War Graves Week

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Ind)]

In late June and early July 1943, the allies in north Africa were preparing to invade Sicily, which would be the first piece of territory in Europe to be taken back from Nazi Germany. In 2nd Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, in the 50th Infantry Division, there were two good friends: Lieutenant David Cox, an Oxbridge graduate aged 23; and Peter Martin, then a Captain commanding A Company. One morning, David told Peter that he had a terrible and very vivid dream in which he learned that he was going to die in a place called Catania. He had never heard of it and neither had Peter. Peter reassured David that it was just a dream, and he should think no more about it.

Shortly thereafter, the Cheshires received their orders for Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily. To his absolute horror, David learned that an objective of the 50th Infantry Division was a place called Catania—the very same name that he had dreamed about. It shocked him to the core, and of course he became seriously worried that he was going to die there.

In early July, the Cheshires landed at Jig Green beach, just south of Syracuse, in Sicily. The landings went well and not too much resistance was encountered. David was, of course, petrified by the premonition, and Peter repeatedly tried to reassure him that it was just a dream. About a week later, the Cheshires took part in taking Catania, and after some hard fighting, in which both officers played considerable part, the town was captured. With the town taken by the allies, Peter said to David that his worries had been unjustified and he should stop fretting. Naturally, David was massively relieved. The next day, 16 August, the battalion was tasked with moving through a minefield. David was the only officer with mine-clearing experience, and he led the effort to make a path through it. Tragically, a mine exploded as he was doing so and he was killed—how flipping awful!

That story came from my mentor, whom I met in 1969, when I, too, joined the Cheshires. By then, Peter was a major general and colonel of the regiment. I held him in huge regard, and he guided me as a very young officer. Peter never forgot David, and visited his grave in Sicily whenever he could. The words of the Reverend Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, Woodbine Willie, who won the Military Cross in the first world war, hold true:

“There are many kinds of sorrow

In this world of Love and Hate,

But there is no sterner sorrow

Than a soldier’s for his mate.”

I have used those words myself. David’s story inspired me to do the same and visit his grave, and I have been there several times in the last few years. I have a photograph with me, but I am not allowed to show it. [Interruption.] Okay, I will show it, Mr Deputy Speaker—here it is.

David’s grave is in the Catania Commonwealth war cemetery, which contains 2,135 burials from the second world war, 112 of them unidentified. It is in a beautiful location—I will let right hon. and hon. Members glance at the photo—with Mount Etna behind it, steaming away, an active volcano. It is a fabulous location. The cemetery, like most CWGC locations abroad, makes anyone that visits it feel humbled and filled with awe. Nothing can bring back the men buried there, but at least their memory is honoured properly. That might be of some solace to the families and friends of those who rest there.

However, I am slightly concerned about one aspect of the work of the CWGC: what appears to happen sometimes in our country. For instance, in south-east London, Hither Green cemetery contains over 200 war graves. The graves that are located together—more than 10—are looked after, but there are many more individual graves, such as that of Private Terence Adam, who was killed at Ballykelly in Northern Ireland on 6 December 1982. I was the incident commander when 11 soldiers, as well as six civilians, were murdered by the Irish National Liberation Army. Terence’s grave is on its own, but it is looked after by my friend and former Army colleague George Szwejkowski, who also personally cares for over 50 other graves in that cemetery. He is one of many more civilians volunteering to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said. George is accredited to the CWGC and tends those graves for no money, simply because he feels that the poor devils who lie underground there deserve to be hugely respected.

I am afraid that I have seen quite a few individual war graves in the UK that suffer from a lack of care. I know that solving that problem is difficult for the CWGC because its resources are finite. It does its best, and there is no easy solution. It is not the fault of the CWGC, but I wish there were a way for all graves of service personnel, wherever they are, to be kept to the normal excellent standards that the CWGC sets.

In summary, I pay huge tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I thank our two colleagues who are commissioners. The CWGC does its best to ensure that those of us who live today are reminded of those normally very young men, and sometimes young women, who lost everything before they had really started their adult life. Those people did a huge service for us; we are here because of them. I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for looking after them.

UK Armed Forces in Middle East

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

The lessons of Bosnia are interesting, and are not lost on Government Members. The hon. Gentleman should have no doubt that Ministers and the Government will remain fully accountable to this House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Ind)]

May I declare an interest? Members of my close family have been, and are, involved in military operations in the middle east.

Bearing in mind my experience in Northern Ireland—seven tours—I am slightly worried that if our armed forces open fire in the middle east, which they have done, a foreign country will, at some future date, put them before an international court and charge them. I hope the Minister will declare that such a thing will never happen.

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his questions; he speaks from a position of knowledge. He should be assured, as should the House, that our forces in the region operate with the full force of the law behind them on the basis of collective self-defence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear all along that if the facts change, so will our approach to force structure. It is important to note that force size and readiness are not necessarily directly connected. A future force may require fewer people because of automation and artificial intelligence, or it may not. We are studying the lessons from Ukraine carefully. We came to a clear judgment in the last IR. As we work towards the publication of a refresh of the defence Command Paper, we will look at whether the assumptions of the last Command Paper are still sound.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could I ask my very good friend the Minister whether the additional money for defence will allow us to provide more teeth arm units, plus the support arm units—enablers—to NATO?

[James Heappey]

It may do. The reality is that we are still providing a large number of frontline units to NATO, particularly in the maritime and air domains, but my hon. and gallant Friend’s principal concern will be about land forces. Even there, the UK continues to provide the most credible high readiness formations to the alliance. He made an important point that we can have as many fighting units as we wish, but without the logistics and the strategic enablers that get them to the front line, they are not worth having. The Secretary of State, Front-Bench colleagues and I have been clear for years that what urgently needs reinvestment is not a regrowth of our fighting echelon but a re-fleshing out of the logistics and the enablers, which—for good reasons—over the last 20 years have not been needed, but now so desperately are.

Ukraine

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We work with a number of countries to make very clear that that is unacceptable, and where we can we take steps to frustrate that process. Fundamentally, once weapons systems are in the hands of Russians or on Ukrainian territory, they are legitimate targets for the Ukrainian armed forces, and we have already seen that success. As I said in my statement, this is not always about hardware. Britain’s know-how in ensuring that air defences are better co-ordinated has helped significantly to defeat some of the Iranian drones that are being fired, almost like V-1 bombs from the second world war. It points to the heart of the regime that we are all up against that its solution to failure on the battlefield is to fire those things indiscriminately at civilian infrastructure, and at civilian areas where people live.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that we were assisting Ukraine in its air defence against drones, but do we have other troops helping Ukraine within Ukraine?

[Mr Wallace]

We do not need to be in Ukraine to help with our knowledge, and to help to better co-ordinate, explain and train. That is why we have brought nearly 10,000 Ukrainian troops here. Many Ukrainians received specialist troop training outside Ukraine. The Germans and, I think, the Dutch did training on long-range artillery for the Ukrainians, and we obviously helped with combat engineer training in neighbouring states.

I have noticed some misleading media comments about the Royal Marines. We have a small contingent for force protection around the embassy, as would be expected, to ensure that we always protect our diplomats and our areas. We are not directly engaged in conflict with Russia—we have been very clear about that—but we have been providing hardware and know-how to assist Ukraine to defend itself.

Ukraine

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the three Front-Bench spokesmen on the eloquence and unanimity that has been displayed. In studying the depravity of dictators, one quickly understands that cynicism has no limits and hypocrisy no boundaries. Putin likes to draw parallels with the second world war, and there are indeed parallels to be drawn. For example, the false flag operations go back to the very outbreak of that war. On 31 August 1939, Hitler would have had it that the war began because Poles attacked a radio station at Gleiwitz, on the east German border. They were in fact Nazis dressed up in Polish uniforms, and they even left the dead bodies of concentration camp victims as props in that scheme. It is a sign that Putin’s comparisons are insufficiently accurate or insufficiently free of hypocrisy that he does not recognise that what started that war was Stalin’s pact with the Nazis to divide up Poland between them.

This is necessarily a short debate, which is just as well, because I side with those who do not think it is a very good idea for us to discuss military strategy in an ongoing campaign on the Floor of this House. What we can observe is that one complicating factor in a dictatorship such as Putin’s Russia is that there are no mechanisms whereby a leader who is unethical, irresponsible, incompetent and indeed murderous can constitutionally be removed. That has to be a factor in our considerations.

