Armed Forces Day

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for sharing with us those powerful words by Kipling, which have sunk into our national consciousness. I appreciate the cordial nature of the debate between the Minister for the Armed Forces and the shadow Minister. We three were together earlier this week for a debate on recruitment in the north-east, which was also incredibly cordial. This is a great opportunity to continue that conversation.

In Stockton, we celebrated Armed Forces Day early, on Saturday, with a flag-raising ceremony, many celebrations on the high street, and a service led by Rev. Paul. I was pleased to see representatives of our local armed forces. Members of the Yorkshire Regiment, which largely serves my constituency, were there, although people in the north of my constituency might tend to join The Rifles, and we had representatives from our local cadet forces, including the Royal Marines Cadets, the Sea Cadets and the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, who are based in Norton, in my constituency. There were also representatives from the Royal Military Police Reserves, who I am proud to say are also based in Norton. Stockton has strong representation from the armed forces in our local community; I am pleased to say that one in 20 people in my constituency are either serving in the armed forces or veterans.

I mentioned the Royal Military Police. I wondered if they were not mentioned enough in the House, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to commend their work. They can claim to be the longest-established regiment or corps, with a history stretching all the way back to the 13th century and the appointment of the first sergeant of the peace. Today, they are a vital part of our armed forces, with around 2,200 soldiers and civilian staff. They support operations in conflict zones, peace- keeping missions and humanitarian efforts. This is perhaps a suitable moment to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her service as a captain in the Royal Military Police, and for her continued advocacy for the armed forces community.

The Royal Military Police are much like other skilled units in the armed forces, but they have three main roles: the policing of the Army, special investigations and close protection. In policing the Army, they will be attached to a unit in the field, and will ensure that captured members of enemy forces are treated appropriately, legally and humanely, which is clearly an important role. They were recently deployed in Ukraine as close protection for staff of the Foreign Office. There are airborne RMP, based in Colchester; they were part of Operation Market Garden at Pegasus Bridge.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he accept that the actions of the Royal Military Police attached to fighting units are a direct reflection of the Army and of our national character in upholding the rule of law even in warfare?

[Chris McDonald]

I would. I may go on to develop this point, but that role creates for members of the Royal Military Police a unique duty and a serious responsibility that puts them in a slightly different position from their comrades, which must be quite difficult. That is why I wanted to highlight the role of the RMP.

Members of the RMP can also find themselves in incredibly dangerous situations. A friend of mine, who is a member of the RMP reserves, highlighted to me the role of Royal Military Police officers during the second world war and in other conflicts in managing traffic points. Those fixed grid reference points are vital in managing the traffic flow of equipment and personnel appropriately for our logistics, but they also mean that RMP personnel are easy to target by artillery and aircraft. They carry out that role with great bravery; I commend them for that.

As I have mentioned, policing puts individuals in a difficult and unique position. That is also true for the civilian police force, but I think there is a particular additional burden on members of the Royal Military Police in how they discharge their duty. I was struck by the story of Royal Military Police veteran Kate Green, which she told 20 years after the lifting of the LGBT military ban. When she served in the Royal Military Police, the thing that she feared most was being asked to investigate those suspected of hiding their sexuality from the Army. If an LGBT serviceperson admitted their sexuality, they were out and that was the end of their military career. Eventually, Kate decided that she could not continue with her service anymore and that she did not want to continue to live a lie herself, so she handed in her one-year notice. The LGBT ban was lifted on 12 January 2000, just a short time after her career ended. Kate now works with the Royal British Legion and maintains a strong connection with the Army, despite no longer serving. This is an opportunity for us all to welcome the lifting of the LGBT ban and to recognise the service of LGBT veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak today ahead of Armed Forces Day—a day not just of pageantry, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, but of principle. I congratulate the Government on reinstating the pageantry as well—it is a good thing. It is a day to recognise the men and women who serve, or who have served, in His Majesty’s armed forces: the quiet professionals who carry the weight of our security, often in silence and too often without thanks. As we have heard, we owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never really pay, but gratitude alone is not enough. As the Minister said, only a quarter of veterans feel that their service is properly recognised, and there is a reason for that. I will speak plainly about it, and I hope the Minister will not take it as partisan. I hope he will take what I have to say, in what will be a difficult five minutes of listening for him, as a call for action and assistance—or, if he likes, a call for help.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces: the political and legal vendetta targeting the veterans of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Those men answered their country’s call in one of our country’s darkest hours. Without hesitation, they stood between the innocent and the terrorists, often literally—they were often in the way of the bullets. Now, decades later, they are treated not as heroes but as suspects. The frankly inadequately informed inquest into the SAS-IRA conflict at Clonoe is just one incident in which elderly veterans are being persecuted; there will be many more.

