Defence Spending

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I absolutely can confirm that. One of the features of the way that we have done this is to create a straight line from next year to 2030, to ensure that industrial capacity can ramp up with certainty behind it. I am pleased to confirm that the answer is yes.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

The Chief of the Defence Staff from Estonia was in Salisbury plain, in my constituency, last week. He told us that his country has 40,000 men and women in its army reserve, ready to serve at 24 hours’ notice; I call that being on a war footing, given that Estonia has a population 50 times smaller than ours. I am not proposing that we try to replicate that—proportionally, that would mean a 2 million-strong reserve—but will he consider using some of the money to boost our important reserve force?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend will know that we are twinned with Estonia through NATO and we provide protection to it. Estonia is very much on the frontline with Russia, in a way that we are fortunate not to be. We currently have 30,000 reserves. Rather than use them, we can use the many other things we bring to NATO and to Estonia’s protection, including the ability to provide personnel and equipment, which we do on regular basis.

Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for what I agree are exceptionally good reports. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on that point.

This is possibly the most important speech I will give as an MP, and I do so on behalf of the military in my constituency of Devizes. I have the honour to represent the garrison towns of Tidworth, Bulford, Larkhill and others. I went up on Salisbury plain recently with Colonel Matt Palmer, the commander of the Army in the south-west, who showed me with the sweep of his arm where 20,000 of our armed forces live and work. As my right hon. Friend said, we are not here just as ambassadors for our constituencies; I am going to speak in my role as an MP about the essential imperative of national security.

I will, however, first make another local point. In the Devizes constituency is the site of the battle of Roundway Down, which was the most successful battle in the royalist cause in the English civil war, in that it gave the south-west to the King for the next two years. I mention the battle of Roundway Down, because it was that defeat of the parliamentary forces that spurred the reform of the parliamentary army. That led to the creation of the new model army, which of course went on to win the civil war, and transformed the way in which the military in this country and across Europe was organised for decades to come. The lesson of the new model army and the reforms that happened in short order in the 1640s was not about a major new doctrine of warfighting, but about the imperative of having a well equipped, well trained, well led army that is innovative, agile, professional and with high morale. We need that again.

I mention that because it is on my mind, having yesterday had the pleasure of attending a session at the Royal United Services Institute organised by the New Bletchley foundation led by Brigadier Nigel Hall. It is issuing a report with input from a galaxy of distinguished former generals and other experts. Sir Richard Barrons was on the panel, as were Professor Michael Clark and others. They put forward a short report that Members can find online on a proposal for a reconfigured Army. The point the panel made—it has been made repeatedly in this debate—is simple: we have to be ready to fight the war we wish to deter. That means really ready, not just ready on paper or ready plausibly in a way that might convince someone on a doorstep that we are making sufficient investment in the Army. We need to know that we are ready, and crucially our enemy needs to know that. I echo the points made by the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that our enemies know what our capabilities are. They will not be deceived by spin from a press officer in Whitehall. It is essential that we are ready to fight the war.

The sad fact—there is no point sugar-coating it, given the point I have just made—is that we are not ready to fight the war we wish to deter. The reports make that plain. I have great respect for Ministers on the Front Bench, and I recognise the genuine investments going into parts of our armed forces, which are extremely welcome in my constituency, but the fact is, as General Barrons said yesterday,

“we are back in a moment of existential risk in an era of great power confrontation”.

Laying aside the fantasies of the post-cold war world of our being somehow beyond war and in an era of minor peacekeeping operations, we are back in a sense in the mid-20th century, with the crucial difference of the high-tech domains with which we are now coming to terms. Unlike the mid-20th century, we have hollowed out our Army over the past 30 years, and I echo the powerful points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford made drawing a comparison with the 1930s—that “low dishonest decade”, as it has famously been called. We now have three decades where we have suffered disinvestment.

While I acknowledge the major funding commitments being made to the armed forces, I highlight that they are insufficient at the moment. I recognise that abstract percentages of GDP are in a sense secondary to the real question of how we spend money and where it goes, but those figures are important, and the basic fact is that we need to be spending more than 2% or 2.5%, and at least 3%. If we consider the worst coming to the worst, and the US withdrawing its NATO commitments, as we hear threatened from time to time, across the NATO alliance we would all be needing to reach at least 4% just to maintain NATO’s current strength.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

A recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that I attended assessed that it would need to be an increase of 5% of GDP on top of current spend, were the Americans to pull out.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. These figures seem extraordinarily large to us, but if we consider the worst coming to the worst, and our being in a hot war in Europe, we would be back to spending significantly more. It was 50% of GDP in world war two, so the figures we are talking about are essentially marginal in light of the potential.

The point has been made—it cannot be made enough—that before defence gets more money, it needs to spend its own money better. I echo the points made about the importance of procurement reform. The Public Accounts Committee report is damning. There is a £17 billion deficit between the MOD’s budget and its official capability requirements, which is perhaps an underestimate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, given how these numbers are calculated. I am concerned about that.

To make a quick point in passing, I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts when he winds up about the nuclear budget. There is real concern about how Trident’s replacement will be accounted for. There is a danger that if that is just part of general MOD capital expenditure, it could end up cannibalising conventional weapons. It is important, given the long-standing tradition, that we keep nuclear separate from conventional weapons budgets.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he agree that it would be good to have tighter scrutiny of that spending, which might mean a new system set up so that we can look at sensitive matters?