If it were not too flippant, I would be tempted to remark that it is truly a sign of desperation and indeed substandard propaganda that a cheerleader for Putin yesterday threatened a nuclear strike on London if we continue to help Ukraine defend territory that is being illegally annexed. Given the extent of the property portfolios of so many of Putin’s oligarchs in the centre of this great city, they would, I think, have a word or two of objection to a Russian strategy of that sort.

The beginning of the invasion left quite a few people thinking that resistance was unlikely to be successful. Indeed, it probably would not have been successful but for the supply of complex weapons systems that had taken place since the earlier invasion of Crimea. As a result, we have seen the Russians’ air arm neutralised, the Russian fleet’s major surface unit in the area sunk, tanks and other vehicles destroyed, and ground troops decimated. The only tactic that has been left to the Russian dictator has been the physical destruction—usually by long-range artillery—of territory that the Russians cannot take and hold.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend. I am sure this is happening, but combat supplies and spare parts need to be reinforced, because complex weapon systems go wrong and need to be repaired. While we are at it, as we come into winter, it would be good to provide the Ukrainian armed forces with simple little things such as face masks so they can go through the winter, because they probably do not have them.

[Dr Lewis]

Not for the first time, my right hon. and gallant Friend anticipates my next but one point. I will make the next point first, which is that, because the only tactic left is destruction, the area of doubt is how far Putin will go. Will he simply think that by escalating destruction, the Ukrainians will suddenly say, “We can’t take any more of this and we’re going to surrender”? Surely the events of the past months have shown that any such approach would be completely counterproductive. The more he behaves atrociously, the stronger the resistance will be and rightly so.

My right hon. and gallant Friend referred to the supplies that we give. Of course it is greatly to the credit of the previous Government and, indeed, the previous Prime Minister, who spoke earlier in this debate, that we have given such substantial supplies, but in giving those supplies, we have seriously depleted our own stocks. What I need to hear from the Minister is that a full-scale effort is being made and will be increased to ensure that the more we give, the higher our rate of replacement will be, because an effort cannot be sustained if the people who are resisting run out of supplies.

Finally, it would be remiss of me to conclude any debate about defence without making a reference to the need to reach 3% of GDP. We have made progress: we now have a pledge to reach 3% of GDP by 2030, but the situation in 2030 is a long way away—it is longer than the second world war, with which I began. We need to reach it sooner than that.

NATO and International Security

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but I am afraid that, at the beginning of his speech, he somewhat misled hon. Members. He said that he would not say things that he had said before, but by the end of his speech, I was pretty certain that he had made those points previously—in fact, he tends to make them whenever I follow him. However, as always, he was worth listening to.

I commend the way in which the Secretary of State opened the debate. Despite his attempts to tease Labour Front Benchers and me—more of that to come, I am sure—he opened it in a suitable fashion. One might even think that he had in mind a future position in Brussels that might come up at NATO at some point later this year. He is far too popular for the Prime Minister, so he may not be Secretary of State for too much longer. [Interruption.] I am sure he would be most welcome in the Scottish Parliament.

I will try to be brief because I am conscious of time. NATO is clearly one of the two main pillars of Euro-Atlantic security. The Secretary of State himself identified the European Union as a strong player in some of the non-hard military capabilities that are required to underpin peace on the continent of Europe. It is undoubtedly correct that NATO is at the forefront of providing hard military defence and security to its member states, but Europe leads in other areas outwith that. The Secretary of State mentioned some—for example, cyber—but we should also look at energy, trade, resilience and crisis management. He is right that the two institutions should not compete but complement one another.

Britain is in a slightly different role in that it has recently left the European Union but remains a member of NATO, so it taps into only one of those two pillars of Euro-Atlantic security. I repeat what I said earlier, that we should seriously consider a comprehensive defence and security treaty with the European Union. I suspect we will end up in that position at some point, although perhaps not under this Government.

The Secretary of State went through some of the history of the alliance, not least its doubling in size over the past 70 years. We now have two applicants in Sweden and Finland. I suspect that the Secretary of State is right that they will join, despite the noises from Turkey. Undoubtedly, both countries will be positive, contributing members of the alliance, producing strong defence, resilience and security. The Scottish National party absolutely supports their application.

I want to consider the Strategic Concept. As the Secretary of State mentioned, we have had the strategic compass from the European Union—I think there is still a bit to come. The Strategic Concept is second in importance only to the Washington treaty and is undoubtedly a major turning point in the ongoing Euro-Atlantic security debate. The shadow Secretary of State is right that it is a shame that it is open only to Governments to participate, but I accept the Secretary of State’s generous offer to have a discussion with him and his officials before the concept is published next month in Madrid.

I am slightly worried about some of the noises from the Foreign Secretary, and I understand, if the media are to be believed, that so are some Members on the Government Benches. The concept, which she has repeated without any detail, that we need a global NATO causes me concern. The Strategic Concept should underline that NATO’s primary focus is the Euro-Atlantic area. We do not need NATO to gallivant around the world. I know that the Government have an obsession with the Indo-Pacific tilt that they want to try to implement, but surely 24 February, if not 2014 and 2008, has told us that the Euro-Atlantic area needs to be NATO’s primary focus, not a global NATO. Although there is no detail about what the Foreign Secretary means by that, I reject it in its entirety.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On Monday and Tuesday, I had a long conversation with Ukrainian politicians on the border. They stressed to me how vital it is that the United States stays deeply committed to Europe and NATO, and that that is the lesson of what has happened since 24 February.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I do not disagree with any of that. I am not sure whether perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that I was making, but I do not disagree at all. The United States is clearly very important to NATO, but NATO’s primary area of focus and operation, on the map, is the Euro-Atlantic area, and my concern is that the Foreign Secretary seems to want to take that further, with talk of a global NATO. Given that we do not know what she actually means by that, perhaps I have already given too much time to it, but it does cause me concern.

As the shadow Secretary of State said, we need to try to open things up with future strategic concepts. No multilateral international organisation, however important, has a right to exist; it always requires work to get the consent of the public. Undoubtedly NATO has that—it has proved this year alone just how useful it is—but it does need to democratise, and the processes for future strategic concepts need to be opened up not just to political parties, but to non-governmental organisations and others. We want to see coming out of the strategic concept a focus on resilience, on emerging disruptive technologies and on ensuring that the eastern flank of NATO is enhanced, as the Prime Minister of Estonia—the new Iron Lady, as she is being called—has been calling for. We would support that.

The Secretary of State knows that we have supported the Government in every move that they have taken to support Ukraine militarily, economically and in many other fields. Our only criticism, a deep and profound one, is how incredibly slowly we are helping Ukrainian refugees, but that is perhaps not for this debate. However, I am interested to tease out of the Secretary of State or the Minister where we are with planning to help to rebuild Ukraine.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was correct to say that no one expected that Ukraine would fight so valiantly and last so long against Russia, or that Russia would crumble. No one saw that coming. Getting on to a debate about rebuilding Ukraine is therefore hugely important, and clearly the Ministry of Defence has an important role to play. Members on both sides of the House need to start engaging in this, not least because Ukraine is hoping next year to host the Eurovision song contest, which, as the Secretary of State said, will take place, one way or another, on the territory of a free Ukraine.

The Scottish National party supports Sweden and Finland in their accession to NATO. We are analysing that process very closely, as Members might well understand. We support the Government in going into the strategic concept if they are serious about democratising it and addressing the challenges that we face in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Given the assault on the international order by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, its continuing fraying and testing in other parts of the world, and the technologies that are used to deepen and hasten that, we need to work together, irrespective of the differing political and constitutional views of hon. Members present. We need to work together because we share values, and those values do not deserve to exist just because we think so; we always need to make the case for them robustly even where there are disagreements. I wish the Secretary of State well for the upcoming strategic concept and look forward to discussing it with him before he heads to Madrid next month.

War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Payments

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the current process for claiming War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation payments is not fit for purpose and urges the Government to launch an independent inquiry into the system’s failings.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for debate and the Leader of the House for arranging time tonight in a timeslot that is not normally allocated for Back-Bench business. That is very much appreciated after the debate was moved from last Thursday.

In recent years, many of us have become disconnected from the idea of war. It is becoming something that happens far away to people we do not know. We might try to keep on top of the news, but the human stories are often lost. However, the war in Ukraine has reminded us that armed conflict is not just something remote and abstract; the sad truth is that it can happen anywhere when political processes break down or when leaders put their egos above human life. Ukraine has reminded us of another truth: wars are not fought by armies; they are fought by individuals each with a life as complex as our own. When we hear the stories from Ukrainian civilians leaving behind their careers and families to take up arms to defend their country, we see the human face behind every member of those armed forces. When we hear the stories of teenage Russian conscripts surrendering in tears, we see that under each helmet is a complex and unique individual.

