War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Yesterday I read through a speech I made three years ago, in which I said:

“Ukrainians and President Zelensky have displayed the highest level of bravery in the face of brutal Russian aggression. In the eyes of Vladimir Putin, Ukrainians have made an unforgivable choice: they decided to be an independent and democratic country. Like all dictators, Putin is terrified of losing power”—

that did not fit with this plan of a great Russia again. My speech continued:

“Ukrainians have made their choice. They want to be a European country. They want to become a member of NATO. They want to be free to make their own choices. Make no mistake, Ukrainians are fighting this war on behalf of all of us who are part of the free and democratic world.”

I then said:

“We must support them as if the future of our country and our way of life depends on it, because quite frankly, it does.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 833-834.]

The world is watching the conflict. The dictators of the world have become emboldened over the past decade, in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Russia will push further, with Moldova seemingly next.

My speech went on to urge more action, as Ukraine was asking for help, and each day decisions were being deliberated. That should have been done much more quickly. As was said earlier, we are not fighting this properly. The world is not together. It is a big issue—it is not just a fight between two countries. It is Russia. It is Putin. He is an evil man. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, he is KGB. I thank the right hon. Member for his wonderful opening speech. Putin is inhuman.

North Korea is involved in this. China, Iran and North Korea are all working together on this. It has been planned. I agree entirely with what was said earlier. I was with some North Koreans here on Tuesday night. They are fighting—they have 100,000 at Russia’s disposal in Ukraine. When they are killed or maimed, their faces and hands are burned off so that they cannot be recognised as North Koreans. That is how evil Putin is.

In 2014, Putin took Crimea without any consequences. He orchestrated the bombings that resulted in the deaths of 300 of his own people, to start a war to take power. He had his political rivals shot for opposing war. He approved poisoning on British soil, resulting in the death of a British citizen. He pre-recorded his declaration of war on Ukraine, after which he pretended to be open to diplomacy. Putin will not stop. He cannot be appeased.

I understand why NATO could not get directly involved yet, short of that, we should have been doing absolutely everything at a much speedier pace. I do not point a finger of blame at anyone, but we are not looking at this as seriously as we should. This is as much a calamity as 1945. Last week, the world was shocked. To quote Will Hutton in The Observer on Sunday:

“The spilled Ukrainian blood counted for nothing”

as the elected president of the United States openly sided with Russia

“to achieve a peace that can only reward it for its unilateral aggression. As profoundly, the US president has launched a new era in which might is right, ‘strong’ men carve up the globe, and international law and multilateral institutions are eviscerated. Nor, as the former head of MI6 Alex Younger told BBC’s Newsnight, is there any going back.”

Our thoughts and support are with our Prime Minister, especially today. We wish him every success in his discussions later today. We all have to step up and be absolutely united. We have to grow up, if I may say so. We are talking about things, but we should be looking at other things now. We are at war. It is so very important for the world.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie]

I agree that housing is one of the issues that the commissioner will want to consider, and I hope that they will, in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom, but I do not think it helpful to be prescriptive. We must ensure that the commissioner is fully independent and can determine their own priorities, and we should not seek to place requirements on them. Otherwise, Parliament will be dictating to them what they should do. I believe that they—and their staff, appointed through the appointments process—will be more than capable of doing that for themselves.

Amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, seeks to impose a timescale for the implementation of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, like other Members, wants to see the commissioner begin their new and expanded role as quickly as possible, but it is important that this be done fully and correctly. In Committee, I asked Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, how staff would cope with the additional powers that are being transferred. It was positive to hear that staff were excited about the new powers and believed them to be necessary; that is a sign that the legislation is both needed and framed correctly. On timescales, Mariette Hughes said that

“there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q6.]

Amendment 10 seeks to rush that process, and risks losing the good will within the ombudsman’s team. I come back to the importance of independence, and my belief that there must be a culture of independence from the beginning, without artificial deadlines or criteria being imposed. I know the Minister wants to move as quickly as possible with this legislation while ensuring its effectiveness, and I ask him to comment on the timescale, but I do not believe that the amendment is required.

I turn to an issue that I raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, and which is mentioned in new clause 2: relationships with veterans commissioners and the devolved Administrations. Given that I was the only Scottish Member on the Public Bill Committee, ensuring that this legislation is effective for my constituents is one of my key concerns. When I asked Mariette Hughes about this issue in Committee, she was incredibly practical and clearly focused on the need to solve problems with the devolved Administrations, rather than taking a heavy-handed approach. In my view, her approach is correct. She said that she would work

“with the devolved Administrations…sit round the table and talk about whose job it is to take this forward, because we can all agree that this is what needs to happen for people.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q7.]

In Committee, I asked the Minister about housing, which has been discussed. I was reassured by his response that

“if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 68, Q108.]

That is the kind of constructive scrutiny that I would like to see, and I feel that new clause 2 is heavy-handed in its dealing with the devolved Administrations. An annual report will be presented to this House; I am sure that MSP colleagues of all political parties, as well as Scottish MPs, will be quick to hold a Scottish Government of any political stripe to account when recommendations are made to them.

New clause 2 does not take account of the fact that the power to tackle issues such as housing lies not with veterans commissioners, or even with the Scottish Government, but with local councils, which are even closer to communities. I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, abhors central control from a distant place, so I am sure that he will agree that seeking to control housing policy in Fife or Moray from London is not appropriate. I urge Members to reject new clause 2.

