our multilateral maritime mission.

I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary said in her initial statement, particularly the point that we live in a more dangerous world than ever—I also agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, obviously. The point is surely this: there is no point apportioning blame between us. We are where we are now, in the most dangerous position that we have ever been in. Will the Foreign Secretary take away this thought in her talks with the new Prime Minister? Will she say that Members on both Front Benches, including the new Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, should co-operate in meeting our NATO defence commitments in full? That means no black holes or creative accounting. We should pay for them by curbing the spiralling welfare bill, which is out of control. It is a win-win situation; we defend the nation, get people off benefit dependency and work together to save our country.

We agree about the nature of the increasingly dangerous world we live in and the importance of us being able to defend ourselves and maintain our security. We have committed to reaching the 3.5% commitment on defence, but that is part of a 5% commitment that was made to cover broader defence and security intelligence. The Father of the House will know that the UK invests substantially in our intelligence capabilities, which are unrivalled. That is why, if we combine that with the broader measure, the assessment is that we are already over 4% and on the trajectory towards the broader NATO figure of 5%. That is important. In addition to continuing to increase our investment in defence, we need to ensure that we are investing in wider intelligence, resilience and defence issues. That is how we will keep our country safe.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her focus on Sudan at the summit. The world has never been in a more dangerous place, with Russia playing a dangerous game in and around our waters and harassing our carrier strike group. I welcome the £70 billion for Ukraine pledged at Ankara. What difference will that make to Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression?

This is partly about the immediate support that Ukraine needs, both in terms of its military capabilities—we provide support, but we also learn from Ukraine’s phenomenal innovation and strength, and the way in which it is using that investment and support—and its resilience, including civilian and energy infrastructure resilience. Perhaps most importantly, however, the fact that we have made a long-term commitment is also crucial to Ukraine’s defence. It is because Putin thinks he can outlast Ukraine and its friends that he continues with his war and will not come to a peace agreement.

Could the Foreign Secretary say anything about the bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, and can she shed any light on the discussions they had about the United States sharing its Patriot missile production licences with Ukraine? What can the Government do—apart from welcoming that, as I hope the Foreign Secretary will—to facilitate that exchange and ensure that it happens? It could be crucial.

I can certainly tell the hon. Member that we support what I think were very positive bilateral discussions between President Trump and President Zelensky, which included the range of support they discussed, as well as the progress that Ukraine is making and the strength it has shown. I do not have further details for the House on the next steps, but we strongly welcomed the commitment that the US President made regarding licences for Patriot missiles.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Recent events have underlined the need for us to co-operate much more closely with our European allies and partners, so what discussions did she have at the summit with her European counterparts on joint procurement between British and European defence industries, which I think will ultimately make our country safer and stronger?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We know that no one country can do this alone, especially for some of the most advanced capabilities; we also know that if we want really effective interoperability, joint procurement with our closest allies is hugely beneficial, and it helps our defence industries and jobs as well. One of the best examples of that is our joint procurement of new frigates with Norway—we are effectively procuring the same frigates for Norway and the UK, so we will have full interoperability as well as our combined strength in the procurement process.

The Foreign Secretary has rightly highlighted the UK’s unwavering commitment to our ally, Ukraine. Her Estonian counterpart recently said that “Russia wages war not only with missiles, but with narratives.” With that in mind, last week I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Russian children’s TV show that is on ITVX and which Netflix has recently picked up. Funding from that show makes its way back to the Russian state, funding Putin’s illegal war. We have also recently seen the International Olympic Committee allow Russia potentially to participate in the next Olympic games, and Eurovision has said that Russia may return to the stage, so what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with UK colleagues and international counterparts to ensure that we stop allowing Russia to use the world stage to push its propaganda and its narratives?

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of challenging Russia in every sphere. Not only does it attempt to use different spheres for its narratives and its misinformation, but it has used misinformation on an industrial scale to seek to undermine democracies, which is why we have imposed sanctions in that regard. As the hon. Member knows, we have strongly condemned the IOC’s decision on the Olympics—we strongly disagree and believe it is the wrong thing to do. I will pass on the points that he has raised to the Culture Secretary.