Whether or not we agree with the motives of a conflict, or disagree with the concept of war in principle, that all takes second place to our ability to recognise the humanity in every individual, and veterans are central to this. Many veterans have seen the very worst of humanity, so it seems only right that when they return home they should be greeted by its very best: compassion, recognition and respect. They have given all for their state and it is only right that the state, in turn, should give its all for them. That is the key principle in why it is so important to compensate veterans fairly. It is about recognising our duty of care to help them to live a full and dignified life post service, and doing so with respect to their individuality. Schemes such as war pensions and the armed forces compensation scheme are absolutely critical in delivering our duty of care to solidify our commitment to veterans by pledging that whatever injuries, mental or physical, someone receives during their time in the forces, or whatever existing condition was worsened, the burden of that harm should be carried by the state, not by the veteran. It is absolutely correct in its simple recognition that whatever harm was incurred in the name of the state is the state’s responsibility.

That is not asking for much; in fact, it is the bare minimum that we can do to show that we respect these veterans for what they have done to support all of us. Yet the reason we are here today is that at the moment, at least, that bare minimum is not being met. The Government are not yet recognising the duty of care towards veterans. They are not offering to freely and unconditionally carry the financial burden of their injuries. They are not respecting veterans. Yes, war pensions and the compensation scheme exist, but the way in which they are being administered is a national scandal that should have us all hanging our heads in shame. The process, as it stands, operates in a way that discourages veterans from pursuing their claims. It is loaded with presumptions that veterans are not entitled to compensation, making them prove eligibility beyond any reasonable standards. It is a process that is inherently distrustful, presuming that veterans are trying to swindle the system. It is mired with complicated terminology and legalese, with little signposting for those who need it most.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I speak as someone with a one-third war disability pension. When I left the armed forces, I had a medical, and that signposted me to get the disability pension. People do not necessarily have to wait until they get a condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

[Owen Thompson]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I will come to that point, but we see a lack of transparency and serious questions about conflicts of interest. As a result, the process pushes veterans into poverty, ill health and, sadly, even suicide.

I was first made aware of the seriousness of the issue by my constituent Garry McDermott, a former lance corporal with the Royal Scots who left the armed forces in 2003. As a result of his time in service, he had been diagnosed with complex PTSD, and he suffers from a variety of physical health issues including with his hips and his knees. Those injuries were caused or worsened by his time in the service of his country, but, when he returned home and sought compensation, he found that the country was not willing to serve him.

Garry has been fighting for more than a decade for the Government simply to recognise their duty of care towards him and pay him what he is due under his war pension. Time and again, they shirked responsibility by denying a link between his injuries and his time in service. His physical health has severely deteriorated over the past decade—he now needs a new knee and two new hips—due to trauma induced by carrying 80 kg bags during his time in service. That was confirmed by his Army medical files, yet he has been refused an increased payment. Medical advisers at Veterans UK have denied the link between Garry’s time in service and his injuries time and again. Damage to his teeth from his time in service was noted as “poor dental hygiene” by Veterans UK. Damage to his toes was said to be due to fungus. One time, his ability to go for a run to support his own mental health was held against him. Whenever he put in a claim, he was made to feel like he was trying to cheat the system and not worthy of the Government’s support. He was not claiming for millions of pounds or thousands of pounds—these are claims for an extra £22 a week.

Mistreatment of one veteran is bad enough, but Garry is one of thousands. The true scale of the scandal became clearer when I raised his case at business questions only a matter of months ago and was told:

“It is not always right to draw conclusions about a whole system from one case.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 517.]

The reaction to that statement proved otherwise, as social media exploded with veterans who had experienced the same issues as Garry and were dismayed by the former Leader of the House’s flippant dismissal. Dozens contacted me directly to set the record straight: the problem was systematic and they were the very proof of that. The veterans whom I have spoken to have been in all ranks of our forces, including majors and colonels, and it is extremely widespread.

Let us look at Veterans UK’s recent customer satisfaction survey. Of the 324 veterans surveyed about their satisfaction levels in using the war pension scheme, only 36% noted any level of satisfaction, and 32% gave it a one—the lowest possible rating. For the armed forces compensation scheme, it was even more dire, with only 13% giving any sort of positive rating above five; meanwhile, half of veterans rated their satisfaction at one, which again was the lowest possible option. If war pensions are not bad enough, it seems that the scheme that replaced them is even worse. More generally, the dissatisfaction rate with the Veterans UK claims process is a shocking 80%.

Because of the sheer scale of the issue, it is easy to get lost in the details of individual cases. However, important as those are, they give Veterans UK and the Ministry of Defence the chance to portray them as outliers, which they are not. They are symptoms of a system that is simply unfit for purpose. We need to take a step back and identify the recurring issues among the cases: the common threads that show us that the problem is systematic. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has helped to identify the problems, including campaigning groups such as the Independent Defence Authority and Justice4Troops and, most of all, the veterans who have reached out to share their own stories.

The first issue is that the system of war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments operates with a presumption against awarding veterans with their claims. Let us start with the cold, hard statistics. Since April 2009, of the 107,000 disablement claims cleared at initial review under the war pension scheme, 32% have been declined. Only 59% of those whose claims passed forward received a financial award.

Of the 94,000 armed forces compensation scheme claims, 31% have failed at the initial stage, and 74% of appeals have been rejected. Only 57% of claims have resulted in a financial award. The fact that a third of claims fall at the first hurdle and only a minority make it through the appeals process paints a bleak picture of claimants’ chances. That is especially worrying given the fact that the stats date mostly from before Veterans UK took over the assessment processes. According to many veterans, that has worsened the situation.

Interestingly, the MOD does not hold in a collated format stats on how many claimants decided to withdraw or not to take steps to progress their claim—the details are tucked away in the paper files of each case. I have been told that the reason for making the information so difficult to locate is that it is

“not information the Ministry of Defence needs to capture in order to process claims or monitor performance.”

I cannot imagine any reason why holding data on how many veterans give up on the process would not be conducive to monitoring its success, but that is where we are.

Whatever the case, far too many veterans do give up. They are faced with a system that presumes they are trying to swindle it. Many veterans, like my constituent Garry, find themselves struggling to prove that their health conditions were caused by their time in our forces. The slightest ability still to do any physical exercise is held against them and injuries sustained in service are noted down as otherwise. It is the same cruel and distrustful approach to benefits that is embodied by universal credit, with people being made to undergo undignified tests to prove their disabilities.

Even when it clashes with professional opinion, Veterans UK keeps denying claims. Army medical files that prove causation between time in service and injuries are regularly ignored. Similar tests that are carried out for other benefits—such as personal independence payments—and prove unfitness to work are ignored. Veterans are made to feel like they are guilty until proven innocent. In some cases, evidence of a veteran’s disability has seemingly—this claim has been made to me—been doctored to underplay its severity. In one case, a veteran’s medical files stated that they could walk 140 metres with discomfort, but when their claim was rejected, part of the reason given was that they could walk 140 metres—there was no mention of the discomfort.

One veteran, a former major, told me:

“Veterans UK have followed an unofficial policy of ‘Deny, Delay, hope you Die’ in which at the first stage they claim you don’t have that injury, then when it’s proven they insist on a level of evidence that the claimant must provide, despite the fact that they have full access to my medical record, then they attempt to claim that the cause wasn’t service, such as in my case they attributed my deafness to my age, which is currently 49.”

As with universal credit, it boils down to saving money. An ideological dogma of small government has led to starved public resources and a scramble to save money here and there. The ones who pay the price are those who need help the most—in this case, veterans. It is evident that the system is rigged to deny veterans their claims for the feeblest of excuses, at all costs. It should go without saying that no amount of money saved is worth the lives and livelihoods of those who gave their all for all of us. The overarching goal of a body like Veterans UK should be not to save money but to do all it can to repay the debt that we owe our veterans.

Of course, the MOD says that assessments are arrived at through evidence-based professional judgement and that medical advisers seek to advise on the pre-existing evidence rather than to diagnose issues. However, as we have heard, it is not uncommon for existing evidence to be ignored or, allegedly, altered. Medical advisers seem consistently to exceed their remit to pursue a policy of cost-cutting and cover-up.

