Britain and International Security

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. Of course, our interlocutors in the Gulf and our coalition allies refer to it as Daesh, and as the Prime Minister reported on Monday, we have now got the BBC to move away from calling it any kind of state. I have referred to it in shorthand as ISIL, and it may be too late to replace “ISIL” with “Daesh”, but the hon. Lady is right to say that we need to reflect on it and not to confer any further legitimacy on ISIL.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that the BBC has been persuaded to drop the term “Islamic State”, but is he aware of reports that the BBC has in fact said that it

“must be fair with Islamic State…on the ground that its coverage of the terrorist group must be impartial”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC need not be impartial with murderous scumbags such as ISIL and that calling them Daesh is perfectly correct?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The BBC needs to be impartial about the facts, but we cannot be impartial on terrorism and the rules by which the rest of us live.

Let me move on to my second point regarding state and non-state threats. ISIL/Daesh is not the only danger we face. Russia is sabre-rattling in eastern Europe and has followed up its illegal annexation of Crimea by backing rebels in Ukraine and repeatedly entering Baltic and, indeed, British air traffic regions. Russia is continuing to modernise its military capability, and by 2020 it will have spent some $380 billion upgrading or replacing 70% to 100% of its equipment. It has brought into service new missile systems, aircraft, submarines and surface vessels and armoured vehicles, as well as modernising its nuclear capability. It has chosen a path of competition with the west rather than partnership.

In Africa, failing states are falling prey to insurgency and triggering large-scale migration. These crises threaten not just our national security and interests, but the whole international rules-based system on which our values of freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law rely.

From Defence, we make a threefold contribution to protecting national security and upholding the international system. First, we protect and deter. All day, every day, our aircraft, ships and bomb disposal teams are employed in and around the UK, supporting counter-terrorism efforts and ensuring the integrity of our territorial waters and airspace and demonstrating our resolve to those who would threaten us.

Secondly, our defence personnel, ships and planes are out in the rest of the world, helping us to understand the challenges we face, as well as building the capacity of our partners and shaping events to prevent the spread of conflict and instability which could threaten our interests.

Thirdly, when our efforts to deter adversaries are not enough, we will respond with all the military force at our disposal, working with our allies and partners, to defeat aggressors, contain instability and sustain the rules-based system which is the key to our prosperity.

That is why today 4,000 brave and capable men and women of our three armed forces are working around the clock on 21 different joint operations in 19 countries—double the number of operations five years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I hope to be able to continue that degree of far-sightedness in future.

[Mr James Gray]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend to make such a tiny point. It is most kind of him to describe me as “gallant”, but I was only ever a private soldier in the Territorial Army. Surrounded as I am by brave soldiers who truly deserve the title, I should say that I am not in any shape, size or form “gallant”.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend is, in my eyes, as gallant as they come.

In my hon. Friend’s intervention, he drew attention—he was kind enough to give me the copy of the news article to which he referred—to what the head of the BBC had said. According to today’s edition of The Times:

“The head of the BBC has refused demands from 120 MPs to drop the term Islamic State on the ground that its coverage of the terrorist group must be impartial. Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the director-general, warned that an alternative name for the militants was ‘pejorative’ and said that the broadcaster needed to ‘preserve the BBC’s impartiality’.”

I have news for Lord Hall. I am well familiar with the concept of impartiality that applies to the BBC and independent television. I used to look into it decades ago. It is not absolute impartiality. The example that is always given is that there is no need for the media to be impartial between the arsonist and the fire brigade. The BBC is required to show due impartiality, which does not mean that it has to be impartial between terrorists and constitutionally constituted Governments and their armed forces. Lord Hall would do well to reflect on how he would react if somebody from his ranks of well-paid BBC executives said that the corporation needs to be impartial between the Nazis and the forces that fought them. He would not stand up for that suggestion for a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have no idea how joyful it is to hear those words spoken and, after so many years in this House, to be in a position where those time strictures do not apply. I know it is not democratic and is unfair to other Members, but I must confess a feeling of real joy and anticipation. You will be delighted to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that despite the invitation to proceed at some considerable length, I intend to be quite brief. I have enough feeling regarding previous occasions to remember just how frustrating it is to Members not to be able to avail themselves of an opportunity to speak.

I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the new Chairman of the Select Committee. I have a fellow feeling for much of what he said, although perhaps not the last part. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), who represents Rosyth, is looking forward to serving under his chairmanship.

I want to re-emphasise my condolences and those of my hon. Friends and our allies in Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the Social and Democratic Labour party to the friends and relatives of those who suffered in the atrocity in Tunisia. It is really important that we emphasise that point across the Chamber—without any ambiguity whatever.

My own feeling is that we did the House a disservice last Monday by combining the statement on Tunisia with the statement on the European Council. If we look at Monday’s Hansard, we see that hon. Members were alternating between asking questions about their potentially dead or missing constituents in Tunisia and asking questions, which were legitimate in themselves, about the Prime Minister’s renegotiation stance on the European Union. When something such as the Tunisia outrage happens, I feel it is worthy of a statement on its own to be considered on its own. As I say, we did a disservice in not doing that.

