Ukraine and Russia

With permission, I will make my first statement to the House as Secretary of State for Defence on Ukraine, the ongoing threat from Russia and the Government’s approach. It is not yet clear whether freedom or tyranny will define the 21st century. What is clear is that the United Kingdom will not be a bystander in that struggle. The frontline is Ukraine. In Kyiv, on my first overseas trip, I saw for myself what modern tyranny looks like. President Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion is a challenge to the collective security of all of us in Europe. History—especially the history of our continent—teaches us that when imperialist ambitions go unchallenged, leaders like President Putin come back for more. That is why Ukraine’s security is our security and why we will not waver for one second in our support for Ukraine. This week, I co-chaired my first meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius, alongside Ukraine’s new Defence Minister Evgeniy Khmara and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. We know that President Putin, facing the reality that Russian casualties surpassed 1.5 million this week, is preparing to intensify his barbaric attacks against civilian and energy targets over the coming months. When I met President Zelensky, I heard loud and clear the vital importance of supporting Ukraine through this winter, as did the Prime Minister. We promised to mobilise allies and provide more support wherever we can. We are delivering on that commitment, strengthening Ukraine’s defences and, alongside more than 50 nations, converting commitment into capability. This week I announced that the UK is pledging £100 million to support the rapid delivery of air defence interceptors in response to a direct request from Ukraine. We also reaffirmed our commitment to provide more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine over the course of this year. In total, the United Kingdom has committed £25 billion for Ukraine. That includes nearly 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 1 million artillery shells, more than 100,000 drones and thousands of air defence missiles and armoured vehicles. Winter in Ukraine is no longer a season; it is a weapon. In Kyiv, the Prime Minister and I saw at first hand the destructive consequences of this war, but we also experienced the spirit and the strength of the Ukrainian people. The message we delivered on behalf of this Government, and on behalf of the British people, was unequivocal: we will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes. That commitment is built on the rock-solid foundations laid by our Labour and Conservative predecessors, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine from day one. Boris Johnson pledged anti-armour missiles before Russia’s invasion. In one of his first acts in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister handed over blueprints for British-made missile components so that Ukraine can produce long-range weapons on its own assembly lines. It has been a striking feature, during an especially divisive period in British politics, that support for Ukraine unites this House. One of the things I feel most strongly about in this role is showing our allies, but particularly our adversaries, that there is an enormous amount of consensus and national unity when it comes to defence. That unity is itself a projection of strength and deterrence, so I say to colleagues from across the House: it is your job, and the job of Parliament, to hold us to account. It is right that you do so, but let us not manufacture difference where it does not exist. On this issue, more than any other, there is far more that unites us than divides us, and we have a collective responsibility to level with the British people. If the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, that is now a greater and more urgent responsibility than it has been for generations. The threats we face are not only evolving; they are getting closer to home. Every day, the UK and our allies encounter espionage, cyber-attacks and military posturing by hostile states. Just yesterday, a 31-year-old British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency. Alongside these threats comes the bellicose rhetoric that we hear from the Kremlin. Russia is constantly probing us and testing us, and the tragic irony of where we find ourselves is that Russia sees the UK and NATO as a threat that, in reality, simply does not exist. The UK is not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation with Russia, and nor do we have any quarrel with the Russian people. All we seek to do is to defend freedom, democracy, our interests, our allies and our values. Contrary to the propaganda, NATO has always been a defensive alliance, and if there is one thing that President Putin has achieved through the war in Ukraine, it has been to strengthen NATO and our commitment to our collective defence and security. Moscow should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO, should Russia attack. Knowing the gravity of the threats our country faces, this Government have overseen the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. We are already investing £15 billion more in defence than we were at the last spending review, and over the next four years we will be investing £298 billion. As a percentage of GDP, we have gone from 2.3% when Labour came to office two years ago to reaching 2.7% next year. We know that this Prime Minister and this Chancellor are both fully committed to funding our nation’s defence, including meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 and setting out an earlier 3% commitment at the next spending review. No one disputes that there is more to do to get there, but it is important to emphasise how much new money is already going into defence. That money is what allows us to do the things we need to do to strengthen our deterrence so that our adversaries think twice about attacking us, and to strengthen our capabilities so that we have the resources to fight and win if deterrence fails. That means making sure that every penny—both new money and money from existing budgets—is spent wisely, so that our military has the equipment, the training and the kit that it needs to keep us safe. It means making sure that we are constantly pushing the frontier of defence innovation, so that we have an advantage over our enemies. And it means making sure that we are creating more skilled jobs, more training, and more opportunities for people and businesses in our own country—unashamedly backing British to reindustrialise places where defence runs in the blood. That is how we will keep our country safe in today’s more dangerous and volatile world. As I take on this role, I feel the considerable weight of responsibility on my shoulders to proudly and robustly defend our country, our people, our values and our allies. I am lucky that in this endeavour I am supported by our exceptional armed forces, some of the smartest brains on the planet, and the extraordinary service of those working around the clock and around the globe to protect us. I have seen the capabilities that this country has, and they are considerable. We should have enormous pride in what our country does, let alone what we can do in the future. We will build a Britain worth fighting for, and a Britain capable of fighting for it. That is our mission, and that is what we will do. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