The role of medical advisers ties into another issue that runs through veterans’ testimonies. Many veterans have raised questions about the lack of transparency around obtaining details of who makes decisions on their claims. Personal privacy is of course paramount—I do not think anyone would question that—but it should be balanced with veterans’ right to know that their assessors are the right people to make the decisions, even if for nothing other than their peace of mind. There is no transparency on that front, and veterans feel completely in the dark about the people who make these life-altering decisions. Medical advisers stay deep in the shadows, even going as far as to refuse to appear on video link at tribunals. The Minister might consider how dehumanising that can be for a veteran—to feel that their fate is in the hands of a faceless bureaucrat. What is so hard about treating veterans like human beings and creating a healthy, open relationship between them and their medical advisers?

In one case, a veteran requested a statement from a medical adviser on why they thought he had PTSD, but they declined to do so, saying that they were not qualified to make such a judgment. However, the same assessor then rejected their claim relating to PTSD deterioration. How can an adviser make a judgment on one, but not on the other? I just cannot understand that. It might be explained by seeing exactly what the assessors do, opening that up and shining a light on it.

Perhaps even more concerning is the reuse of the same medical adviser at different stages in the appeals process. Testimony after testimony has complained to me about the same individual assessor giving their judgment on a claim at the initial stage, the appeal and then feeding into the tribunal. Separate advisers should be used to ensure impartiality and a range of opinions. Surely the whole point of appealing is to get a second opinion to reassess the claim from a new point of view. If the adviser used at the initial stage is then brought in for the appeal, how can a veteran be assured that their claim will not just be subject to the same opinions that rejected it in the first place? Where is the fairness and where is the impartiality? At best, it is serious neglect in the system design, leading to a conflict of interest. At worst, it is a deliberate choice to cut costs by rigging the system against veterans. It is little wonder that so few appeals get anywhere. All of this contributes to a feeling that there is a huge power imbalance between the veterans and those assessing them.

The picture painted of Veterans UK is that it puts cost-cutting above its duty to protect veterans’ lives and livelihoods; it perpetuates a culture of distrust towards veterans, and sees many as dishonest and unworthy of compensation; it operates under an assumption that veterans will not get their compensation—a case of “guilty until proven innocent”; it overrides medical and professional opinion to claim that injuries were not caused by time in service; and it hides behind a lack of transparency around its medical advisers. Most of all, however, it completely disregards the debt that society owes to our veterans.

Of course, there is a serious human cost to this. According to Lisa Scullion and Katherine Curchin, writing in the Journal of Social Policy,

“it is evident that there is a lack of understanding of the impact of trauma on people’s psychosocial functioning and, as a result, veterans are treated in ways which are variously perceived as disrespectful, unfair or disempowering and in some cases exacerbate existing mental health problems.”

Returning from the unimaginable conditions of war, physical and mental trauma leaves many feeling vulnerable, isolated and financially unstable. PTSD is rife, and the risk of self-harm and suicide can be high. Subjecting this community to complex, lengthy and demeaning processes to claim the money they need to support themselves does nothing but exacerbate mental health problems. They are forced to relive trauma and put their mental health on the line.

For some veterans, their lengthy fights to claim their money is simply too much to bear. Many simply give up and some, tragically, take their own lives. They simply cannot bear the mental strain of fighting for years—sometimes decades—to be told that they cannot be recognised as worthy of help. One veteran told me:

“In September last year, I had a full physical and mental breakdown because of all these accusations that I’m not as injured as make out, and again tried to hang myself. I was diagnosed with Complex PTSD directly because of the MoD.”

Yet Veterans UK is ill-equipped to deal with this. It even admitted in a written statement that it has no policy in place to deal with veterans suffering from mental health issues. I welcome the Minister’s pledge to start publishing veterans’ suicide rates in England and Wales, starting next year. It is important that the MOD does understand the scale of the problem across the UK as a whole.

I have been delighted by the level of support from across the Chamber in bringing forward this debate, and I am certainly not here seeking any kind of political scalp. This is not about point scoring; this is an entirely cross-party issue. We are united by wanting to do the very best by our veterans. We simply want the Government to hear the pain veterans are in and address it. That is why we need an independent inquiry into the failures of Veterans UK. It is evident that a few tweaks around the edges will not be enough to fix the system.

Root-and-branch reform is needed to build the foundations of a system informed by different philosophies and following different priorities. An independent inquiry should investigate how Veterans UK arrived at the culture of cost-cutting. It should give veterans an opportunity to air their concerns and feel listened to. Most importantly, it should lay the groundwork for a new approach. For instance, there would be huge benefits in creating a system using the principles of trauma-informed care. Again, in the Journal of Social Policy, Lisa Scullion and Katherine Curchin write that

“the application of trauma-informed care principles to the UK social security system could improve interactions within this system and avoid re-traumatising those experiencing on-going or unresolved trauma.”

In the meantime, we could take actions right now that could save lives. Untimely payments cost lives; target times should be reduced as far as possible. War pension payments that exceed their target by a fortnight must be brought into line with it. On top of that, the Confederation of Service Charities, or Cobseo, has raised concerns about the backlog of appeals awaiting resolution. Immediate steps could be taken to progress that. Veterans UK’s policies around the consideration given to previous health assessments undertaken during a veteran’s time in service must be taken into account fully and properly.

This is the right time to make changes. The armed forces compensation scheme will be reviewed this year, and major work is being done to digitise the schemes. Now is the time: the opportunities are there to lay the groundwork for a better system, including by addressing the recommendations of the previous five-yearly reviews in 2010 and 2017.

All these actions are necessary, but without an independent inquiry to lay the foundations of a new approach, the MOD risks tinkering around the edges. I appreciate that not all these issues can be fixed with the wave of a magic wand; I do not think anyone would expect that. Reforming the treatment of veterans will be a long process. But that could start now with an inquiry, simply to recognise what has gone wrong, learn from the mistakes and understand how we can do better.

I urge the Minister to take this call seriously and bring forward plans for an inquiry. Our veterans deserve our respect. They deserve better than what they are currently receiving. They deserve an independent inquiry, and a new system that recognises their humanity. I urge hon. Members to support this call.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to speak in it, just as it is to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who is certainly the soldier’s champion on union issues. It is very important to have the ordinary soldier represented in this place. It is nice to see in the Chamber the chair of the all-party group on veterans, the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and I thank him for all he does for veterans. I also look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that, deep in his heart, he has a love for and an interest in veterans, and he is in post because he does it well. However, we have to highlight the issues that need reiterating and we look to him for a helpful response tonight, as we always do.

I declare an interest as a former part-time soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years. I also pay special tribute to my Strangford constituents, who have always been strong supporters of all the services—especially the Army, as well as the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.

Members will be under no illusion about my view on our armed forces. I am supremely proud of them and supremely embarrassed about their treatment by this so-called grateful nation. It is critical that we remember the importance of the armed forces compensation scheme, which was born out of the need to support large numbers of service personnel and their families as a result of the fatalities and injuries sustained in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully, the military are not as exposed operationally now as they were then, although if Putin continues as he has started, we may find that we have a need for their training, services and sacrifices once more. Regardless of the machinations of that despot, however, the scheme is still critical.

The lasting impact on soldiers is incredibly clear, and I have many constituents who have post-traumatic stress disorder. I know them all well but I know one particularly well, and he is absolutely on edge with the talk of war and in regard to whether he would ever be called back into service. How many more are retraumatised with the scenes on our screens at present, reminding them of the last war on terror that we entered into and the dreadful price that they still pay for their service?

I do not know whether hon. Members had chance to see the programme on Channel 4 last night on the Falklands war. If they did, I gently remind them that even though the war began 40 years ago on 2 April, many, many of those who served in the Falklands war are traumatised and have PTSD. We saw examples on TV last night that brought it all back. That was 40 years ago, but people are still living all those experiences in a very difficult way.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my good friend for giving way. Although he has not mentioned this, I remind the House that one heck of a lot of people were damaged in Northern Ireland. It was more than all the other wars put together, actually, and we must not forget the Northern Ireland veterans who are still suffering. They need to be looked after just as much as someone from Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman reminds us all of the conflict and the 30-year war against the IRA in Northern Ireland, where he and others in this Chamber served gallantly and expertly for us. He is right that there are many in Northern Ireland who still live those battles every day and fight the demons that attack them. I served alongside many people on whom the trauma of what they saw, what they endured and the friends they lost left a lasting impression; unfortunately, some took their own lives. That is a salient reminder of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I know that from his own experiences he can confirm it better than most in this Chamber. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for all that he did for us in Northern Ireland.