[Danny Kruger]

I defer to those on the Front Bench on what transparency is appropriate, but I recognise the point made in the hon. Lady’s Committee’s report and I think in the Defence Committee report about the difficulty of getting the information that the Committees need to do their work. I recognise that nuclear is identified as a separate line in the budget and is protected in theory, but I am concerned about what might be a marginal increase in this enormous budget. It is around a quarter of our total defence spending. If that increases even marginally and the shortfall has to be made up from our conventional defence budget, that entails a significant reduction in that conventional spending, which is so important at the present time.

[Mr Francois]

According to the MOD’s own figures in the latest supplementary estimates, the amount we are spending on what it calls the defence nuclear enterprise is now gusting towards 20%. Everything my hon. Friend says about the risk of that gradually eating everything else is entirely correct.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. If we managed to get the genuine increase in defence spending that is needed, the question then arises of how to spend that and where the money should go. I say this not just on behalf of the 20,000 or so defence personnel in Wiltshire, but because it is the right thing to do: we need to put people first. I recognise that there has been a significant step change in the doctrine of defence policy in recent years towards the recognition that an army is fundamentally about its people, and I respect that. The fact is, probably because of the many decades of disinvestment, that we have problems of low morale, low pay, often poor housing and a shoestring training budget, all of which contribute to the recruitment crisis we have in the armed forces that my right hon. Friend mentioned.

The PAC report makes clear that we are losing people faster than we can recruit them, and that is entirely unacceptable. We have to improve recruitment. The Public Accounts Committee heard that for every five people recruited to the armed services, eight are leaving. That is a national security crisis. It is not just a problem for recruitment, but a profound security risk.

I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made that we have had too many reviews, so I hesitate to use the word—if I could think of another word, I would use it—but we need a quick total review of the people issue in our armed forces. It could be done quickly and all it probably entails is an amalgamation of all the work done by others, but I would like to see that with a great degree of urgency. It should look at recruitment, terms and conditions, families—crucially—and onward progression in all three services, so that we can with the urgency required turn around the recruitment crisis.

Having made the general point about the importance of investment in people, I come quickly to the major services of the armed forces, and first is the Navy. It is important that we invest in all five domains, including in the grey zone and sub-threshold activity, which are so important. Our principal specialism in the United Kingdom historically and now remains our sea power. It is a good thing we are moving towards a maritime strategy. I recognise that is the Government’s priority, and I say that as a representative of a land-locked county with all these soldiers in it. Nevertheless, we need significant investment in the Navy. We would all like to see these things, but let us actually do it and have more submarines, more escorts and more minesweepers. We need seabed warfare vessels. On that point, I call the House’s attention to a report from Policy Exchange a month or so ago talking about western approaches and the significant threat we face in these islands and across Europe to undersea infrastructure. It is fundamentally our responsibility on behalf of Europe to protect that.

I have mentioned the new model army and the New Bletchley report, and I would like to see a real commitment to a reformed and modernised Army. We have to recognise the point made by the former Chief of the Defence Staff Nick Carter when he said that the Army is the weakest of the three services. That is a sad state of affairs. I suppose one has to be the weakest; I am sorry it is the Army. There are big questions over our ability to field a division in Europe, as promised to NATO. According to a senior US officer, the UK cannot even be called a tier 1 power. I understand that the Committees were told by a former commander of joint forces command that our Army will not be ready to fulfil its NATO commitments until the early 1930s. Indeed, that was the assumption of the integrated review, so in a we are sense back to the 10-year rule, which is not how things should be. [Interruption.] Did I say 1930s?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

You did.

[Danny Kruger]

I think we are up to speed on that— the 2030s.

The case for investment in the Army is obvious, and the good news is that it is easier, quicker and cheaper to refit and upscale the Army than it is the Navy, because kit is smaller and cheaper. However, we do not just need the same Army but a bigger one. We need a medium-sized Army that is bespoke for the job that will be done—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the right point about the sort of Army we need. The Army needs, in a resonant phrase, to defend these islands, but it also needs to act in partnership with other services and with our allies in the west. We do not need another great new major continental army such as the one the Poles are building. We need a rapid reaction joint expeditionary force that is agile, mobile, and able to do the job that is required, in partnership with our allies.

On the sphere of operations, ultimately our commitments need to reflect the threats we face. In a sense, those are classified, and I recognise the challenge that the Committees have had in identifying what our capabilities are, and the tasks that Ministers set for them, because we cannot always know exactly what those threats are, with defence planning assumptions now classified. Nevertheless, I echo a point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham: I am delighted about AUKUS, which is a tremendous step forward in our international role and a great thing for British security. I am not averse to those global arrangements—they are absolutely right. I loved the deployment of the Queen Elizabeth and the carrier strike group to Japan.

Fundamentally, however, we are, and should be, committed to the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, and for that purpose we must restore the mass of our own armed forces and Army. That means growing our capabilities here at home. We need more regulars, and to get back towards having 80,000 or 90,000 regular forces. We must significantly grow the reserve force because 30,000 is not enough, even if that figure of 30,000 is real, which I do not believe it is. The campaign to grow our reserves is necessary not just for its own sake, but as a great exercise in communication to the public about the imperative for us all to step up and play our role in the defence of our country.