I am really pleased that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were able to discuss Sudan at the NATO summit, because it is the biggest humanitarian crisis the world is facing. However, did she also have the opportunity to discuss the situation in Gaza and the west bank? It is nearly two years since the ICJ gave its advisory opinion and recommended that all states refrain from entering into economic or trade dealings that support illegal settlements. During business questions this morning, the Leader of the House confirmed that those settlements are illegal, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should follow countries such as Spain, our NATO ally, in giving full effect to our obligations under international law?

I did take the opportunity to discuss the situation in both the west bank and Gaza with some of our allies and partners. I am deeply worried that last year’s 20-point plan for Gaza—which was hugely important and which we supported, as did the whole world—is at risk of running into the ground. The humanitarian crisis there is not yet eased. I am also deeply worried about the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank, as well as the increase in settler violence that we are seeing, some of which is effectively settler terrorism. That is jeopardising the two-state solution that we strongly believe in. We are looking at what stronger measures we can take in this area, including working with allies; we are looking at restrictions on trade with illegal settlements, but also at the strongest sanctions regimes. We will continue to work on those issues with partners, because we need a two-state solution that supports the security of Palestinians and Israelis alike—it is the only way to ensure that.

I recognise the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to Sudan, and I am very pleased that she is shining a spotlight on El Obeid. However, although I recognise how difficult it is to work closely with our Gulf allies on the situation in Iran while at the same time having to condemn them for their activities behind the scenes in Sudan, surely the lesson of El Fasher is that unless we take a robust approach with those Gulf allies, we will not be able to prevent another El Fasher in El Obeid.

I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of preventing another El Fasher. That is exactly why I raised the issue directly with a series of European allies and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and why the Prime Minister raised it with President Trump and President Macron—we have raised the issue across the board. We want concerted diplomacy across our allies, but there also has to be pressure on all those who have the potential to influence the warring parties. Some of those are countries that have influence, while some of them are involved in arms flows—we believe that around 12 countries are involved in arms flows that are supporting the different warring parties. That is why we want the arms embargo to be extended, and it is why I am having intense discussions with a series of nations, all of which have potential influence in Sudan. I will continue to shine a spotlight on what is happening.

Further to the Foreign Secretary’s responses to questions about the defence, security and resilience bank and the multilateral defence mechanism, can she flesh out how the UK envisages those initiatives working more closely together, in practical terms and maybe in financial terms?

That work is under way, and has a joint commitment from our Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister, who have been responsible in parallel for beginning those initiatives. The multilateral defence mechanism focuses mostly on the joint procurement side, while the defence, security and resilience bank focuses particularly on support for small and medium-sized businesses. They are effectively complementary initiatives, so we want them to be able to operate together, and to look at how we build a much stronger link between those initiatives and take them forward. That work is under way at the moment, and I am sure we will provide my hon. Friend with regular updates.

I call Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Order. I remind the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that he must not walk in front of another Member when I am calling him.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global arms expenditure has now reached $2.8 trillion, with the USA, Europe, Russia and China spending the largest amounts. At any time during the NATO summit was there any strategic discussion about the way the world is spiralling out of control, with massive levels of expenditure on armaments, increasing wars, cuts in overseas aid by almost every country, and attacks on welfare budgets in every country as well? We are becoming a world that is increasingly at war, with increasing poverty at home. I realise that none of these issues is simple, but surely there needs to be some strategic look at what we are doing, or is the history of the 21st century going to be how we allowed the world to burn and spiral into war while increasing poverty at home in every country?

As I have said, our security since the second world war has very much depended on the NATO alliance, which has always been a defensive alliance that has built its strength through deterrence. Deterrence is immensely important. When we reached the end of the cold war in 1990, there was at that point a substantial peace dividend. Many countries, including our own, saw reductions in investment in defence and more money went into other things in that period. Sadly, since then, what we have seen, including in Europe since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, is the end of that post-cold war peace dividend. When we see growing threats to our security, we have to maintain the defensive alliance that NATO has always been and make sure that NATO has the capabilities to respond to any threat that might come in our direction. That is how we deter those threats, whether that is through our deep precision strike capability that we have been talking about or through other increased capabilities, such as matching the technical capabilities that Ukraine has demonstrated in anti-drone warfare. We have to ensure that we have all those kinds of capability, including air defence capabilities, so that we deter the threats against us and maintain our security. It is troubling that we now live in a more dangerous world, but we have to rise to that threat and ensure that we can keep our people safe.