One of my concerns is that when the scheme was envisaged, the number of beneficiaries was not accounted for in the mechanisms designed to deliver the scheme, which has resulted in unacceptable delays in sorting out payments. The additional pressure of trying to jump through the hoops is putting more strain on those who are already physically and mentally suffering. That needs to be addressed completely.

I thank charities such as SSAFA, the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and particularly Beyond the Battlefield, a charity in my constituency that will have the first centre in Northern Ireland dedicated especially for veterans to go and stay. I have invited the Minister to come along and open it, probably in May, and I very much look forward to that.

The scheme appears to focus on one-off payments, but the reality is that many who have suffered life-changing injuries have conditions that are evolving and deteriorating and that necessitate coming back to the scheme for additional payments. That has not been well handled; reassessments appear to be taking too long and are often hamstrung by an over-complex process in which veterans and their families have been placed at the periphery, not the heart. Instead of being about the outcome, it is all about the process, which is the wrong way round.

That leads me on to another concern, which is that the process is not independent enough. In effect, medical professionals funded by the MOD through Veterans UK are marking their own homework, with insufficient scrutiny applied to the process, the outcomes and the appeals. To be clear, my main concern is that Veterans UK is insufficiently resourced to manage the scheme effectively and that veterans and their families are suffering directly.

It is clear that Veterans UK is being asked to do too many things at once, with insufficient staffing, an outdated IT system and an over-reliance on paper-based records. It is not networked up with other agencies such as the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions or the judiciary overseeing appeals, so paperwork, medical reports, appeals and so on are all taking far too long. The much-heralded digitisation of Veterans UK is underfunded, unambitious and already running well behind. The likelihood is that by the time the process is complete, long backlogs will have built up with veterans waiting needlessly for outcomes: the technology will have moved on, but yet again veterans will be lagging behind.

I further point out to the Minister that Veterans UK is operating without defined priorities, so veterans awaiting the outcome of the armed forces compensation scheme are competing with veterans awaiting that of the war pensions scheme. Both groups are up against myriad veterans who are appealing previous outcomes or making complaints about poor processes or medical diagnoses from Veterans UK that are at odds with their own NHS consultants’ reports. They, in turn, are in the same queue as veterans waiting for the long-promised veterans’ ID card, which is being issued only to service leavers, not to veterans.

I am conscious that the three Front Benchers need to wind up, so I will conclude. The very existence of Veterans UK at its HQ at Norcross, where all these schemes and complaints are supposed to be managed, has been subject to a review. I support the scheme, as I think we all do, but we want to see it doing better. Like other hon. Members, I have only briefly been able to highlight the practical operational issues that show that change is needed, and needed soon.

It is time to get it right. Improvement is needed, and our veterans deserve better. These men and women have offered their all. There is no excuse for such treatment under a scheme that is designed only to help. I look forward to hearing how the Minister and his Department will address my and all our concerns and, more importantly, how they will provide the resources that are critical to doing better, enabling the scheme to work and operate well, as it is supposed to.

Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak as Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate. May I pass on the apologies of the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has had a minor operation this week? As we know, he has very strong views on our defence capacity and would probably have wished to express them fairly vociferously in this debate. The defence estimates cover a vast range of work, but I will need to compress my remarks to 10 to 15 minutes to allow other contributions.

This is a dramatic time for defence issues. The agony of Ukraine intensifies, as President Zelensky’s powerful address to us yesterday made clear. The crisis has, of course, been building for a number of years, as Russia has launched successive cyber-attack warfare in the Baltic states and kinetic warfare in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas. It has now exploded dramatically and tragically in Ukraine. We declare our solidarity with the country, the people and the military forces of Ukraine.

How are we in the UK to react to the dramatic shift in international security relations? Clearly, our Government and Parliament now have to give an urgent and positive response to the long-standing demands of our Defence Committee that we must move towards 3% of GDP for defence spending. The Budget in just over two weeks’ time has to respond positively to that imperative. Colleagues on both sides of the House will speak about detailed aspects of the consequential changes to personnel and to equipment, not least reversing the proposed reduction in numbers of the Army. To leave them sufficient time, I will focus on the broader context.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member, my friend, for giving way. Surely one of the lessons of what we have seen in Ukraine is that a small group of utterly determined trained, or indeed untrained, men and women can use small arms and anti-tank weapons and stop a hugely bigger force. We are therefore just in time to reverse some of the decisions in the integrated review, such as scrapping 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, an infantry battalion that proved its worth in 2009 hugely gallantly.

[John Spellar]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention—I think he should have declared an interest. He is absolutely right; the defence estimates and the Budget need to reflect the new reality.

I want to concentrate on the broader context: the ideological battle that is taking place, and the institutional shake-up that is consequently required. Most crucially, we have to recognise the full-spectrum approach of our opponents. Commentators in the west often gabble glibly about hybrid warfare, but in the framework of cyber war as an alternative to kinetic capability, and often in a mechanistic way, rather than understanding the political context and the need for whole-of-society resilience.

The Soviet mindset, of which we are now seeing a resurgence, is quite different. For these people, politics—politik—is everything. All agencies of the state are engaged. For too long we have ignored the multidimensional attack on our society, but that is a luxury we can no longer afford. This also means that the integrated defence review has, to an extent, disintegrated, and requires a major revamp which should start immediately. This necessary intellectual rethink must now focus primarily on state-on-state conflict.

Over many years, I have posed a question a number of times to military figures, defence officials and academics. During the cold war, we based our defence and security posture on our assessment of “the Threat”, with a capital T, and I have asked what the Threat is today. Invariably, I receive the answer that we face a variety of threats, but that is not the right answer, because the question is “What is the existential threat to our nation and society?” It is not terrorism, Islamist or otherwise, ugly and vile though that is. Today we—the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, and indeed the west more widely—know the answer. It is a revanchist Russia and its desire to re-establish the Soviet territory, although I accept that in the longer term, as the defence review states, a revisionist China may be a more significant challenge. That means that today’s estimates are fundamentally an historical document, as, indeed, is the review.

That is not just down to the violently aggressive attacks by Putin’s Russia, but is also, thankfully, a result of the vigorous response not only from NATO allies but from formally neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland, where for the first time there is a public majority favouring NATO membership. The most seismic public reaction has been in Germany, where the new Social Democratic party Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has rewritten decades of German policy of both parties in his historic speech to the Bundestag. Equally dramatic was the wide political support, including support from the German Greens.

Chancellor Scholz stated clearly that President Putin had created a new reality which required an unequivocal response and a dramatic shift to supply Ukraine with weapons. He also made it clear that making international solidarity possible required new, strong capabilities. Essentially, that means that Germany must invest more in the security of the country. He addressed the readiness crisis in the Bundeswehr, which has been widely publicised and has featured in discussions we have had with our German counterparts. He stressed the need for aeroplanes that can fly, ships that can set out to sea, and soldiers who are optimally equipped for their mission. He has designated a one-off sum of €100 billion to set up a special fund, and has pledged an annual 2% of GDP.

I suggest to the Minister—I should welcome his observations—that we may also need to revise the ideological decision made by his Government, although not by current Ministers, to abandon our bases in Germany. I do not think the indication that we might make some minor return meets the need presented by the current challenge.

This was an imaginative, bold and historic intervention. Scholz clearly, in Bismarck’s phrase, heard God’s footsteps marching through history, and managed to catch on to His coattails as He marched past. I hope that our Ministers see the significance of that intervention, and engage rapidly and deeply with our German colleagues to build on this new reality. I hope they will also engage with our own defence industry. The Financial Times reports that after Scholz’s speech on the Sunday, on the Monday the German Defence Ministry and defence firms were engaged in detailed discussions as to how to ramp up production. The MOD and ADS should take note, because that is the sort of national response that we need. I was talking with the industry yesterday, and this does not appear to have happened, particularly not in the supply chain, which is wondering where it fits into the changed environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

That is a really fair point. That was the whole point of enforcing things such as the Ranger battalions, but it was founded really on something that is not true, which is that mass is irrelevant—it is not. Data, technology and all this stuff is important. But look at what is happening in Ukraine now. Why are the Ukrainians holding out when everybody talked about how they were going to get flattened by the Russians? They are holding out because warfare has fundamentally changed: it has changed from the cold war—this is not the cold war reheated—and it has changed from Iraq and Afghanistan. These are Ukrainians, not Iraqis or Afghans riven by tribal disputes. It is fundamentally different and the technology has changed it. What can be done with an NLAW—a next generation light anti-tank weapon—is so different. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was in the Army, much like when I was, people had to fly an anti-tank weapon—it actually had a wire coming out the back—and basically steer it on to the tank. The chances of doing that in combat were pretty slim—

[Bob Stewart]

indicated dissent.