On behalf of the shadow Defence team, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Defence Secretary—Labour’s third in three months—to his place and to thank him for advance sight of this important statement. On a personal note, we have a mutual friend in Labour councillor Gareth Barrett, who I know would be very proud to see his long-time friend standing at the Dispatch Box and representing the Ministry of Defence. It is over four years since Russia’s brutal and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but as the Ukrainians reminded me when I visited Kyiv in February, the Russo-Ukrainian war has actually been raging for 12 years, because Putin’s Russia illegally annexed Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014. That is longer than both the first and second world wars combined. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the Ukrainians for their fierce and determined resistance. They are fighting for the values of freedom and democracy, which this House has represented for centuries, so when we say, “Slava Ukraini!”, we mean it. On my trip to Ukraine, the Speaker of the Rada said something that I will never forget: “When you go back to London, tell them we know the Russians better than anybody, and if we fall, you’re next.” My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is joining our shadow Defence team, has just returned from Kyiv overnight. He reports how the Russians cynically suspended missile strikes on the capital while those on the American delegation were present, but resumed the strikes almost immediately after their departure. Tragically, a number of innocent civilians were murdered in Kyiv last night. On supporting Ukraine and brave President Zelensky, there has been absolute solidarity between ourselves and the Labour party. When I served in the Ministry of Defence following the 2014 invasion, we began training Ukrainian troops on Salisbury Plain via what was then known as Operation Orbital, and that continues today via Operation Interflex. Between them, they have trained over 50,000 Ukrainian troops on British soil. The House will no doubt recall the very powerful footage of columns of Russian tanks being destroyed in 60 seconds in highly co-ordinated anti-tank ambushes north of Kyiv in February 2022, which were carried out by Ukrainian troops using UK-manufactured NLAW anti-tank weapons. Had it not been for that kit and the training that accompanied it, the Russians would likely be having lunch in Kyiv today. We all want to see a ceasefire in Ukraine but, as the Ukrainians themselves would tell us, not at any price. The Government’s policy is to participate in a “coalition of the willing” in order to help maintain a ceasefire—I hope the Secretary of State can confirm that again. However, were we to deploy the British Army into Ukraine, our troops would need to be adequately trained and equipped. A few moments ago, the Defence Secretary invited the House to hold him to account. Taking him at his word, I must press him on some extremely worrying reports—first published in The Times on 3 September, and amplified in the Defence Eye journal on Tuesday—that British Army training is being seriously curtailed in order to provide in-year efficiency savings— “cuts”, in pub English— at the Treasury’s behest. For the financial year 2026-27, the MOD has been given a ridiculous efficiency savings target of over £3 billion, with much of it to come from operational spending such as training exercises. The Army’s share of that is reportedly £1.2 billion. Given the seriousness of this situation, I wish to ask the Defence Secretary three very important questions. First, is it true that training in both the regular and the reserves is being materially constricted to save this money at the Treasury’s behest? Secondly, what actions is he as Defence Secretary, no doubt in consultation with the Chief of the General Staff, taking to push back against these pernicious in-year funding cuts imposed by the Treasury? What discussions has he had with the new Chancellor, who, ironically, resigned as Defence Secretary in June because Labour would not commit to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? The Government cannot keep kicking this can down the road. Thirdly, in which year specifically will Labour now commit to spend 3% of GDP on defence, as the Conservatives are now pledged to do by 2030 at the latest? We will not deter the likes of Vladimir Putin by capping bus fares. In summary, we are four-square with the Ukrainians. We support the Government in supporting them, but they must support our troops, so what are they doing to train them?