There is a great deal of concern, which I think is misplaced, about the attitude of the British people to fighting. We had that in the 1930s, with lots of people saying that the British would not fight, but of course they would, of course they did, and of course they will if they have to answer their country’s call. That is young people in particular. They will do it with irony, and certainly with memes, but they will do it and sign up if they need to. This is not an abstraction. We have already seen in the past year or two what war in our region means. It means inflation—imagine that tenfold if a war breaks out in which our country is directly involved—and cyber-attacks on a terrible scale.

We are now at a turning point, as so many Members have said, and it is time for all of us as a country to step up. There is an opportunity and an imperative for us to strengthen our nation. It is about industrial resilience and our own food supply; it is about our supply chains, and our steel and manufacturing capacity. There is a huge opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said, in the importance of the industrial supply chain. This is a time for us all to do what is needed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Arms deals and export licences are dealt with in the normal way, but the hon. Member will be interested to hear that actually, not many arms sales take place in the direction of Israel at all. Off the top of my head, I think it was just £42 million last year, and that was mostly for protective equipment.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Late last year, diesel got into the water supply at the Trenchard Lines camp near Upavon in my constituency. I commend the resilience of the families who live there, and also of the MOD, which acted very quickly to ensure that there was a temporary supply of water. Those families are still living on that temporary supply, so can the Minister assure me that attention is being given to sorting out this problem and ensuring a permanent supply of clean water?

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter—he is a champion of the defence community in his constituency, and I thank him for his early engagement on it. I understand that the local authority regulator, following the completion of rigorous testing, has confirmed that the water quality at Trenchard Lines is acceptable, and it is now safe for personnel working and living there to use the mains supply. I will double-check that and write to him, but I am grateful for his comments on the performance of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in that regard.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I must start by thanking those from across the veteran community, including many of my own constituents, supportive charities and organisations for their support and insights during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I would also like to thank Members from across the House who have supported the Bill to this stage, many of whom have a service background. In particular, the recent work of the all-party parliamentary group for veterans highlighted the urgency of the reforms proposed today. At a time when politics can seem more polarised, it is heartening that there has been a real sense of unity in ensuring that we care for those who have given so much to protect us. I am grateful for the cross-party support the Bill has received. I am also grateful for the comments, support and encouragement of colleagues who are members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, again a very worthwhile cross-party initiative, who have brought thoughtful comments and encouragement from all parts of the House during the passage of the Bill.

The Government are determined to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world to be a veteran and I am proud that the Bill will help to realise that vision.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am very pleased to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. He mentions the importance of this country as a place for veterans. Does the Bill extend to overseas veterans who served in the British armed forces?

[Robin Millar]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a very apposite question, because of course many of our veterans live overseas. However, the Bill deals with veterans and their family members who reside within the UK, so at this time it is limited to veterans who are within the UK. For veterans overseas who have concerns or questions about services and access to support, I would direct them to their local embassy or consulate, which will be able to help them.

The Bill will help to regularise the provision of support to veterans and their families. It gives Ministers the flexibility to adapt the support that has been made available to this community as circumstances change.

Former servicemen and women represent about one in 25 of our fellow citizens. In fact, my constituency sits within the county of Conwy in Wales, which has the highest proportion of veterans of any Welsh county. It has been a real privilege to meet and to listen to those veterans across Aberconwy. Last Saturday there was a roundtable in my office of a diverse range of veterans from all ranks and parts of our armed forces. It was fascinating and humbling to hear their accounts of life as a veteran and their transition into that life from their time in service.

It is no exaggeration to say that I have been inspired by the work of local charities and community groups, both those across the UK and in my own constituency. Alabaré’s Homes for Veterans is one that I have visited, where I talked with veterans about the challenges they have faced in access to housing and coming to terms with what we would consider normal civilian life. For someone coming out of the highly organised, particular culture of the armed forces, that can present a significant challenge.

[Danny Kruger]

I pronounce Alabaré differently—I had it out with them last week because it is a difficult word. It is an amazing organisation and has a number of houses in my constituency in Wiltshire, where there is a significant veteran population. Does my hon. Friend agree that the crucial thing is proper liaison with the local authority, which in Wiltshire I pay tribute to for its support for veterans. Demand is very significant, and there is only so much that the NGOs and the third sector can do. It is important that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, such charities and local authorities work together on homelessness.

[Robin Millar]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an extremely relevant contribution. Perhaps I could argue that my pronunciation is a Welsh one, but I will not go there. I defer to his pronunciation and apologise for mispronouncing it.

My hon. Friend’s point was excellent, however, because local authorities are very often on the frontline—if I may use that phrase—of providing support to veterans. The Government have introduced the armed forces covenant, which places a duty on local authorities to provide services to veterans, in particular focused on housing and education. He makes a good point that liaison between state bodies and voluntary organisations is crucial. I know that he does excellent work in this House on strengthening communities and bringing forward Burke’s “little platoons”—to borrow an expression—in support of parts of society. He and I share a view that it is not possible for the state to reach all parts of society. Veterans are a good example of that. We need the state instruments—better organised systems and state bodies such as the veterans advisory and pensions committees—but they must be complemented by local and community-led initiatives, to reach effectively all parts of society.