[Johnny Mercer]

Perhaps not for my right hon. Friend—I am sure he hit it every time—but I can only speak for myself and I found it pretty hard to hit the target. These new NLAW weapons are fantastic. They require such a low train-the-trainer base that we can teach Ukrainians to do it. According to a study released last week by the United States special operations community, 280 of the 300 Javelins that the US has given to the Ukrainian forces have had mobility kills. That is a ratio that we have never seen before in conflict.

Let me say finally on the capital spend that yes, that stuff is important, but if we do not have the right quality of people to stand and fight, who know that they are going to be treasured and looked after by their nation—I bore everyone with that all the time—warfare does not work. We are seeing how it works now in the Ukrainian system. We need to be very careful in that space.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend, who is my very good friend, has cast aspersions on how good I am with a light anti-tank weapon and, of course, he was correct: useless. The point is that this NLAW, held by men and women who have a basic, infantry-type role, can sort out a Russian attack that is highly technology driven. We have to think again about why, when the integrated review is done, it is done and dusted, finished and stuck. We military people—there are a lot of us around the Chamber—know very well that no plan survives contact with the enemy. It is the same for the integrated review: adjust it. Stop these infantry battalions going, particularly the one that, as my good friend the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, I was involved with: the Mercian Regiment. I admit to the Minister that I am biased, but for goodness’ sake he has only a few weeks to stop the cuts so that we keep our infantry. They are invaluable in the new kind of warfare.

[Johnny Mercer]

My right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. Of all the decisions that we make on defence, I will genuinely be stunned if the Government proceed with that reduction in personnel, given what is happening at the moment.

Let me finish by saying something about attitude and mindset. I am obviously going to bring it back to people, but let me talk about what happens if we consistently focus just on technology. I found the IR quite frustrating, because the focus was on not making bad press announcements about the removal of regiments, although we have obviously heard the example of 2 Mercian. If we have this attitude towards capital expenditure and think that we can win wars in essence just by fighting tech on tech and that people do not matter, that trickles down throughout the whole system and we end up in a place where we are prosecuting soldiers in Northern Ireland when they are 80 years old. It is all about attitude and mindset.

I have sat down so many times with Prime Ministers in this place and they have told me, “Johnny, there’re no votes in defence.” But that is not the point, because there are some things that we have to do to keep the nation safe—of course, they may then become prescient when Russia invades Ukraine and things like that—and they are the boring part. It is our job as legislators, MPs, Ministers and Prime Ministers to go ahead, bring people with us and get them to understand why defence matters. Even if they are not interested in the military, there is its long tail through communities such as mine in Plymouth and in defence industries; there is what veterans groups mean in communities like mine; and there is what it actually means for British people to see their 78-year-old grandfathers taken to court in Northern Ireland for fighting for the freedoms and privileges that we enjoy in this place, and how that feels for a whole generation of veterans. It really does trickle down and I urge Ministers to really think about that expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

Yes, and I am also aware that as a result of Ukraine’s decision to give up those nuclear weapons, Russia guaranteed the security and the borders of Ukraine. If the hon. Gentleman is going to throw international law at me, all I can say to him is that, if he thinks that those sorts of manoeuvres and unilateral renunciations are the way to stop someone being attacked and destroyed by a ruthless adversary, it should be a long time indeed before he and people who think like him have any influence on the way in which we choose to keep the peace—by deterrence—so that we do not end up in a situation like Ukraine.

Fourthly, this horrible situation should establish whether and to what extent economic sanctions can force an aggressor to desist. It is often said that the world has become more interdependent. We will never see a more extreme example of democratic countries seeking to use economic pressures to force an aggressor to desist. If that fails to work in this instance, it will be a further argument for increased investment in hard defence capability, because that particular aspect of hoping to be able to turn war into an outmoded concept will, sadly, have been disproved. I hope that it does play a part in stopping Russia from proceeding, but I am not holding my breath.

Fifthly, the conflict has exposed the folly of fuel dependence on hostile countries and raised questions about the wisdom of a policy of unilateral net zero targets by democracies regardless of what much larger countries, that are not democracies, do. I am not seeking to pick an argument with the environmentalists; I am merely saying that there is a parallel with the question of unilateral or one-sided nuclear disarmament, because if we achieve net zero at tremendous cost to ourselves while much larger hostile countries simply flout the commitments that they have given, we will have taken that pain for no benefit to anyone. Targets must be multilateral if they are going to do anything other than weaken our ability to protect ourselves.

The last of the six lessons is that the conflict has killed the idea that conventional aggression by one state against another is an outmoded 20th-century concept. Time and again, people such as the right hon. Member for Warley on the Opposition Benches and my right hon. and hon. Friends present on the Conservative Benches have raised the question of what an appropriate level of defence investment should be, only to be told from on high, “You’ve got to realise that there are new forms of warfare. The next war will not be fought much with conventional armed forces. It will be fought in cyber-space or even in space itself.” Of course, there are new and serious threats—potentially fatal threats—in those two newer areas of conflict, but they are additional threats. They are not substitutes for the threats that we have always faced and continue to face from conventional armed forces.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend—who is a good friend and is gallant, because he was a midshipman once—for allowing me to intervene. One thing that the Russians are showing is that to take territory, people have to put boots on it. But, guess what? We are chucking our boots out. That is appalling and we must reverse that decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) comes back, I think it is important to let hon. Members know that I will have to impose a time limit when he has finished, otherwise we will simply not get everybody in. The time limit will probably be around six minutes, depending on how long he takes.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. As always in this debate, there are good things and bad things. I am pleased to see that the UK remains the biggest European NATO spender, second only to the United States, but there are also bad things and hon. Members have particularly mentioned the cut in the British Army.

[Bob Stewart]

indicated assent.

[John Howell]

I see my right hon. Friend is nodding, so perhaps he will not intervene on me, having made that point. But there is another point on that—the strategic investment that the Royal Air Force will be making, which I will come back to. I am very conscious that it is not just us increasing spending now but countries such as Germany and Denmark. I encourage them to increase their spending further.

Before I come to the Royal Air Force, let me say a word about the Navy. Before the crisis between Russia and Ukraine started, I got the Navy’s leading expert on Russia to come to speak to my delegation to the Council of Europe. Hon. Members may ask why I got a naval expert to come to a delegation that has said it has nothing to do with the security apparatus of Europe. The reason is that I do not buy that argument and actually what the rear-admiral concerned said filled us with a tremendous amount of horror. He pointed out Russia’s interest in the Baltic passages in particular and, more generally, how ill-equipped we were to be able to deal with that. I therefore ask for more investment to be made in that area.

Something like £2 billion of strategic investment is to be made in the Royal Air Force. I think that that should be increased. If Russia has taught us anything, it is that investment in tanks is not a very good investment. If we look at Ukraine, a huge amount of anti-tank missiles are there already and something as fleet of foot as the Royal Air Force is to be commended. I do not want to set a hare running, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that bases such as RAF Benson are not earmarked for closure. They play a vital role and Benson does in particular in looking after the helicopters that we use all the time in our Air Force. They also have another use; they provide training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I would be inept if I did not praise our Ukrainian friends and allies who are fighting with such courage against such appalling odds with little more than the kit we have given them and their training. It really is awe-inspiring and humbling to see what is being done by them, their population and their President, who spoke so movingly in this Chamber.

I thank the members of the Defence Committee, on which I sit. They all do a fantastic job, including the right hon. Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), who are passionate about the defence of our country and ensuring it is properly paid for.

I also praise the Minister, with whom I have had many dealings. He is an honourable man of great integrity, and he wants to do the best he can for our armed forces. I hope he will take everything we have said back to his boss.

In 1981 or 1982, when I was a soldier, I was taken on a top-secret mission to be shown where we would fight the Russians if they came west. When I asked the general in charge how long we would have to live, he said, “On the moment of contact, when the artillery falls on your position, you have about 40 seconds.” I thought, “Well, that’s time to say a few prayers, and that will be it.” We all felt it was surreal. Yes, we were professional soldiers, but to us it was a day out and it could not possibly happen, could it?