While it is always great to see the Foreign Secretary, it is convention that the Prime Minister comes to the House to give the statement after a NATO summit. When she goes back to Downing Street, perhaps she can remind the Prime Minister that the country expects him to govern as Prime Minister for the 11 days he still has in the role, and this House expects him to come to the House on important matters such as the NATO summit. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with her counterparts on improving missile defence for Ukraine, whose hard-pressed civilian population are still being bombarded every single day? In particular, Patriot missile systems may not be available, whether through cost or availability, given their redeployment to the middle east, but are there not systems in Japan and South Korea that could be used? Although there are some issues around the Japanese and South Koreans exporting some of that technology, where there is a political will, a way can be found to help the Ukrainian civilian population.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there were extensive discussions at the NATO summit about air defences for Ukraine and the potential to mobilise a wide range of different partners and allies from across the world who may have other capabilities which could provide immediate and short-term support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed to see me at the Dispatch Box. I saw the Prime Minister at the NATO summit in a series of meetings, bilaterals and in the main NATO council, too. He was continually raising the importance of our 100% solidarity with Ukraine, our support for NATO and our commitment to these long-term defence partnerships for the future. He was also seeking to raise at the highest of levels the issues around Sudan, which are about our values and our interests. I pay tribute to everything that the Prime Minister has done over the past two years to put the UK back on the world stage.

Having criticised successive coalition, Conservative and Labour Governments for inadequate defence spending, may I yet again remind the Foreign Secretary that during the 1980s we successfully came through the height of the cold war by spending between 4% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was without creative accounting? On a more positive note, did she detect the seeming shift in the attitude of the American President towards the Ukraine conflict? Is that because he just wants, as always, to be on what he perceives to be the winning side, or is it a sign that the depredations of the killer in the Kremlin are finally getting through to the occupant of the White House?

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for being liberal in his criticism of all Governments—I accept that point. The US assessment of what is happening recognises Ukraine’s strength and resilience and the fact that, despite all the initial expectations that Putin would win the war easily, the opposite has been the case. It is also recognition of some of the links between Russia and Iran and their shared technologies and support, and how those relate to the security threats we face. It recognises the breadth of the Russian threats to NATO allies, but in particular Russia’s failings in Ukraine and the strength of Ukraine’s response and the willingness to support Ukraine in that.

Scotland stands ready to play its full role in the defence of Britain with many fine young men and, increasingly, women in our forces. We also have a huge array of industrial companies working on defence contracts. There is a problem, however, which is the Scottish Executive. In a remarkable display of overreach, they have blundered on to the world stage and refused to put vital public funds into defence firms that have legitimate commercial relationships with our ally Israel. What can the Government do about a fifth columnist First Minister in Edinburgh, John Swinney, who is damaging British security and thereby NATO, too?

Defence and foreign policy are rightly reserved matters, because they relate to the security of the whole United Kingdom. Scotland plays a crucial role as part of that—not just as part of our armed forces, but by having crucial parts of our defence industry. We must continue to support that.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which had vast portions of positivity and good news within it. While the £70 billion Ukraine package and the 5% spending target by 2035 sound impressive, our constituents want to know just how well those declarations translate into safety on the ground. Russia continues its brutal onslaught. As was rightly pointed out at the summit, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression are incredibly worrying, too. How will the Government ensure that all NATO countries are fully playing their part and that every pound coming from our taxpayers will be matched by fellow NATO countries and their taxpayers?

I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.

May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the reply she gave to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? By including some other admittedly vital services, she managed to come to a figure of 4% spending on defence. The reality, as we know, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on the US for its defence. Bearing in mind the President’s recent comments, will she acknowledge that further increases will have to take place over the coming years? It is an internal debate for Government whether that comes from the welfare budget, as the Father of the House suggested, or elsewhere.

I agree that we need to go further. The defence investment plan has set out a plan that takes us from 2.3% up to 2.7%. We have made commitments to go to 3% and then to 3.5% on core defence spending, so we of course need to go further. We need to ensure that as we increase investment, we also increase our capabilities and expand our defence industry. We must do so collectively, and with the most modern technology and capabilities. We must also show leadership, because it is not just about investment. As we work with our partners, those crucial UK capabilities and leadership are what keep our people safe.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During business questions, I mentioned the interests of council tax payers in Tendring district. I probably should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it says that I am a council tax payer in Tendring district.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which is now on the record.