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive spirit with which he responded to my statement, and I very much hope we can maintain that on both sides of the House. I have certainly enjoyed my early conversations with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), so we will continue to work in that spirit, and maximise and project unity globally wherever we possibly can. The right hon. Gentleman referenced that I am the third Defence Secretary in recent months, for reasons that are evident, and I give him an undertaking to add this to the retention priorities for the workforce. I made that point very firmly to the Prime Minister, and I am very much in favour of retention in this post. On that note, however, I place on record my enormous respect for and thanks to both of my Labour predecessors—the Chancellor and the Security Minister. I particularly want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), who did an outstanding job during his time in this office, doing some considerable heavy lifting to get the defence investment plan over the line. Not only do I thank him for it, but I think the country will thank him for it in the longer term, too. I am enjoying working with him in his post. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned support for Ukraine, particularly the support we have given for a number of years on training. I should reflect back to the House, from my visit to Kyiv, that what is fascinating about the evolution of this terrible war is that, whereas we have spent a considerable amount of time training Ukrainians, we are increasingly finding that it is the other way around. We are seeing the rapid evolution of modern warfare, and the Ukrainians are at the forefront of defence innovation. We are actively learning from our Ukrainian friends, and their ingenuity and expertise. Yes, we have to provide them with the resources they need to fight and to win, but it is also important that we recognise their extraordinary capability under the most unimaginably difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multinational force for Ukraine. We hope for the best and plan for the worst in terms of the continuation of this war, but we are also actively working to prepare for conditions in which a ceasefire has been agreed by Ukraine, with Ukraine and, from our perspective, for Ukraine. I am proud of the work we are doing, particularly with our French allies, on the multinational force for Ukraine. I enjoyed seeing the MNFU in Paris during a visit to meet my French counterpart, Madame Vautrin, earlier this summer, and I am looking forward to hosting the MNFU here in the UK later this year. The objective of the MNFU is, in the event that a ceasefire is achieved, to increase Ukraine’s deterrence against war breaking out again, and that is the focus of the mission. The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports in the media about training, and I just want to unpack a few points. First, we are investing more in training, and it is certainly not true to say that training has ceased. [Interruption.] To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he did not make that claim, but I have seen people draw that conclusion from some of the reports. Of course training continues, although there has been some reprioritisation to make sure we are prioritising the activities that will provide most impact at this point in time. I acknowledge, however, that one of our responsibilities as a Department is to live within our means. One discipline I have to bring to the Ministry of Defence, drawing on my experience at the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, is to ensure there is no culture of routine overspending, that we are improving productivity, that we deliver value for money and that we recognise that the money we are investing in defence comes with choices and trade-offs that apply across Government and ultimately rest with the taxpayer. Yes, we must make the case for more defence investment and spending, and we will—we will see that across the House—but we should not in the process distract from ensuring that we live within our means, that we deliver capability, effect and impact, and that we treat every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. [Interruption.] I hear from the Opposition Front Benchers that they agree with that point. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tempted me to announce the date at which we will hit 3% spending. He will know that getting ahead of a Chancellor and a spending review is a breach of the ministerial code, and having resigned from the Government once already, I have no intention of doing so again today.