Forty years later, we face an aggressive Russian bear that is taking on a democratic country, taking it over and subjugating it. Like many colleagues and many people to whom I have spoken, I fear Russia will not stop there. Mr Putin’s dream is to have the Soviet Union back in its original shape. My fear is that he will next go south to the non-NATO countries, based on the fact we have done nothing militarily, except to offer military help, following the invasion of Ukraine.

I am not saying that we should get involved in Ukraine. I think we have adopted the right stance. Obviously, as I have said before, if Russia takes one step into a NATO country, we will have to fight, but with what? The cupboard is threadbare, in my humble opinion. I have sat on the Defence Committee, and I served my Queen and country for nine years, so I know what has happened to our armed forces.

I am particularly concerned about the Army. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned my esteemed grandfather Admiral Drax, who sadly passed away many years ago. If he were alive today, I am sure he would be in this Chamber right now, or being kept out by force, to tell the Minister that the Royal Navy—the senior service, as my grandfather and father, who also served in the Royal Navy, always called it—needs more ships and more equipment, and all the rest. I absolutely concur.

The evidence I receive from those serving in the Army, including many sons of friends, is that the battalions have been hollowed out to save cap badges, because it would be politically embarrassing if we again saw regiments amalgamating or disappearing. This would be quite unacceptable if, God forbid, the Russian bear puts a foot into a NATO country and our young men and women are sent to fight in perhaps not a world war but certainly a huge war in Europe. A full, properly manned battalion represents years of history, fighting and experience. Hollowing out the battalions now for political expediency is totally unacceptable.

[Bob Stewart]

When I joined my battalion in Bahrain in 1969, it was 750 strong. When I commanded it in 1991, it was 525. It is now less than that, but it is still called a battalion.

[Richard Drax]

Absolutely, my right hon. Friend makes my point.

Before I sit down, may I just refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who touched on tanks? It is worth pointing out that we must not be fooled about them. One hears that they are a thing of the past and they are vulnerable to anti-tank missiles and so forth—to the Ukrainians’ great credit, they are showing that. However, one has to remember that the Ukrainians are in a defensive position, in trenches, fighting a defensive battle against armour that is coming at them. Fortunately, the Russians are proving themselves to be inept in using their armour, which is vulnerable to this sort of defence. But where the tank is vital and will still be needed, despite the fact that I understand that we have only two such regiments left, is if we have an offensive operation or if defence requires an offensive element. We will then need an armoured vehicle with a big gun to hold ground. Helicopters and drones cannot do that, but a tank can. All I would say is: don’t forget the poor old tank. It still has a place on the battlefield, although I quite accept that warfare is changing. Let me make a final point to the Minister. Mention has been made of the Special Boat Service and its aquatic centre. These are our special forces, they want a proper aquatics centre, so can they please have one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely focused on making certain that we have proper operational availability. On Type 45, as he may be aware, Dauntless has come out of the power improvement project and is now on sea trials. Daring has gone into Cammell Laird. We are looking at ways we can advance that process, but I would say that we have two Type 45s out on station doing their job even as I speak.

As the integrated review and defence Command Paper set out a year ago, Russia poses

“the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”

The IR also emphasised the need to strengthen NATO, which is critical to preserving our security and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic area.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my very good friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene on him. The point is that the IR is broken. We clearly need more people in our armed forces, particularly in the infantry. If there is a message from the House, which seems to be in agreement, it is that we need to spend more on defence—up to 3%—and to reverse the cuts, before it is too late, to the infantry. I declare my interest as an ex-Mercian Regiment officer.

Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The invasion of Ukraine is brutal and it is wrong; the justifications for it are a tissue of lies. The resistance of the Ukrainian people against such an onslaught, with Russia deploying internationally banned illegal weapons against civilian targets, is heroic. I imagine everybody here is humbled by the bravery and courage of ordinary people taking up arms to confront such aggression.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Less than an hour ago, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who is in western Ukraine. He is a military officer and has been talking to the military there, who are pleading, “Please send us defence anti-tank weapons and defence anti-aircraft weapons.” He has emphasised that, and he asked me to intervene in this debate to make that comment.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I backed today’s motion precisely because it calls for the provision of further defensive equipment and “humanitarian and other assistance”. Although it ought to be unnecessary, I also join the calls to ensure that the UK’s NATO defence and security obligations are fulfilled to counter the threats from Russia.

Those threats are not simply on the ground in Ukraine today, nor is the action to tackle hostile Russian activity limited to support against the current invasion. We must ensure that the tools required to counter Russia now—our continued work with NATO—and the resources required to keep our guard up against a long-term and growing threat are provided in full. I will turn briefly to each of those strands.

On 23 February, the Minister for Asia and the Middle East said in the debate on the Russian invasion:

“We are committed to bringing forward the economic crime Bill. It will establish a new public register of beneficial ownership of overseas companies… It will ensure that individuals and entities can no longer hide in the shadows.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 336.]

I very much welcome that, but given that the ISC Russia report published in 2020 included a chapter on tackling crime, it is hugely disappointing that we do not already have the necessary legislation on the statute book. That is particularly the case given that the Russia report contained the warning from the National Crime Agency that, for example,

“there are several ways in which the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is too restrictive.”

The report also described the changes the NCA would wish to see to the legislation. I therefore welcome the new legislation, but can we have it brought forward with immediate effect?

On my second point, our relationship with NATO, again, the ISC Russia report was clear, saying at paragraph 129:

“NATO remains at the heart of strategic thought…Diminishing the strength of NATO is therefore a key aim of the Kremlin, as is undermining the credibility of Article V of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, and ‘delivering NATO and non-NATO deterrence’ therefore forms a key part of the 2019 cross-Whitehall Russia Strategy.”

The ISC was

“encouraged to note that Defence Intelligence shares its intelligence assessments with NATO, which we were told aim to try ‘to ensure as common an understanding of the nature of the Russian threat and situation that we face’. Defence Intelligence highlighted several ‘really important parts of how we feed into the NATO system’”.

It is self-evidently the case that with the attack on Ukraine, and for our future defence, that work with NATO will have to be supported and enhanced.

That leads me to my final and most important point—resources. The ISC asked this question:

“If we consider the Russian threat to have been clearly indicated in 2006 with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, and then take events such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 as firmly underlining Russian intent on the global stage, the question is whether the Intelligence Community should—and could—have reacted more”.

MI5 was clear that there was an inevitable reprioritisation due to the terrorist threat. Defence Intelligence viewed it similarly. SIS and GCHQ saw it as due to the longer lead time required for work on Russia. SIS said:

“I don’t think we did take our eye off the ball. I think the appetite for work against the Russian threat has sort of waxed and waned.”

GCHQ agreed. The ISC fully recognised

“the very considerable pressures on the Agencies…and that they have a finite amount of resource, which they must focus on operational priorities. Nevertheless, reacting to the here and now is inherently inefficient and—in our opinion—until recently, the Government had badly underestimated the Russian threat and the response it required.”

I hope that no one now underestimates the scale of the Russian threat, or the resources necessary, now and in future, and not least to the intelligence agencies, to counter it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

As countries in Europe and around the world rally in support of Ukraine, so too have Members of this House—this afternoon and ever since the crisis emerged. It proves that in these dark times there is always far more that unites us than divides us. What is more, across the country there are charities, communities and individuals eager to show their support, pitch in and help. In my constituency, I am continually inspired by the outpouring of solidarity that I am witnessing. The work of one such group, spearheaded by Rob Scammell, Ed Maxfield and Doreen Joy, will involve driving vans to the Ukrainian border to deliver food and supplies. These are remarkable people in their own right, but what is more, in just 24 hours, largely through the generosity of local people, they have already filled one van load. Their willingness to brighten such dark times serves as a powerful reminder of the abiding presence of kindness and decency in Britain today.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally take my hon. Friend’s point, but may I re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)? I have personally seen what happens when people jam up the lines of supply with supplies that are not necessary, so I totally take my hon. Friends’ point that it is better to send money rather than goods, because money gets through quicker.

[Duncan Baker]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which has been heard loud and clear. The overriding point is that people want to help, and they will have heard that message loud and clear throughout the United Kingdom. Schools also want to help, pitching in with collections. Happisburgh primary school is already filling tables. A collection from Blakeney, a beautiful village in North Norfolk, is driving to Lviv today, and a van is going from Cley on Saturday. The point is that I do not represent a metropolitan constituency, with a large population in a city centre; these are small rural villages, where there is an outpouring of people who want to lend their support. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can only imagine the pride that I have to represent my own home at such times as this.