As I said, the fact that the Government brought forward this legislation so early on and the other positive steps that have been taken to support our armed forces and veterans show the commitment of the Labour party and this Government to supporting both. I hope that we can maintain the positive tone of discussions on the Bill to date, and that we can speak with one voice this evening and pass this legislation without amendment.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

May I say how delighted I am to see the introduction of a commissioner for our armed forces and veterans? It is badly needed, and I am sure that the commissioner will be appreciated and will make vast improvements to the welfare of our people.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for tabling new clause 1, because we have volunteers in the Territorial Army who are highly respected and valued, yet they get rejected when they apply to the Army. They do not feel that they are given any explanation of why they are not accepted by the armed forces, and new clause 1 would address that. It is really bad for morale when people do not get told exactly why they have not been accepted. I truly welcome this Bill.

[Jacob Collier]

I rise to lend my full support to this Bill, and I will shortly speak to the amendments in the name of the Opposition. The Bill represents a long-overdue step towards supporting the welfare and rights of service personnel and their families. I have a brother in our armed forces, and I am grateful to have a Government who recognise the value of being challenged to deliver more for our service personnel and for military families like mine. The introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an opportunity to provide independent and robust oversight to ensure that we in this place, and all parts of Government, do right by all who serve.

Our nation and its armed forces are inseparable. In Burton and Uttoxeter, we have so many military families like mine; we feel immense pride in the service of our loved ones. At a moment’s notice, they stand ready to protect our nation and all that we hold dear. Regardless of whether it is a soldier posted overseas, a sailor patrolling distant waters or a pilot protecting our skies, their wellbeing, and that of their families, should be at the heart of any Government policy. This Bill achieves precisely that by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner who can investigate, advocate and hold the system to account. The commissioner will not just respond to complaints, but proactively examine the issues affecting service life, from housing and healthcare to the transition to civilian life and the schooling of service children. The role will deliver real improvements, and it will challenge this Parliament and this Government, so I hope that those on the Front Bench are fully prepared for that.

I am mindful of amendments 9 and 10. Although their intentions may be laudable, I think they miss the point. Amendment 9 proposes that the commissioner’s remit explicitly include pensions and death-in-service benefits for serving and former members of the armed forces. That might seem fair at first glance, but I am firmly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and risks undermining the effectiveness of the commissioner’s work. As defined by the Bill, the commissioner’s role is already expansive, covering the full spectrum of welfare concerns for service personnel and their families.

Amendment 9 risks narrowing the commissioner’s focus, and could lead to a disproportionate allocation of time and resources to one area at the expense of other pressing welfare concerns. The commissioner must have the freedom to determine their priorities, based on the evidence that they receive from service personnel, veterans and their families. The commissioner’s work should not be restrained by this Parliament prescribing specific areas of focus, no matter how good its intentions. Let us trust that the Bill gives the commissioner the independence that they require to do the job effectively. To prescribe excessively is to risk diluting the authority and focus of this legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said. He was bang on the money, if the House pardons the pun.

Similarly, amendment 10 seeks to explicitly include issues affecting children, family and dependants. Although I fully recognise the importance of supporting the families of our service personnel, this amendment raises several concerns. The commissioner’s role is already designed to allow them to advocate comprehensively for the welfare of service families. There is no doubt that issues such as education allowances, special needs tuition and housing fall squarely within that remit. The commissioner must have the flexibility to address the full spectrum of welfare issues, and must not be bound by a rigid checklist dictated by this House. We must trust that the commissioner will engage with service families effectively, without Parliament micromanaging their work. I am sure that all of us in this House have topics that we would want the commissioner to focus on, but the point is that it is not up to us.

This Bill represents progress, and a move towards ensuring that our military personnel and their families feel heard, valued and supported. It sends a clear message that their voice matters, that their welfare matters and that their service to our country is not taken for granted. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures that champion the rights and wellbeing of all those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill aligns with those values, and I urge colleagues to wholeheartedly support it tonight.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman made the important point, implicitly in his question, that it is the Ukrainians who are fighting and the Ukrainians who will make the call about whether to talk and on what terms. Our task, as one of the leading supporters of Ukraine and its fight for sovereignty, freedom and its own future, is to support it and to step up our support for its fight, and then to step up our support, if necessary and whenever required, in any negotiations, as well as to play our part, as we have made the commitment to do, in providing any security guarantees for the longer term.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Russia has gone to war in Europe, starting in Ukraine. It was America and Britain that saved Europe in the last war; it looks like this will be the same. Europe simply must step up. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Lloyd Austin about America’s role in the way forward?

[John Healey]

To be quite honest with my hon. Friend, it is a little early to have discussions with America. It is less than a week since the presidential elections and the current Administration have more than two months to go. As she would expect, I am in detailed discussions with the current Administration and my counterpart there, in particular about how we together, as two of Ukraine’s leading allies, can step up our support over the couple of months ahead.

In the future, I expect a President Trump-led Administration to recognise that it is in America’s interests, NATO’s interests and the interests of all countries that believe in the international rules-based order and a stable and secure peace that Putin does not prevail, because if large countries like Russia are able to redraw international boundaries by force, that sends a signal that undermines the security of all nations. If reports are right that President Trump has already spoken to President Putin and warned him against the escalation that we see from Russia in Ukraine, that is a good first step and early sign.