I was naming some of the associations and organisations in Aberconwy, and I must mention Military Minds football club. This is a team set up by relatives of veterans in recognition of the support that they saw their family members needed as veterans in the community, with a particular focus on mental health. I had an inspiring cup of coffee—that might sound like a strange thing to say—with those guys. They set out their own experience of what they have seen—fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins. There is a place for this. They have taken that vision forward and have regular practice sessions, fixtures, sponsors and so on. It is all with the intention of supporting those who need help transitioning into society, and they are very effective.

I must mention Llandudno’s Troop Cafe, which is a slightly more formalised initiative in the community. As it says on the tin, it is a cafe in which members of the armed forces will frequently meet and events will be held. One event is to do with repairing broken implements and appliances, which serves to help give people something to do and a place to meet where they can share and talk with one another about the challenges they face. As well as its importance of veterans, it is delivering real value to the community, too.

Since being elected as the MP for Aberconwy, it has been eye-opening for me to support the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I spot some other alumni from that scheme today here. The scheme has given me and many other MPs an invaluable insight into the lives of those who protect our country. Very often, the conversations that I and colleagues have with members of the armed forces during those sessions are about what happens outside of the armed forces—what happens with accommodation and what happens after leaving the service.

Veterans make a valuable contribution to communities across my constituency of Aberconwy, and indeed across the country at large. This is testament to the fact that the majority reintegrate successfully and go on to live fulfilled, productive lives within society. Indeed, it would be wrong to characterise the veterans community as being wholly in need of support for disabilities, mental health problems and distress. That is an incorrect caricature of that community—of the roughly 2.1 million veterans in the UK. The vast majority are living quiet, productive lives within society, making huge contributions without any fanfare or fuss, drawing on their skills and experience to be effective in their families and communities.

For some, however, the transition is more challenging. Such individuals may require additional, often highly tailored, support. The Government have been working hard to improve the support for such individuals, most recently taking the historic step of enshrining the armed forces covenant as a statutory duty at all levels of public service. Sadly, the roll-out of support has not been as balanced as it might have been. Poor co-ordination at times between bodies, combined with varying levels of knowledge about the duties of those public bodies under the covenant means that support can be overly bureaucratic and confusing, leaving some to fall through the gaps.

That was a feature of the conversation that I had just last week with local veterans, who talked about the frustration of trying to work through a local authority housing allocation scheme, of being caught up on a list, and of approaching the top of the list only to find that others with needs will be placed before them. Very often, it is single males of working age who, because of need, receive the lowest priority within local authority allocations and who find themselves frustrated time and again. They ask what more must they do, or can they do, to get access to housing, which is a key part of that independence transition back into society.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who could not be here today, revealed on Second Reading, research by the all-party parliamentary group on veterans suggests that four in five veterans rate their experience of claiming compensation from Veterans UK as “poor” or “very poor”. That observation has been affirmed by stakeholder engagement by the Royal British Legion, which found that the roll-out of veteran support under the covenant has been slowed by

“limited co-ordination and unclear relationships”

between responsible bodies.

The pressing issues of co-ordination and consistency in veteran support point to the need for accountability, feedback and support at local level. The veterans advisory and pensions committees appear to be the best placed bodies to fulfil these roles. The veterans support landscape is a complex one, but the VAPCs stand unique on this as statutory players across this landscape. The Bill, in enabling the VAPCs to play a more active role, presents a significant opportunity for a constructive contribution there. As distinct, identifiable and independent points of reference for veterans, these volunteer staff bodies already play a vital role in co-ordinating the views of veterans and their families, raising awareness and supporting implementation.

However, because VAPCs are limited at present in the services they can offer, they lack a clearly defined remit. As a result, their relationships with other stakeholders on and within that landscape can be frustrating. That can limit their ability to feed back the representative experiences of the veteran community and undermine their own ability to hold other organisations to account. That was a recurring point within the debates we have had and the conversations I had in the run-up to this Bill and its progression through this House.

Furthermore, these current frameworks also limit the veterans who can access their support. Members of such bodies have made clear their desire to do more and related their frustration at the legislative constraints upon what they can do. These men and women are volunteers and they do terrific work for the veterans in their community, and this frustration they speak of is palpable.

The Bill draws on the feedback of veterans, charities and public bodies. By tapping into the potential of the committees, it hopes to build a better landscape for veterans. First, the Bill will move the statutory powers of the advisory committees into the Armed Forces Act 2006. That move reflects the proximity of VAPCs to the implementation of the armed forces covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Today is something of a veterans’ reunion, because I too served in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, along with my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and others—we were comrades in arms. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and his team, and particularly the team from the Army, who co-ordinate that brilliant scheme.

The Bill will put some really important, practical measures on the statute book. I commend and echo all the points my hon. Friends have made about the basic necessity of transferring the pension scheme to MOD legislation and widening the scheme’s scope to reflect what is going on in wider society and the admirable expansion in the terms of reference that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy in saying that the experience of veterans is not isolated today, if it ever was. Legislation should not be isolated to their experience as former soldiers; they are integrated into our society. Our society and our Parliament have an absolute obligation to ensure that the support they receive is properly interconnected and properly integrated into the wider service system. That is why the armed forces covenant was such an important statement of commitment from this country about what we owe to our veterans who have served the country and, crucially, to their families too. Importantly, the Bill will ensure that veterans’ families are properly in scope.