The reality is that humanitarian crises are never simple, and where there is displacement and mass movements of people there lie individual human beings, each with their own life, needs, hopes and fears. Such a multi-faceted situation requires a multi-pronged approach. I am pleased that the Government recognise that, and are working to deliver it. The United Nations has today reported that 800,000 people have left Ukraine. A herculean effort is now needed. For what it is worth, I think our expanded humanitarian route to support British nationals and anybody settled in the UK to bring grandparents, parents, children and siblings here is the right thing to do. Expediting the route to safety and cutting through bureaucracy by waiving the normal requirements, other than security checks, is the right thing to do.

Establishing a scheme for Ukrainians who have no ties to the UK to come here is the right thing to do as well, and we have committed to do that at speed. As we have heard, that scheme will allow sponsors such as communities, individuals and local authorities to bring Ukrainians into the UK. It is imperative that those communities and individuals who want to sponsor people do so as quickly as they can. That approach will not only offer sanctuary to many but allow willing citizens of this country to play an active part in helping others. I have already had numerous requests in my constituency office to provide that help.

I want to end by saying that many Members will be familiar with the adage that history does not repeat itself; but it often rhymes. As many refugees flowed westward across Europe in the 20th century, once again in the 21st century Europeans are displaced and heading west. Humanity is on the move. Our response now will indicate who we are and what we stand for. Policies are in place, and we should commend the Government and the Ministers in the Chamber today, who have worked tirelessly around the clock, for all that they are doing in Ukraine’s hour of need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

A famous American journalist said that democracies are too pacific in peace and too belligerent in war. Mr Putin has watched us be too pacific. Now war has come, he may be surprised by just how blooming belligerent we can be.

[Mr Lammy]

I suspect this is going to be a long fight, and the short-termism that has sometimes been a problem in the west and in democracies has to end. Corrupt Russian money is finally being targeted. The west has stood together, and so have other nations, in condemning this aggression. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made it clear that we have to do that.

Putin’s campaign is driving the very things that he claims to oppose. We must use and sustain this unity to maximise the pressure on the Russian regime to end this bloody campaign, and we must be prepared to sustain our focus, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) illustrated with his experience and expertise, because the struggle to confront the values that Putinism represents will be long. We should have begun organising for a secure peace years ago, but it is no use to the Ukrainian people for us to be defeatist now.

We must be clear that we cannot take some of the actions that the Ukrainian Government are requesting, such as a no-fly zone, which would bring NATO and Russia into direct conflict. There are many such actions that we should avoid, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) illustrated, but there are many actions we can take now.

First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) set out in his opening speech, we must continue with our NATO allies to supply lethal defensive weaponry to the Ukrainian armed forces, which need our support in their courageous defence of their sovereign nation state.

Secondly, we need to make our sanctions strong and robust. The measures the Government have taken are welcome, but there is still more we can do. We should target other sectors such as insurance. The EU has sanctioned the Russian insurer Sogaz. Why have we not done that yet?

We should move quicker and broader against Russian banks. The designations to freeze the assets of individuals are moving, but they are moving far too slowly. A week into this war, we have sanctioned only 11 people, most of whom have no assets or minimal ties to the UK. There are people who have already been sanctioned by the United States and the EU, in some instances for several years, whose assets remain liquid in the UK. The Government have said we must move in lockstep with our allies. We agree but, on this matter, we appear to be falling behind. This delay only magnifies the risk of asset flight.

We know that the effect of our sanctions is directly linked to how tightly the tentacles of dirty money are wrapped around our economy and our democracy. We cannot freeze people’s assets if we do not know where those assets are. Sanctions work only if we know who owns what. We urgently need transparency in the system, from property ownership to company ownership.

Although the Government finally seem to be moving after years of indefensible inaction, they are now offering oligarchs 18 months to reorganise their assets—one and a half years for criminals to move their money. That is unacceptable, so I hope the Minister will commit to working with us to change this timetable.

Thirdly, we need diplomatic action to build the widest possible opposition to this war. If a sovereign state can be carved up on the whim of one man, all nations are threatened. Putin believes he is locked in a struggle with the west, and he will have expected our opposition. We must ensure that he feels pressure from other countries around the world, many of which have commercial or other ties to Russia. Some have stepped up eloquently to denounce his new imperialism, but others must find their voice, including allies of our country and fellow democracies.

Our diplomacy must be focused not just on other nations but on the Russian people. These sanctions, necessary as they are, will inevitably have difficult consequences for ordinary Russians, who did not choose this illegal war pursued by Vladimir Putin in their name. We must always be clear that it is the Russian Government, not the Russian people, whose actions we condemn. It is Putin who is responsible for the economic consequences of this war for the Russian people.

We seek only friendship and peace with the Russian public, and the last few days have seen brave acts of protest and criticism. It takes true courage to protest in a police state, and I pay tribute to those in Russia standing up against this invasion. Putin thinks his authoritarianism is his strength, but it is, in fact, his weakness. It is our task to help amplify the voices against war in both Russia and Belarus, standing behind those with the courage to stand up to Putin, from influencers on social media to Orthodox Church leaders on the ground. We must make sure objective news sources can still reach Russia, so that the Russian people can hear the true story of what is unfolding in Ukraine. Will the Minister ensure that the BBC World Service has the capacity to reach as many people as possible in Russia and Ukraine in their native languages?

Fifthly, we should ensure that there is accountability in this conflict. Russia must abide by the laws of armed conflict. But we have all seen horrific violence that appears to target civilians and uses munitions outlawed by international conventions. The scenes from Kharkiv were devastating. Russia must know the world is watching. We must gather the evidence so that anyone responsible for a war crime is held to account, however long it takes. I hope that the Minister will assist the international chief prosecutor in that regard. Members ranging from the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) have talked about the importance of humanitarian support, and I hope those words are heeded.

I was in Kyiv just a few weeks ago. The Ukrainians I met were dignified and resolute, in the face of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops standing at their gates. Life in the city’s cafes, shops, bars and restaurants buzzed as normal, just as it does in London and across our nation today. The Ukraine I visited was not perfect, but it knew where it was going. The pride the Ukrainians showed in their nation was a reminder that national feeling does not have to be narrow; it can be a powerful force that drives a public towards a democratic and liberal future. It has been heartbreaking to watch what has happened, with this unprovoked attack on not only the Ukrainian people, but the values we share. It has been an assault on democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Ukrainians’ heroic defence in the face of this invasion should inspire the whole House. Together, we must face down Putin’s grotesque attack on our way of life, organising for a secure peace—a secure Britain, in a secure Europe. Our values are worth defending.

Ukraine

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I have been very consistent on this. Like the hon. Gentleman, a number of colleagues on the Government Front Bench, and indeed some on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House, were born in a second world war environment, or have seen either people at the wrong end of a terrorist attack or death and destruction. No one comes here glowing with warmongering in their heart; they come here to do their very best to avoid it. However, freedom comes at a cost—freedom is not free, as the South Koreans know and put on their war memorials. We have to stand up to this. We did not stand up in 2014 as an international community; we did not stand up as an international community enough. We did send a very successful and strong message after the Salisbury poisoning—153 intelligence officers were expelled—but if Putin is successful in this, the ripples will not end; they will go through us all, and we will all regret it in the long run. Sometimes we must take a stand, and now is the time.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I understand that the Duma has passed a resolution saying that Donbas and the Crimea should be incorporated into Russia. That in some way would give Putin’s plans some sort of legality, if he were to think of invading. If Putin was to replace the so-called little green men in Donbas with regular Russian soldiers, could we expect NATO and the west to respond with just as much severity, in terms of sanctions, as if he had invaded the remainder of Ukraine?

[Mr Wallace]

We have already put a raft of sanctions in place. Russian regulars have come and gone in Donbas, and they are already based in Crimea, which they take as their own, in significant numbers.

The Duma’s latest resolution about Donbas is worrying. The resolution is about a sovereign state over which the Duma has no legal authority, and we should not recognise it. The Prime Minister has been clear that an incursion one inch over the border—whether that is one boot, one tank or one vehicle—will lead to the sanctions. We would not accept that as being anything other than an invasion; it would not be an interversion or an incursion. We will stick to that line.