Ukraine

Debate between Luke Pollard and Bob Stewart

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The grim reality is that war in Europe is no longer in our rear-view mirror; it is happening now. We are living through a bleak new chapter in the history of Europe as Putin seeks to destroy the sovereignty of our Ukrainian friends and to attack the principles of democracy that the rules-based world order is built on.

As the UK falls silent on Friday morning for a national moment of reflection for Ukraine, we are reminded of the devastating toll that this war has taken on the Ukrainian people: the tens of thousands of lives that have been needlessly lost; the families that have been torn apart and displaced from their homes, with over 100,000 of them now here in the UK ; the women who have been raped and violated; the children who have been stolen by Russia; and with the economic and social fabric of the nation left in tatters.

There is the ongoing struggle for peace: it is the Ukrainians’ fight, but it is also our fight. Yet despite all the suffering and horror that Ukraine has endured, the flame of freedom burns bright in Kyiv: we need only look at the extraordinary resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression that we have heard about in speeches from both sides of the House today, praising the skill, bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainian military to defend their homeland, and, as we heard from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the incredible and inspiring leadership of President Zelensky. Just under a fortnight ago, Members in this House were privileged to hear from President Zelensky in his address in Westminster Hall. His speech moved us all and reminded us what is at stake.

Colleagues from across the House have made extraordinary contributions in this debate and I am saddened that more of us were not present to hear them. It is good to have two former Prime Ministers speaking in a debate; if I am honest, it is not normal for those two individuals to elicit cross-party support given the events of the past year, but there has been an extraordinary level of cross-party consensus in this debate. There is a unity that goes across political parties, across nations, and across our continent in our support for Ukraine and our determination that Putin must lose. That is a message Putin hoped would never be thought or shared, because he hoped to fracture the west and to change the united position we had to one of division where we turn against each other, and that has not happened.

[Bob Stewart]

I think I am the oldest person in this Chamber by a long way. I remember the Vietnam war, and the Americans were forced to withdraw from Vietnam by public pressure at home, largely. We have not talked in this debate about what is happening in Moscow and other parts of Russia, but it must be horrendous, with 60,000 dead, and with huge numbers returning with post-traumatic stress disorder, I am sure. We must put huge effort into getting through to the Russian people, to convince them that this war is not fair and not right and they should put huge pressure on their own Government to get rid of Putin and sort this out and withdraw. As the former Prime Minister my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has suggested or implied—perhaps he will correct me—in the end we also must have a Russia that works and is a decent place for Russians to live, because Russian soldiers are just like our soldiers: they are doing their duty and they do not really have much choice.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. “You are what you eat”: that is true of food as it is of the media we consume, and the media the people of Russia are able and allowed to consume tell a very one-sided story. They tell a story only from the point of view of the Putin mouthpiece in the Kremlin. There is no challenge and no debate, so how we deal with misinformation and Putin’s deliberate calculation to deny his own people the truth is quite a challenge. We must address that in terms of information operations and how we tell a story, which the BBC World Service has been so good at, and which is a purpose for it now.

In this debate we heard about the UK’s past complacency in respect of Russian gas from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who, sadly, is not in her place at the moment. We also heard from Members on both sides of the House about why the Wagner Group should be listed as a terrorist organisation—it not just a sponsor of terrorism; it is the terrorism. If we do not act now, we will be repeating the mistakes of the past, because we are looking in the rear-view mirror to comment on what has happened when we should be looking forwards. We have seen what the Wagner Group has done in Syria and we see what it is doing in Ukraine, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said, we can see what it could potentially be doing in Africa as well. So we need to hurry up and make that decision.

Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine is appalling, brutal, and unjust. Putin displays contempt for international institutions, humanitarian law and the rules of military conflict. Above all, Putin shows a callous disregard for human life, Ukrainian and Russian. He treats human life as nothing more than pawns to satisfy his monstrous ambitions, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that he should stand trial for his crimes at a special tribunal at The Hague.

As we know, Putin’s aim is not simply to take Ukraine. We are facing a tyrant ready to use his war to redraw the map of Europe. He wants to destroy the unity of the west, and one year on, as the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has said, there is still no sign that any of Putin’s strategic aims have changed, but nor have they been achieved.

This war can only end in failure for Putin: he will fail because he miscalculated the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people to defend their homeland; he will fail because he has underestimated the strength of resolve on these shores and across the west to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to defeat Russia; and he will fail because the millions of voices defending democracy will over time drown out the hate and division of tyrants and dictators.

The Government have had Labour’s fullest support on Britain’s military help to Ukraine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on his visit to Kyiv only a few days ago, for as long as Putin continues to wage this criminal war, the Government will continue to have Labour’s fullest support, but as we head into the second year of this conflict there are several important questions that I would like to press the Minister on.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Debate between Luke Pollard and Bob Stewart

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

No. I am going to make some progress, because I have gone on for some time.

The backbone of British fishing is our small boat fleet. These boats and businesses are the ones the British public want to see benefit most from our exit from the common fisheries policy. While industrial fishing has its place, I make no apology for wanting a fairer share for our small fishers. With just 6% of the quota, the small boat fleet has two thirds of the jobs, and I think it could have more quota. Reallocating quota along social, economic and environmental grounds, even if just 1% or 2% of the total catch were to be reallocated, could increase what small boats can catch by 25%. This is the second jobs multiplier that Labour has proposed in this Bill. It would be huge for our small boat fleet, helping give them a platform to invest in new gear and boats and to hire more crew.