I recognise and pay tribute to all the people who have contributed to the development of the armed forces covenant. I also pay tribute to all the veterans’ charities and institutions that for decades—in many cases for 100 years and more—have quietly, humbly and doggedly served the cause of our veterans and their families. I am very proud to support a Government who have put into statute those important principles.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, I am concerned about the satisfaction rating of Veterans UK in recent years. It is a source of real concern for us all. I am glad that with the appointment of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the other rearrangements in Whitehall, we seem to be properly gripping the challenge, but we cannot rest until there are high satisfaction ratings among our veterans with respect to the services they receive. We have done a lot, but there is a lot more to do.

The reference to Future Soldier is significant. Our country’s security depends on our armed forces, who in turn depend on their families and on the support given to them as human beings living in this country—members of local communities, with their children in our schools. They need to know that when they leave the Army, they will be properly supported in their pension arrangements and in all the other services they receive.

Although we would all individually wish for a larger armed forces, I pay tribute to Defence Ministers for what they have achieved in getting further funding from the Treasury for improvements in kit, welfare and capabilities. I look forward to seeing them succeed in their undoubted efforts to grow the size of the Army. I regret the diminution in manpower and headcount that is under way, but I am sure that as time goes on and as the economy and public finances allow, we will see the Army growing again.

I end by paying tribute to a group of units, formations and battalions. I wonder whether the Minister knows what the following have in common: the Signals, the Royal Military Police, the Rifles, the Armoured Infantry Brigade, the Household Cavalry, the Mercians, the Royal Logistics Corps, the Royal Tank Regiment, the Queen’s Royal Hussars, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the 1st Artillery, the Royal Welsh, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and, let us not forget, the Royal Artillery. They are, of course, all located in the genuine home of the British Army, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) might claim: in Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill and the super-garrison there. I pay tribute to all the men and women who serve our country and are based in my constituency, and to their families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I recently set up a joint committee, chaired by me and the Nepalese ambassador, to consider outstanding Gurkha welfare issues. I must tell him that retrospective pension changes in respect of the Gurkhas have been through the system several times, including the High Court, the Supreme Court and the European judicial institutions, and the long-standing position of the UK Government has been upheld. However, I am keen to see that we do everything in our power to ensure that we give Gurkhas and Gurkha veterans living in the UK and in Nepal the very best we reasonably can to support their welfare.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear that the Government are committing £2 billion to resupply the armed forces for the munitions and equipment sent to Ukraine. That is very positive news. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the importance of investing in Army accommodation will also be very welcome news to my constituents in Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill. In the spirit of honesty that he spoke about, can he tell us what he thinks it would take to convince the Treasury that we must do more than simply resupply our armed forces, and that we need a bigger Army, not a smaller one?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not need to do much more to convince the Treasury; the Chancellor and the Prime Minister said at the autumn statement that they recognised that Defence would need more spending. They have crossed that line, and in fact they already knew that: the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, gave us the extra £24 billion, and hon. Members will remember that the current Chancellor stood on a platform for a greater percentage of GDP when he stood for the leadership of the Conservative party. The key is now to ensure that we lock that spending in to get a long timeframe, so that we can start the investment and planning that will be required at the next comprehensive spending review and beyond.

Ukraine

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

May I start by putting on the record my appreciation for the British troops based in my constituency of Devizes for the work that they have done in training our allies in Ukraine on Salisbury Plain, and, most of all, my appreciation for Ukraine for her leadership, her army and her people? They have resisted Putin, they have fought back, and they are winning.

The question now is: what next? Members might be familiar with the famous story in Vladimir Putin’s memoir of him as a young boy chasing a rat with a stick. It got into a corner, turned on him and attacked. Putin is now that rat, driven into a corner by the heroic Ukrainians. The risk is that the rat now turns, does what he said he would and launches a nuclear strike on Ukraine or a NATO country, even including the UK. The lesson from the story of Putin and the rat is not that we do not corner him—there is no escape route for him that we can offer, except his defeat and humiliation. The lesson we must learn is that we must be ready for the rat to turn.

I do not doubt Ukrainians’ determination to stand whatever happens, and I do not doubt the commitment of the British Government or, indeed, the wider alliance to stand with the Ukrainians. My concern is with our own preparedness in the event of a nuclear strike, either in Europe or here. I know that Ministers did not like it when the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), raised that point earlier, and I do not expect them to say anything other than that our defences and doctrine in the event of a nuclear strike are entirely up to date and ready. My concern is with our wider resilience, not just in the event of a nuclear strike but against the wider economic and military pressures that we might be under. I am concerned that our conventional defences should be as strong as possible. We have learned the critical importance of men and armour in this war, and I would like to see our Army grow. We also need to be concerned with our economic security and our social resilience.

I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) when she talked about the need for a whole-of-state approach. There is talk of a new integrated review; I echo the calls for that, and hope that it will include not just whole-of-state resilience, but whole-of-society resilience as well.

Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Putin thought that when he invaded Ukraine the people there would crack and that the west would split, but he was wrong. We have seen the most inspirational demonstration of courage in Ukraine and of unity in the west. That has been represented in this House since the beginning of the crisis. I personally commend the position taken by those on the Opposition Front Bench in their conduct of this crisis and thank them for it. In particular, I commend the speech made by the shadow Defence Secretary earlier, the position taken by the shadow Foreign Secretary and, indeed, by the Leader of the Opposition. It was also very good to hear the former Leader of the Opposition earlier in the debate speaking on behalf of the socialists of Russia in support of the people there opposing Putin. Putin has brought the whole House together, which is a very good thing.

