War in Ukraine
Rachel Gilmour Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was in Ukraine in September with colleagues from the Labour Benches—I was the lone Liberal in a Government delegation. Against what seemed to be mountainous odds, the Ukrainians have defied a superpower that has unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction. In war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl, but Ukraine and Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival.
Some wish to muddy the waters on this matter. As if it was not clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are, the Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine’s future—its children—who have been swallowed up into re-education camps, where they face psychological torment and indoctrination. It is a process of de-Ukrainianisation, and some estimates say that up to 40,000 children have suffered that fate. This is rancid and wicked; it is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people.
Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight—a glance at any 20th century history book tells us that—but we in the west could have gone harder and faster. Western Governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what weapons systems could be sent; all the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling. Weapons systems that were deemed too provocative and escalation-inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The frontline is a horrifying meat grinder—a graveyard on the very edge of our continent.
It was Churchill who said:
“You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”
Today, Ukraine is on the frontline not by choice, but by the accident of geography. I do not believe Putin will stop at Ukraine; it is Ukraine today, and it will be somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched on our television screens the Russian tanks roll through Georgia. Ask the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; ask the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, both of whom departed from their long-standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask the Poles, who have ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming, and are not prepared to take any chances. This has all come in response to the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre-rattling; anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine’s independence as a provocation—some act of NATO encroachment, or poking the Russian bear. There is a very simple reason for ex-eastern bloc countries tilting west: it is because we are free. We are not societies in which those who criticise the regime go missing—where dissent ends in disappearance.
While many hailed Trump’s return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table, any hints of Russian overtures have thus far been vanishingly hollow. During the furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed, the noises coming out of the White House were particularly troubling; it truly felt as though the President of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery. Branding Ukraine’s elected wartime leader a “dictator” was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of absurdity, and as Washington’s stance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.
The problem is that although Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, his stick—or other such euphemistic accoutrement—seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest memorandum, and I remind the Administration in the White House that the United States was also a signatory to that agreement. Among other things, it represented a commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. To rewrite history, or to conveniently forget it, would be to bend to despotism.
Let us not overlook the broader picture, either. Other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience and ability to respond decisively and in a co-ordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts—a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China’s assertiveness around Taiwan or the way it has behaved with Hong Kong has no correlation whatsoever with the war in Ukraine? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy, very close to home indeed—a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital that could serve as a base for nefarious activities on British soil, including espionage, sabotage and coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans.
The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march, and the international order established after 1945 hangs in the balance.
Rachel Gilmour
I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Support for Disabled Veterans
Rachel Gilmour Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I very much welcome this debate on disabled veterans. It is a hugely important topic, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing it and for speaking so passionately about the subject, which I know is dear to so many. I thank her for her excellent speech and everybody else for their thought-provoking contributions. As she rightly stated, almost a third of UK veterans have some form of disability, so this is an issue that affects every constituency and every community across the country. I will always welcome scrutiny of what we are doing to support disabled veterans and how we deliver the very best care and support for those who have served.
This is not just a professional imperative for me; it is personal. I served in the Army and I have worked alongside many soldiers and officers who were injured and who today carry the physical and mental scars from their service. Many are able to carry those as part of their day-to-day life, but many really feel the impact on their personal lives.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My office is supporting a veteran with complex PTSD who has experienced a judicial process that simply does not adequately reflect the specific needs of some veterans. Does the Minister accept that veterans with conflict-related PTSD can function well in many or most aspects of life but may be especially affected or triggered in confrontational or adversarial settings such as court proceedings? Will she endorse the adoption of trauma-informed practice and proper training within the judiciary on the presentations of complex PTSD to help ensure fair treatment and, crucially, to ensure that veterans are not retraumatised by the system? I want to add that I had very good conversations with the previous Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), on this issue before the hon. Lady took on the role.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Member is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of a trauma-informed response. If she is able to write to me with details of the case, I will take a look at it.
I was speaking about those I served alongside and about veterans across the country. They answered when our country called them, so it is now up to us to renew the contract with those who served.
I would like briefly to address some of the points that hon. Members have made. A point was raised by a couple of hon. Members about the interplay of military benefits, compensations, allowances and pensions, and the existing benefits system. As I am sure they are aware, there is a complex range of benefits, and the way in which they interact with the benefits system can be complicated. It is important to note that there is a principle about duplication. For example, where military compensation is received through the independence payment, there is a principle of duplication with regard to the personal independence payment. A lot of military compensation allowances do not necessarily directly affect entitlement to benefits and have different impacts on tax.
The hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) made a point about veterans not always reaching out to seek help. I hope he is aware of the recently announced Valour scheme, which will be a regional network of physical hubs. I passionately believe in the strength of those hubs because a veteran will be able to go in with absolutely no obligation, have a cup of tea and speak to people who understand. Veterans will gain trust and comfort from that, and therefore find it easier to talk about the issues they face and the support they need. I hope we will be able to announce more details soon, because I believe those hubs will help significantly.
Armed Forces Day
Rachel Gilmour Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Rather fittingly, this debate comes in the shadow of the NATO summit at The Hague yesterday, with its headline pledge for defence spending to reach 5% of GDP by the midpoint of the next decade. I echo remarks from across the House about how we live in an increasingly volatile world —perhaps more volatile and more unpredictable than at any other point in the post-1945 era of pax Europaea and pax Americana.
We see the bloodiest conflict on European soil since the second world war and death and devastation in the middle east and across Africa, Asia and beyond. In comfort on civvy street, we are perhaps sometimes guilty of forgetting how fragile our freedoms and democracy are, and we forget the threats posed to them. Our values are not guaranteed; they have to be fought for, and we must be reminded of that. We live in an age that is the historical exception, not the norm. Our way of life at home depends on our strength to defend it and how we project ourselves abroad.
We recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe. Just a few generations back, still within the memories of many, this country was engaged in a fight for its very life and survival. We would do well to remember that always. Thankfully, the brave men and women who serve today need no such reminder.
I come from a military family. My late father served in the Royal Naval Reserve. Two of my three brothers have had long careers in His Majesty’s armed forces. Ben is a brigadier in what I still insist on calling the Black Watch. As officer command in Scotland when the late Queen died, he was in charge of making sure that everything went smoothly; I cannot tell you how proud I was of my baby brother Ben when it did. Johnny, now retired, was a lieutenant colonel in the Grenadier Guards. They have dedicated their lives to the service of our country. I assure everybody that their example, and that of every soldier, sailor and airperson, reinforces my knowledge that our military remains in the best of hands. I say, perhaps with a shred of bias, that Britain’s armed forces are still the finest in the world.
I speak with additional pride about my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, which is home to 4,577 veterans. It is a proud part of the country with a strong military tradition. I take this opportunity to salute the fantastic presence of the Royal British Legion and other veteran organisations in my patch, particularly the wonderful Dunkirk Memorial House at the foot of the Quantock hills and the armed forces breakfast clubs in Minehead and Bishops Lydeard, which provide a sense of community.
Having done lots of pro bono work with the Royal British Legion in a previous life, particularly on PTSD and hearing loss, this is a topic very close to my heart. I am delighted to hear the Minister announce that the armed forces covenant will be included in legislation. It is a national obligation to look after those who have served us. Before I was elected, I had to try and help young RAF veteran Owein and his family, including his young daughter, Autumn, who had just been diagnosed with autism. They had become homeless. If only that legislation had been in place then. I know that my colleague, Councillor Claudette Harrower, who is responsible for the covenant at Mid Devon district council, will endeavour to make sure that the very best has been done. The armed forces covenant is not charity; it is justice.
We must be alive to the recruitment crisis currently bedevilling our armed forces. We must close that gap. I fear, however, that we are not overly helping ourselves in this regard. Allow me to draw attention to the plight of a young constituent of mine, which I suspect is a frustratingly similar story to that of a number of young people up and down the country. In February 2024, she gave up the chance to study A-levels to attend the Lichfield assessment centre, where, in October 2024, she passed the assessment with scores that were exemplary and such that she was accepted into the Intelligence Corps. However, by June of this year—some 16 months later—she still has not been given a start date, and just receives occasional holding communications from military authorities. Meanwhile, she gets by with a series of menial part-time jobs, but has seemingly been left in the lurch by her Army recruiters.
I am not using her name because she has asked me not to, but I will give the Minister her details later in the hope that we can process this matter sooner rather than later. Young people like my constituent, who are prepared to serve their country and so represent the best of their generation, deserve better. Will the Minister comment on that privately? Will the Minister also commit to publishing detailed targets for processing applications, allocating sufficient personnel to the recruitment pipeline and providing all successful candidates with a concrete start date within a reasonable time period?
I want to put on the record that the Veterans Minister was known as a legend when he served in the Royal Marines and, to me, he remains a legend. I can send him an email and receive his response within 48 hours, which is enormously helpful to my constituents, who are the people I serve.
In finishing, I refer to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who said that he was a patriot, but not a nationalist. As I finish my speech, I reiterate his words: I speak as a proud patriot, but never, ever a nationalist.