We should never forget that terrorists killed 722 British soldiers during the troubles. The people who carried out those murders have effectively been exonerated by the British state. I do not blame the state for that—it was necessary at the time—but today, we witness a legal crusade against the men who risked everything in the service of peace. This is not justice; it is an attempt to rewrite history. It is prosecution driven by politics, not facts. While the killers walk free, authorities hound the soldiers who stopped them from killing and treat those soldiers like criminals. The legacy Act—forgive my shorthand —was designed to put an end to this travesty. For their own reasons, the Government have decided to repeal that Act, but if they do not properly replace it with effective legislation, they will hand the initiative back to those who spent decades glorifying violence. I hope the Minister will pay attention to every detail of the paragraph I have just spoken, because it is important.

The Government must decide whose side they are on in this exercise. Our veterans, who are now in their 70s or even older, deserve peace in retirement, not a knock on the door and questions about battles they fought to defend the public half a lifetime ago. Those battles were fought under orders, under supervision and under yellow card rules, and immediately afterwards, everybody faced close judicial examination of their behaviour to ensure they had obeyed the law in every respect. To refer back to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the military police were often involved in those investigations—it did not always make them popular, but it was a necessary part of the process. Not one of the conditions I have described applied to the psychopathic murderers those soldiers were up against.

I have repeatedly asked the Government to end this shameful campaign of retrospective injustice, and I will continue to ask until I get a meaningful answer and a resolution to this running sore of injustice. That is why I support the petition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford referred to, with its 145,000 signatures—an astonishing number in such a short time. However, this is just the start. This issue is not just massively important to our veterans; if this rewriting of history succeeds, this weapon of lawfare can be used against soldiers in any future conflict, destroying the effectiveness of our troops in future operations.

This morning’s edition of the Daily Mail carried a powerful headline announcing the start of a campaign to highlight that very problem. When we look at that headline, though, we should remember that this is not just about our special forces; it is about the whole of the armed forces. There are at least 20 inquests into actions by Government agencies and forces that could potentially be restarted by the Government after the end of the legacy legislation. Only a minority of those inquests are about special forces; most are about conventional forces, or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment.

If we continue down this path, not only will we betray our past; we will jeopardise our future. This campaign of persecution sends a chilling message to the next generation: “Serve your country, risk your life, and face prosecution in your old age.” Why would any young man or woman sign up for that? The truth is that many will not. I know that the Minister referred to better recruitment and retention figures, but that will not last if this battle is lost by the British state.

This challenge has been most high-profile when it has struck at our elite units, such as the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—the Det, as it was once known—but it applies to every rifleman, soldier and member of the military who carries and wields a weapon in defence of his country. Those soldiers, who operate in conditions of extreme danger and uncertainty, are required to make impossible decisions at great speed while under fire, or in terror of being under fire. They expect neither recognition nor reward, but just one thing: the support of their Government. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line for our country, but why would they do that if their country will abandon them after their service? Instead, they face doubt—doubt that creeps into the field, into the command and into mission planning.

If soldiers must weigh every trigger pull against a future court case, we cripple their ability to act. What is the point of the armed forces if we render them useless through legal ambiguity? I am the last person to tolerate unnecessary killing or misbehaviour by our troops. Those who were in the House at the time will know of my past campaigns on torture and rendition. I will not stand for that, but we must balance properly the rule of law as it applies to each environment. We already have thought-through rules of lawfare established in the Geneva convention, and that is where we must look first when conducting a war.

From 2005 to 2007, during the operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, our military achieved, along with the Americans, spectacular results in saving lives. I reiterate that that was about saving lives. In Baghdad, the number of vehicle-borne suicide bombings fell from 100 a month to just one after we engaged. Sectarian assassinations—once rife—all but ceased, care of our military. That was not the work of indiscriminate bombing or division-level assaults; it was achieved through precise, controlled and surgical raids into some of the most hostile environments, generally by elite forces, and backed by careful planning.

The impact was staggering. Even a hostile “Panorama” programme showed that 95% of terrorist neutralisations were captures, not kills. That was under unbelievable circumstances, and thousands of innocent lives were saved. That was a matter not just of operational skill, but of moral discipline. In the midst of close-quarters combat against some of the most dangerous men on earth, our forces showed a restraint few could match.

I have no doubt that mistakes are made from time to time, and those should be answered for, but if we allow our opponents to use lawfare to destroy these capabilities, we are left with blunt instruments—the bomb, the missile and the drone—with which, instead of capturing or killing just the guilty, we kill every innocent civilian on a bus or every guest at a wedding party. Our military has been brilliant at doing the opposite—at being targeted, lawful and effective. Dismantling that capacity would be not only militarily reckless, but a betrayal of the principles that the Minister said we stand for, which distinguish us from those whom we fight.

Let us today do rather more than clap politely at a parade. Let us act. Let us end the relentless hounding of our veterans. Let us give our serving forces the legal protection and political support they deserve. Let us recognise that if we find it difficult to recruit, it is a consequence of a state that too often turns its back on its defenders. This Armed Forces Day, let us make one promise: that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the very nation they have so bravely protected.