This morning, in New York, the United Nations voted by a great majority in condemnation of Russia, with countries, including the UAE and Israel, which had abstained in previous resolutions, voting in support. It is worth recording with shame the names of those countries that supported Russia in that vote—North Korea, Syria, Eritrea, and Belarus. What a line-up! I do have some concern about the 35 countries that abstained in that vote, including our friends India and South Africa and I hope that they will come round to a more vocal condemnation in due course.

It is also worth recognising the decision by the Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry into violations of human rights by Russian forces—by forces on all sides. I agree very strongly with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who pointed out earlier that it is by holding soldiers and commanders to account for what happens on the battlefield that we will put the greatest pressure on those troops to resist the orders that they receive, to behave well and to lay down their arms and withdraw.

I commend the UK’s leadership on the sanctions regime. We are squeezing the windpipe of the Russian economy and its tentacles here in this country, which are many and deep because of our role as a financial centre. I do want to emphasise that not every Russian here in London is a Putinist or an oligarch; some are dissidents against the Putin regime. I am concerned about the calls we are hearing for blanket appropriations or expulsions of Russians. That is not the British way. Everybody has basic civil rights, including the right to legal representation. We must uphold the rule of law in this country.

I wish I had advice to give those on the Front Bench on the strategy or the way out of this conflict, but I will focus the rest of my remarks on what might be done to mitigate the horror unfolding in Ukraine. I commend the Government on their commitment to humanitarian priorities, sending 1,000 troops to the borders of Ukraine. I also commend people who are sending help, and particularly those sending money.

It is admirable that we are now working with the Disasters Emergency Committee. It was announced today that we have set up a new fund and are committing £20 million to it to match the donations made by the British people. That is a better way to help refugees than by sending material support. We should send a signal that the best way to support people is financially.

Here at home, I commend the Government on expanding the family route and setting up the community sponsorship programme. We also need a philanthropic fund here to support those community sponsorship groups. The best thing we can do is to arrange financial support for those groups, rather than piling up blankets, toys and second-hand clothes in council buildings; I am not sure that is the best thing we could be doing at this time.

Of course, one thing we cannot do with philanthropy is defence spending. I end by commending the Government on their commitment to the Defence budget: 2.4% of GDP is a tremendous step. However, the fact is that we need to go further. It is great that we have invested in sub-threshold defences, but our allies are now fighting above the threshold. We need more men and women in uniform. We need more tanks and armoured vehicles, but they are vulnerable to being taken out from the air, so we need more cyber-defences. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the conventional war is not over and we must invest further in our armed forces.

I commend the men and women of the Royal Welsh battlegroup, in particular the Royal Engineers, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Tank Regiment, many of them based in my constituency, who are fighting to defend NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I read a tweet this morning from a fellow MP and mum of three in Ukraine—Lesia Vasylenko—that quite frankly tore my heart out. She said:

“I don’t know what to write anymore. Second time in 3 months I had to hand off my 9 months baby girl, not knowing if I will ever see her again. This is a pain only a mother can know. It’s more painful than all of war put together.”

We can only imagine the pain that Ukrainians are going through. Like many Members, I have been inundated with emails from constituents who desperately want Britain and our allies to do everything we can to help, and that is what I stand up in the debate to convey. We are all in awe of the bravery of the Ukrainian people, and we all want to help.

The European Union expects 7 million Ukrainians to be displaced in this tragic, bloody war. According to the UN’s refugee agency, more than 500,000 have already fled to neighbouring countries. We have a proud history of helping people fleeing violence and persecution, and we must do everything we can to support people seeking safety. For everyone who believes that democracy is worth defending—I know we all do here in this House—we must unite and stand to ensure that President Putin and his kleptocratic cronies do not achieve their objectives. That means doing everything we can to help Ukraine defend itself against this invasion and the occupation of its territory. It means reinforcing our NATO allies in eastern Europe to ensure this conflict does not escalate, and it means the toughest possible and most urgent sanctions to increase the cost of war and occupation in Ukraine, so that it becomes untenable.

It also means helping the people in Ukraine as much as we can. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on the friends of CAFOD, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, where we heard about the incredible work undertaken by partners in Caritas Ukraine. It has been active there for 30 years, and through its local connections, it is already working to transport people to shelter and to organise spaces where children can play, to help them cope with the harrowing experiences they have been through. All those who want to help can donate directly to that work. They can donate to agencies on the ground or through the Disasters Emergency Committee. Everyone who feels that they want to do something to help has that option available to them today.

[Danny Kruger]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that by sending convoys of material out to Poland, we might risk interfering with supply chains of medical and military equipment and confusing the situation on the ground? I do not speak with great authority, but I have heard that concern. Does she agree that the best way to support refugees in the region is through financial gifts through the DEC?

[Catherine McKinnell]

People want to do everything they can to help. Local communities are working incredibly hard to support those communities in Ukraine in every way possible here in the UK and in the neighbouring countries. I think everybody should do what they can to help through local organisations and advertised means. BBC Radio Newcastle, for example, has published a list of places in the north-east where people can offer support and donations. Everybody who wants to help can and should do so, because that is something we can all do today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

Let me start by thanking colleagues from across the House for this debate and the Opposition for tabling it, because one thing it has demonstrated is our united support together, and with other people around the world, for the people of Ukraine. I will make a few points about that in a moment.