There is some element of a disservice, albeit not to the same extent, in the Secretary of State for Defence claiming in his advance publicity that this afternoon’s debate relates to extending military action into Syria. If there were a military reaction to the atrocity in Tunisia, it would be important for it to be considered on its own merits and to be judged on that line of responsibility in terms of the justification and efficacy of such military action.

I have known the Secretary of State for Defence for a long time—perhaps too long for both of us—but I was struck by an interview he gave which said:

“The Ministry of Defence is like a sauna on Sunday. The air circulation system has been switched off and the place is hot—and deserted. Yet when you reach the Secretary of State’s floor, a small team is hard at work. As you enter Michael Fallon’s office, you see the reason why. On an easel sits a map of Iraq and Syria.”

Despite the weather conditions, this interview was conducted not last week but on 23 September last year. The Secretary of State has always believed—it is a perfectly honourable belief—that the United Kingdom should participate in the air actions in Syria. That has been his belief and statement. I do not think it is correct, however, to suggest, without specific understanding and without revealing to the House the reasons why—and in more than vague and general terms—that we should frame and publicise this afternoon’s debate in relation to extending military action into Syria.

As I mentioned in an intervention, the Tunisian Government have conducted a number of arrests today. They claim and believe that the terrorist cell responsible for the atrocity was trained in a terrorist camp in Libya. Logically, if there were a military response, people would understandably ask why it did not extend to where the Tunisian Government believe the responsible gunman was trained.

[Mr James Gray]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if there were to be a military strike against Syria, the matter would have to come back to this House. I commend to him my recently published book “Who Takes Britain to War?” on this very subject. If ISIL or Daesh is operating from Syria as well as from Iraq—there is no real border between the two countries; the border is entirely porous—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be perfectly logical to strike against Daesh in Syria as well as in Iraq?

[Alex Salmond]

I am coming on to explain exactly why I am sceptical about that argument. I would be delighted, however, to receive a signed copy of the hon. Gentleman’s book if he would care to provide one; in return, I shall give him a copy of my recently published book, which is nothing like as useful or informed as the hon. Gentleman’s. None the less, he might find it of some interest.

I particularly support the words of the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee on the question of the description of the terrorist organisation as Daesh, as opposed to the variety of other acronyms and descriptions that have been widely used. It is fundamental. It is not a matter just of semantics or language; it is fundamental to the campaign of ideas that we should be conducting. This is, fundamentally, a campaign that is going to be decided by whose ideas and whose vision of society and the world have the most attraction to generations of young people across the planet.

I would like to compliment both my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) and the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) who have been taking this matter forward so avidly over recent days. I have done a lot more thinking about this over the last few weeks than I have previously, and the more one looks at the arguments, the more sensible, rational and substantial they become.

There is in the Library an article written by Alice Guthrie, who is an expert on these matters and a translator of Arabic. I was struck by the logic and the coherence of the argument she advanced in the article. As I say, it is available in the Library and it is entitled “Decoding Daesh: Why is the new name for ISIS so hard to understand?”. She quotes a number of important sources—for example, al-Haj Saleh, the Syrian activist, writer and influential figure, who impressively said:

“If an organisation wants to call itself ‘the light’, but in fact they are ‘the darkness’, would you comply and call them ‘the light’”?

Clearly, the answer is no. Alice Guthrie herself goes on to say:

“All of this is why some Syrian activists therefore see it as so important that use of the word 'Daesh' spreads, and have been working hard to make that happen – so effectively in fact, as we know, that the word has been taken on by several global heads of state and their associated media, who have a limited grasp of the specifics behind the term. Originally hailing from the city of Raqqa, Daesh’s current Syrian headquarters, al-Haj Salih says his main goal in making a new name for Daesh was to avoid people getting used to referring to a tyrannical and despotic movement as a ‘state’… In terms of its use by global heads of state and media, he feels that this is only natural, and right, as ‘The people who suffer most at the hands of Daesh should decide what they are called’.”

This is much more than a matter of semantics. It is at the very heart of the need to remove from a terrorist organisation the legitimacy of its aspiration to statehood and a new caliphate, and of its claim—a misleading, wrongful and hurtful claim—to represent one of the world’s great religions. I think that that is absolutely fundamental to the question of how we deal with this matter.

I intervened on the right hon. Member for New Forest East to make the point that, as he later acknowledged, it is crucial for us to unite as a Chamber if we believe this issue to be important, as I do, and as my hon. Friends do. I think that the Secretary of State himself was sympathetic to that when, in response to an intervention, he said it was something that we must reflect on. I think we should reflect on it very soon. I am sure that if we unite, as a Chamber and as a House, in recognising the importance of the war of ideas behind the words, then the broadcasting organisations in this country will follow, as broadcasting organisations have followed in other countries. If we have the confidence to state something which is, at its heart, of fundamental importance, then let us do so. If the broadcasting organisations do not see the wisdom of it, then, and only then, will perhaps be the time for us to open up the full fusillade and barrage of gunfire against the BBC that the right hon. Member for New Forest East suggested.