It was great to welcome my right hon. Friend to the Farnborough airshow, and it is great to have him at the Dispatch Box today. Our adversaries in China and Russia are mobilising their financial markets to sustain military aggression. We have seen the industrial ramp-up that has been needed for Ukraine to fight. The Prime Minister confirmed to me last week that the Government are looking at the multilateral Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, which our allies have brought together to mobilise the finance to rearm. The Secretary of State and I have talked about this a lot previously, but does he agree that we need to build the financial resilience to deter, and taking the opportunity to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank would send a powerful signal to our adversaries that we have the financial firepower to outbuild and outlast them?

I find myself having rapidly gone from asking questions about the DSRB to now answering questions about the DSRB, so my hon. Friend will know I have been tracking developments on this Canadian-led initiative very closely. I can certainly see the enormous benefits of the DSRB and Prime Minister Carney’s objectives. We are tracking that progress, talking to our Canadian allies and considering how that could work alongside the multilateral defence mechanism, an initiative led by our former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). As those discussions continue, I will keep the House informed.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his role, and I thank him for advance sight of his statement. I say to him that the Liberal Democrats continue to stand ready to work constructively with the Government in the interests of our national security. Indeed, Ukraine is a great example of where we have common ground. He is of course quite right to say that Ukraine’s security is our security. As another winter approaches, Russia will once again seek to weaponise the freezing cold weather to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and harm the civilian population, so the additional £100 million for air defence interceptors is a really welcome move. What discussions is the Secretary of State holding with NATO allies to secure more air defence systems and interceptors for Ukraine before the winter sets in, and is the UK prepared to provide further assistance should such a request be made? We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to increase defence investment. However, the defence investment plan is still not fully funded, and given the threats we face, progress on the Government’s commitment to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP remains slow. In response to our supplying technology for deep strike capability, Russia has stated that UK military installations and equipment, both inside Ukraine and beyond its borders, are now considered legitimate targets, and that only adds to the urgent need for investment in our national defence. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose issuing defence bonds, with a plan to raise £20 billion over two years to meet the urgency of the situation head-on. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to consider defence bonds, and could he perhaps share his own view with the House on this idea? Finally, we must do more to cut off the funding that fuels Putin’s war machine. Supported by western-linked shipping, insurance and financial services, Russian fossil fuels continue to flow into global markets. Will the Secretary of State push within the Government for tougher action to crack down on activities facilitating Russian fossil fuel exports and work with allies to impose a comprehensive ban on supporting Russian oil, gas and coal? Ukraine is fighting for its survival and for the security of our entire continent, and the UK must continue to stand with it.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his constructive support and scrutiny. Through our work with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius and our coalition, we are regularly mobilising more support for Ukraine, through both direct contributions and active defence diplomacy. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the support of his Department in those efforts. Every country involved in supporting Ukraine faces the same choices and trade-offs that we are debating here at home. We approach those conversations in that spirit, but we also ask people to think about the consequences were Putin to prevail and take that as an incentive to further threaten Russia’s neighbours and our NATO allies. That is why I make the case that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do morally, but that it is also the right thing to do in our national interest and in the interests of the collective security of our continent. The hon. Gentleman refers to the defence investment plan and raises the issue of defence spending. I want to be clear about two things. We are already delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is a significant improvement on the previous position. He mentions the DIP not being fully funded. It is absolutely true to say that the negotiations on the DIP reached a position where there is a shortfall just shy of £5 billion which we need to deal with in the immediate term. The House should take reassurance from the instincts of the Chancellor and the Government, and from the fact that without any need whatsoever for persuasion from me or my Department, the Chancellor has already confirmed that he will close that gap at the Budget. I am reassured by that. It gives me even greater confidence as the Chancellor looks ahead to the spending review, but that does not mean that we, as a Department and as a Defence team, should be complacent about the need to make the strongest possible case, recognising the trade-offs across Government. We will continue to approach the spending review process in that spirit. The hon. Gentleman raises defence financing. It is true to say that defence bonds are borrowing. None the less, we continue to work closely with our colleagues at the Treasury and our industry partners to look at what more we can do to leverage finance for defence and to do so in a way that creates jobs, skills, opportunities and reindustrialisation here in Britain.