We are united in our horror and condemnation of the attacks in Ukraine. During Prime Minister’s questions, the House, a full House, applauded the Ukrainian ambassador. I know that there are no party lines on this in terms of how united we are in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and in our condemnation of Putin’s unprovoked attack. I thank Members from across the House for their contributions and passionate speeches. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces for his opening remarks. I join him in paying tribute to the courage and resilience of Ukraine’s armed forces. As we speak, Russia continues with its illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined to the Human Rights Council yesterday:

“The consequences of Vladimir Putin’s unjustified aggression are horrific…Putin is responsible for civilian casualties and over 500,000 people fleeing—with the numbers still rising fast…He is violating international law, including the UN Charter and multiple commitments to peace and security…The UK stands united in condemning Russia’s reprehensible behaviour.”

Last week, we joined more than 40 countries at the OSCE in condemning Putin’s aggression. The Council of Europe also voted to suspend Russia. May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for everything that he did to see Russia suspended and for how he spoke so passionately and strongly on this matter?

At the UN, we joined more than 80 members to back a resolution condemning Russian aggression. Meanwhile, Russia stood alone in opposing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) mentioned during the debate, the UN General Assembly has just passed a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine by an overwhelming majority. That demonstrates the international strength of feeling on condemning this invasion.

I also want to pick up on a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on China. We recognise that Russia and China are neighbours and have an important relationship, but Russia is not the same as China, and China claims a policy of non-interference. As fellow permanent members of the Security Council, the UK and China have important diplomatic roles to play in the coming days and weeks. The world will be looking at what China chooses to say and do. China needs to be clear that it does not support Russia’s action in any way.

We have joined forces with the US, the G7, the EU and other partners to take decisive steps through hard-hitting sanctions. These consequences will only increase in breadth and severity as the conflict goes on. I am proud to represent a nation that is so strongly and publicly supporting the people of Ukraine and standing up to the barbaric behaviour of Russia. With our allies and partners, the UK is supporting Ukraine and our partners in the Western Balkans, and we are already providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and other Members mentioned, today the Disasters Emergency Committee launched its Ukrainian humanitarian appeal. We are matching the first £20 million donated to this appeal—our largest ever aid-match contribution. We have pledged £220 million of aid, which includes £120 million of humanitarian assistance, providing Ukrainians with access to the basic necessities and vital medical supplies.

We call on Russia for unhindered humanitarian access into Ukraine and safe passage out for civilians. This funding will help agencies respond to the deteriorating humanitarian situation, creating a lifeline for Ukrainians with access to basic necessities. We have deployed humanitarian experts to the region to bolster our support to countries receiving those who are fleeing from violence. We are ramping up support for trade in priority industries, such as technology and green energy, to £3.5 billion, including £1.7 billion to boost Ukraine’s naval capability.

[Danny Kruger]

May I endorse the point that my hon. Friend made about the contribution of the British Government to the Disasters Emergency Committee? It is an absolutely tremendous and unprecedented thing that is being done, but, of course, it will only work if it is matched by the generosity of the British public. Will she make that appeal on behalf of the House and urge people to support the Ukrainian refugees financially rather than by sending goods?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Hon. Members have talked about their constituents who are desperate to be able to support Ukrainians, and this appeal is the way to do so. I urge people to look at the DEC’s website to see how they can offer support by donating to the appeal.

The UK and our international partners stand united in condemning the Russian Government. Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a sovereign democratic state.

Ukraine

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

To the point on the Nationality and Borders Bill first, I am not sure I share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I think I answered the question earlier about what active role we can play within Ukraine’s borders to facilitate the egress of Ukrainian people. I am afraid that there is remarkably little that the international community can do there without the profound risk of it ending up as a NATO versus Russia fight, with all the escalation that that would cause.

The Minister for Europe and North America, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) spoke yesterday to all the neighbouring countries’ Governments to make sure that they are aware of the support that the United Kingdom is able and ready to deliver, militarily in terms of troops on the ground, to help process, marshal, facilitate and secure refugees as they arrive in those countries. However, the MOD is just carrying baggage and facilitating; it is our great development and aid experts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who will do the really impressive stuff when and if those requests come from neighbouring Governments. We will make sure that we are supporting the FCDO in all its endeavours.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

The tyrant Putin is getting what he said he feared: a thicker and thicker line of defence around the NATO alliance. I am very pleased that we are doubling our commitment to Estonia, principally through the Royal Welsh battlegroup. I am proud that many of those units are based in my constituency, including the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Tank regiment. Will my hon. Friend join me in honouring those troops and their families for the sacrifice they are making?

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend, his constituents and the service people who live in his constituency should be enormously proud of what the members of 12th Brigade, headquartered in Bulford and with many living in Tidworth, are doing in Estonia today. I paid tribute earlier to the speed at which the Royal Welsh has gone from a training cycle in Germany to driving north into Estonia. I include, too, the many families of the Royal Tank Regiment who will have been expecting their loved ones home in the next couple weeks and now do not know when they will be coming home because the extension of the tour is indefinite. That, too, is worthy of praise. They are fortunate to have such a fantastic advocate in the House of Commons.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. Defence is a subject that we do not discuss enough, so I suspect that, just as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, we will wander away from giving gratitude to those in the past and look at some future challenges. I am pleased to see my fellow Rifleman, the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), in his place. The whole House joins him in saying thank you to our gallant, brave warriors, who have defended our shores, skies and interests over the years. It is important that despite the pandemic, we are able to continue to say thank you.