Such rebalancing could easily be absorbed by the big foreign-owned boat operators within the current range of variation of total allowable catch, yet this is a policy yet again opposed by the Conservative party. I know the largest fishing companies, mostly foreign-owned, are strong supporters of the Conservative party, but, to borrow a phrase, Labour’s policy is for the many fishers, not the few. I hope Tory MPs will not be looking at their feet as the Whips demand total loyalty to Downing Street and require them to vote this amendment down when the time comes, because our fishing communities need a strong voice in Westminster, not just more Whips’ instructions at the expense of coastal towns.

Labour will be tabling an amendment to ban supertrawlers pillaging Britain’s marine protected areas. The Greenpeace campaign on this issue has attracted the signatures of a number of Ministers, but, sadly, of not a single DEFRA Minister. Labour will table an amendment to ban supertrawlers of over 100 metres fishing in marine protected areas. Britain has not one supertrawler of over 100 metres, so Ministers and Conservative Members have an easy choice to make: whether they are on the side of British fishers or foreign-owned industrial supertrawlers, harvesting huge quantities of fish and plundering the very habitats that Britain regards as special. I hope that would be an easy decision, but we will have to see.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My understanding was that the Secretary of State has already said that the whole purpose of this Bill is to ban supertrawlers, because supertrawlers are actually allowed under EU law, not laws that we want to introduce.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for that. I am not sure it is the main purpose of the Bill, but it is certainly a power that the Secretary already has. One of the key things about the amendments that Labour has tabled is that they are about using powers that the Minister already has. Whether or not there is more fish from any negotiations with the EU in the future, these are powers that the UK Government—the Conservative Government—could use today if they chose to do so. They do not need to wait until after 31 December or for the passing of this Bill. It is in requiring them to use the powers that they have chosen not to use that we are making our case for this provision. There is a good case for banning supertrawlers of over 100 metres from fishing in marine-protected areas; Ministers should have acted already, and there is an opportunity to put this in law here.

Immunity for Soldiers

Debate between Luke Pollard and Bob Stewart

Monday 20th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be called so early in the debate. I take your guidance about not speaking about individual circumstances, Mrs Moon. My purpose is to give a voice to the many veterans in Plymouth who have attended my surgeries and stopped me in the street to raise their concerns about what is happening. There is a real sense of betrayal among many veterans with regard to what is going on with veterans of Northern Ireland—not just among those who served there, but among those who wore a uniform anywhere. They feel that an attack on one has become an attack on all.

Those veterans have asked me to pass on their genuine concerns. In particular, they feel that the words spoken to date by the Prime Minister and by Government Ministers have been hollow—they were not meant. There is a sense that when veterans are needed for electoral purposes, there are lots of warm words about supporting them, but when those people who served our country need guidance and wrap-around support from their Government—the people who sent them into conflict and harm’s way in the first place—that is absent.

I would be grateful if the Minister set out answers to some of the questions that I have been asked. The first is about what new evidence means. A number of the reasons given for going after veterans relate to new evidence, but the definition of that is something that many of the veterans who have spoken to me struggle to understand. When new evidence from the past does not look that new or evidential, what does it mean now? That is not a matter of prejudging the guilt or otherwise of any individual but of understanding the legal framework within which any decisions may be taken.

What support are the Government—be it the Ministry of Defence or any other part of Government—providing to veterans to enable them to gain support? A number of the veterans who have contacted me are very old: something that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) also mentioned. In any other circumstance, we would be providing support for them because of their vulnerability. Strength and stoicism in this matter cannot be given as a granted because of the age of the veterans and the severity of what is taking place.

I have not met a single veteran who has said that someone who breaks the law should not be prosecuted. Indeed, every single one of them has reinforced to me, time and again, that the UK armed forces are the very best in the world because they uphold the law, are trained in what is right and wrong, and understand what is a legal order and what is an illegal one. That sense of training and duty is very important.

Why are the decisions on this matter not going up the chain of command? Veterans have raised a question about how those being looked at now, in the round, are part of a command structure. At what point does the command structure come into play—those politicians and senior officers who may or may not have given orders or set an engagement framework within which anyone serving in Northern Ireland will have operated?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I intervene simply because the command structure does not really come into it. The decision is in the yellow card. Individuals have to make their own decisions about opening fire; there is no time to turn around and ask for permission. The decision can sometimes be made very quickly. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the command structure being involved, but opening fire is a personal decision and the person who makes it has to stand by it and justify it. That is why it is so important to train very hard on the yellow card.

[Luke Pollard]

Given his service to the country and experience in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman knows this issue better than many others in this place. Veterans have raised the question with me about how decisions are made because sometimes there is a sense that not everyone who was involved in the operation is being pursued. However, I entirely agree with and understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The sense that I have been asked to communicate, and I do so for the final time now, is that many veterans who served in Northern Ireland, and many who did not, feel betrayed and let down by the Government. They hope that whatever comes out of the situation and the debates—