Will the Secretary of State please outline what assessment the Government have made of recent statements from Moscow regarding the United Kingdom?

There is a distinction to be drawn between what the Kremlin says and what it does: the performative displays we have seen from Russia in recent months—I think particularly about some of its actions in the channel—and the actual threats we deal with, deter and repel on a daily basis. The British people should be in no doubt about the threat and intent of Russia, but they should also draw confidence from our capability. We have been debating actively in this House, and we ought to debate it more widely as a country, how we maintain our ability to deter and how we build our capability to respond to evolving threats, given the way in which modern warfare is changing, as we are seeing in Europe. The overall posture of the country ought to be to be alert to the Russian threat, but certainly not alarmed. I am proud of the capability we have, even as we seek to fund and build more.

It is good to hear that the Government plan to replenish the dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles in Ukraine, which I suspect it will need this winter. However, Patriot is low volume and high cost. What the Ukrainians need is high volume and low cost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Fire Point consortium’s Freya missile system, which stands every chance of providing the solution to that conundrum not just for Ukraine, but for the UK and its allies in NATO as we try to face down the threat from Russia?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I put on record my respect for the expertise and experience he brings to debates on defence in this House. He is absolutely right about what the objective needs to be: lower cost, higher impact. We are actively working to drive innovation in this space, particularly through initiatives such as Project Brakestop. We are tracking our allies, who are also actively seeking to push the frontier of defence innovation in this space. I will, of course, keep the House updated as those initiatives progress.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I am very pleased that he has now seen for himself, as I have, the reality of Russia’s illegal war on the ground in Ukraine. I know he will share my concerns about the deeply troubling reports in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that SAS veterans are training Russians to fight Ukraine. It states: “An assessment compiled for Five Eyes intelligence agencies found, with ‘strong confidence’, that Western military veterans had been recruited to train Russian citizens as well as ‘active duty military’ personnel.” Will he investigate, as a matter of urgency, those reports and report back to the House?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that very serious and important issue. She will understand that, as a matter of policy, I will not comment on intelligence, but I will address the reports she has raised. One of the great privileges of being in this post in the last seven weeks has been meeting the people in our special forces and seeing the capability that they have. It is truly remarkable and my only regret is that we are not able to show, for obvious reasons, the country more publicly just how exceptional these people and their capabilities are. It is in that spirit that I find it utterly unthinkable and shameful that anyone who has served this country, in whatever capacity, would think it in any way acceptable to support the Russian state as it wages war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. Their frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy. Those actions are an affront not only to this country and our values, but to the values that underpin the uniform that those who serve in our armed forces wear. I know I speak for the entire armed forces community in saying that. Let me reassure the House and send a very clear message that we have robust legislation in place to tackle foreign hostile activity. The National Security Act 2023 gives our intelligence agencies and the police the tools they need to detect and disrupt threats, but the Act specifies under its interpretations that “‘information’ includes information about tactics, techniques and procedures”. It is applicable to any individual and extends beyond the period in which personnel are employed by the UK armed forces. Let that be a warning to anyone who has supported, or considers supporting, the Russians as they wage war in Ukraine.