We pay tribute to those in the past, whom we all appreciate. I recall sitting on my grandfather’s knee when he explained the first world war medals that he had been awarded. That created a bond with me that has never gone away. It perhaps influenced me in stepping forward, wanting to serve. That link between myself and those in the armed forces is different from that between society and our armed forces today, as our armed forces have shrunk. We have seen vivid illustrations of some perceptions of what they now do, so part of what we are doing today is about educating the next generation on the importance and value that we in Britain bestow on our armed forces, which is perhaps uniquely different from what happens in other countries around the world.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

On the work that our armed forces do today—other Members have mentioned their immense contribution during the covid crisis—will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the British Army units based in Wiltshire, on Salisbury plain, in my constituency, which is of course the home of the British Army, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) might like to say? Would my right hon. Friend also welcome, as I would, a welcome home parade, which might be organised by the Houses of Parliament, for soldiers once the covid crisis is behind us, to honour troops who have contributed to tackling it, just as we honour the contributions of troops who have been deployed overseas?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that intervention and I was pleased to see the Minister nodding as my hon. Friend was speaking. That is exactly what we did with troops returning from Afghanistan and it is another way to engage with the public. I do not dare go down this avenue too much, but in reporting the great work being done in Liverpool the BBC had to give a health warning to say, “You are about to see images of armed forces on the streets in Liverpool. Please do not be worried.” That is a testament to how much work we need to do to change the culture that is building up in this country.

On the pandemic, I am afraid that I do concur with the view, as I said yesterday, that, while the military is doing fantastic work across the country with regard to logistics, transport and so forth, it is an under-utilised asset when it comes to emergency planning, crisis management and strategic thinking. Some of the decisions that have been made by this Government have, I am afraid, been clunky. The best decision makers and strategists that we have are in the Ministry of Defence, yet there is not a military person to be seen in the quad, the top decision-making body dealing with this pandemic.

On the issue of veterans, which came up in Prime Minister’s questions, I simply underline the pressure that our service charities are currently facing. One fifth of them may go out of business by Christmas. They are not able to raise the funds that they need. We will be breaching the armed forces covenant unless we are able to provide that support. I hope the Prime Minister is listening. It is something that I raised at the Liaison Committee. It is so important to recognise that, from their own surveys, mental health issues have increased by 75% and loneliness by 70%. These are issues that we need to embrace and recognise.

We can all see that, internationally, we are in a very interesting place. We have a United States that is now waking up to recognise that it needs to improve its global leadership. We need to be in the room as that happens, because, over the past 10 years, there has been a demise in what the west stands for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend and our wily adversaries, not least China, have taken advantage of that. We have not even had our integrated review yet. We do not even know what we stand for, what we believe in, and where we want to go. Please, Minister, and I know you believe this yourself, get that integrated review done. We cannot even work out how many tanks or aeroplanes we will have, let alone our going over to the United States to say that our thought leadership is the best in the world, our soft power is the best in the world. It will not take us seriously unless we complete that review and it is fully funded. I make the case—Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are already looking at me in that way—that this is a day when we say thank you to our armed forces for the past and a day, I hope, when all of us will be resolute in defending, supporting and urging the Ministers on to say, “Let’s invest in the future of our armed forces”, so that we can be as proud of them in the future as we have been in the past.

Ministry of Defence Tenants: Evictions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this important debate and for that absolutely excellent speech. I agree with every word of it. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister, who, since this sad story came to his attention—rather too late, I fear—has engaged with me and other Members from across the House in a really tremendous and constructive way. I pay tribute to the efforts he is making on behalf of our constituents.

I invite the House to consider the plight of these constituents of ours, including more than 100 families across Wiltshire, some of whom I represent. In this terrible crisis that the whole country is in, they are worrying about their children’s education, worrying about their own jobs and employment prospects and worrying about their elderly parents, and suddenly they are being told that they also have to worry about their own homes. The threat of having to leave immediately was hanging over them, as a very short notice period given. I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts to extend that notice period, but I am afraid that even 12 months is too short. As my right hon. Friend says, we have to do better than that.

There are really only two possible satisfactory solutions for these families. One is that Annington agrees to take back the homes with the tenants in place and to give them some security of tenure, so that it cannot just evict them a couple of weeks after receiving them back. The other is that the Government work with Annington and with local authorities to ensure that the houses can be passed over to local councils or to their subsidiaries. In Wiltshire, we have an excellent company called Stone Circle, which is a subsidiary of the local authority and which would be very glad to take possession—take ownership—of those houses, but this requires Annington to co-operate. As my right hon. Friend says, it should be able to do that. It secured the houses 25 years ago or so for less than £2 billion. They are now worth over £7 billion. It has had a very good ride thanks to the taxpayer, and it should now be enjoined to do everything it can.

I end by echoing my right hon. Friend’s point: please would the Minister, with the undoubted good will that he has for these families, convene and host a proper, open and transparent conversation with all the interested parties, including Annington, Members of the House and our local authorities, about which assets are actually under threat—because it is not just the families that we currently know about; there are probably more—and work with all those parties to devise a plan that ensures that these families can remain in their homes?