I warmly endorse almost everything the Secretary of State has said today, and I genuinely congratulate him on his appointment. In my first speech in this House almost 30 years ago, I promised to support Labour Governments as long as they supported the nuclear deterrent, the conventional armed forces and NATO. I would like to think that I have kept that promise. The one area where I have to dissent, however, is the section where he comes on to the proportion of GDP spent on defence. As I have said to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessors, it is no good banging on about something being the largest increase since the end of the cold war. We are now in a situation that is worse than that at the height of the cold war, so the comparison we have to make is between what we are spending now and what we spent during the cold war, which was, in modern calculating methods, between 4.5% and 5.1% on defence. So let us not talk about increases to 2.7%. We really must remember that even when the Berlin wall came down, we were spending over 4% of GDP on defence at that stage. Those are the sorts of efforts that we have to make, because if Putin fails in Ukraine, the threat to this country will recede for a generation.

I give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on those three things to make it as easy as possible for him to support this Government: supporting the nuclear deterrent, building capacity in our armed forces and supporting NATO are things I believe in very strongly. In the spirit on these exchanges, I will take at face value the point he makes about the comparison with the cold war and resist the temptation to discuss the starting point we were faced with on defence spending and the condition of our armed forces when this Government arrived. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw historical comparisons and provoke all of us to think more widely about the context we are operating in domestically, across Europe and internationally. I have not heard a suggestion from the official Opposition that the Government should be making a 4% or 5% commitment, nor any proposals to that effect, but let this discussion help the public understand why, at a time of constrained resources for households, businesses and Government, we are making an active political choice to invest more in our defence. I respectfully say, as someone who has been responsible for hospitals and the NHS, that schools, hospitals and homes are important things, but they are valueless if reduced to rubble. That is the experience of the Ukrainians; that is the kind of threat that we are operating under; and that is why we must commit, and continue to commit, to increasing defence spending.

I warmly congratulate the Defence Secretary on his appointment. I want to make him aware of a range of fantastic organisations and charities around the country that regularly send convoys from the UK to Ukraine, giving not just humanitarian aid but some military equipment, including pick-up trucks repurposed for soldiers to use. I have had the honour of going out on and driving one of those vehicles. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues that could be solved to make those journeys smoother, from making it easier for public bodies in the UK, such as hospitals, to get rid of old vehicles that are coming to the end of their life and place them in the hands of those organisations, to issues, frankly, on the Polish side of the border, where the approach is less than consistent—sometimes the convoys can be held up for hours unnecessarily. Would it be possible for an MOD official to meet me and some of those organisations to thrash out some of the issues and help increase the impact of their brilliant work?

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in this space and the considerable experience and expertise he brings to debates on these issues. I am proud of the fact that, in addition to the support we provide as a Government and the £577 million in humanitarian assistance, the British people have gone above and beyond, digging deep through financial contributions and gifts in kind to actively support our friends in Ukraine, as well as welcoming Ukrainian families into their homes. That is why, when the Prime Minister and I were in Kyiv, we were able to say with confidence and credibility that our support was on behalf of not just the Government but people up and down our country. I am up for supporting the initiatives described by my hon. Friend and would be happy to facilitate the meeting he asked for.

I welcome everything that the Defence Secretary has said. I was particularly taken by what he said about learning from Ukraine. It is not just about learning how warfare has developed; we also have to learn from Ukrainian society. I organised an event here with a Ukrainian organisation called Still We Love, and I am holding another in Edinburgh next month. That organisation is made up of the loved ones and partners of those who are at the front—people who have been left at home and are trying to build resilience in society. Does the Defence Secretary agree that we have to look at building our social resilience as well as our defences? We need to ensure that our fire service, police service and NHS are ready in case of Russian aggression.

I strongly agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her support. Under the Labour Government, we have had a resilience committee within the National Security Council to plug other Government Departments into the conversation about national defence and resilience. That is something that I benefited from as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as I was able to respond to that and plan. We need a wider national conversation. The Government are very happy to lead that, and we will, but it needs to involve everyone: Government, business, civil society and all of us as citizens. That is not just in the context of the warfare and security threats the country faces; as I reflected recently, it is in the context of wildfires, flooding and a wide range of disruptions the country could face. We are not as prepared as we ought to be, and as a result we need to work collectively to improve our national resilience, because it is everyone’s responsibility and duty as a citizen.