My second major point is this. I am sceptical about the basis for the extension of the United Kingdom’s participation in an air campaign in Syria. There are questions that I think should be considered, and considered profoundly. The first relates to the legal basis. I have here a summary note which was presented by the Attorney General on 25 September last year and laid in the Library, and which provided the legal basis for the UK’s participation in the air campaign in Iraq. It is a one-page note, and it leans heavily—almost exclusively—on the argument that such action was beyond reproach in international law, because it constituted reaction to a request from a legitimate Government in Iraq.

The Secretary of State suggested that, by extension, it could be said that the Government in Iraq were requesting an intervention in Syria, but it is difficult to see how that could be justified on exactly the same legal basis as the one on which the Attorney General relied last September for participation in the air campaign in Iraq. Let me say to the Secretary of State, and to the Minister who will sum up the debate, that if that is to be the legal basis, we must be given, and presumably will be given, a further summary note explaining the legal basis for participation in Syria. Does the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) wish to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Trident-sceptic and Europhile hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has the ability to say completely and utterly unacceptable things—total twaddle—but to do so with such charm that we do not realise he has said such unacceptable things. It is a great pleasure to follow him.

I do not intend to take up more time than I need, partly because this afternoon’s debate has been superb, with some very fine speeches covering an enormous amount of ground in relation to our defence policy. I shall not repeat much of what has been said before. It is also right that the debate has focused significantly on Tunisia and the consequences with regard to Syria. In that context, I pay tribute to my constituents, Eileen Swannack from Biddestone who was killed in Tunisia last week, along with her partner John Welch from Pickwick in the neighbouring constituency. We think of them at this difficult time.

It is right for us to find a solution to what happened last Saturday. I spoke strongly against the airstrikes against Assad in Syria two or three years ago, but I now feel that extending our airstrikes from Iraq into Syria would make nothing but logical sense. These people are easily moving back from Iraq into Syria, so if the Prime Minister were to ask us to support targeted airstrikes against Daesh targets in Syria, it would be only logical to support him in that ambition. It is entirely different from what we were asked to do two or three years ago.

At the risk of being technical, I intend to talk not about the broad sweep of defence policy but to focus on one thing. For five years, I have argued that we should have regular defence debates in this place. They should be Government defence debates in Government time and called by the Government on significant issues. For the last five years, we have had only Backbench Business Committee debates, in which the important issues of defence and international security have competed with such worthwhile things as animals, zoos and other such issues. I think that the Government should set out to provide a reasonable number of proper, full-day defence debates—probably six—during this Parliament. I hope that they will agree to do that, and will not leave it to the Backbench Business Committee.

If the Government are seeking topics for those debates—apart from the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; we used to have one debate on each—I would say that the three topics on which they ought to focus are why, how and what. Those three questions are central to defence. “Why” is the topic we are discussing this afternoon. Why should we be doing anything internationally? “What” concerns how we do it, and the strategic defence and security review that will be held later in the year. “How” is the question of the amount we spend on it, and the issue of the comprehensive spending review.

Those are the three main debates that I propose. “Why” is the topic covered by the national security strategy. The strategy has worked well, and it was a good document five years ago. However, when the Defence Committee—I am proud to serve on it, and to have been re-elected to do so—addressed the issue recently, the Prime Minister was quoted as having said that the 2010 national security strategy needed some tweaks, although he may have changed his mind by now. In other words, the document ought to be reasonably fit for purpose today.

That may well have changed in recent days, and I hope that it has, because the world has changed entirely since 2010. We did not know anything about Daesh in 2010. We did not know anything about what is happening in Russia, Ukraine and so forth. We did not know of the threat to the European Union in the form of the Baltic states and Poland. Those things were unknown to us then. In the 2010 national security strategy, state-on-state warfare was downgraded to third or fourth least likely risk. It was said that all we needed to worry about was terrorism. Now, the whole picture has completely and utterly changed, and the first thing we must do is fundamentally redraft the national security strategy.

That must be dealt with at a different time from the security and defence review, which is planned for later this year. What would be the purpose of a fundamental rethink about Britain’s purpose in the world if we were simultaneously working out what arms and armaments we might need in order to achieve those ambitions? The two things must be done at entirely different times. The SDSR must attempt to address fundamental questions about our arms, armaments and people, and the Government must think particularly carefully about the youth reserves. The SDSR document must be designed to fulfil the ambitions that are laid out in the national security strategy.

Both those processes must be entirely separate from the comprehensive spending review, which did not happen in 2010. If we mix the three up and deal with the SDSR, the national security strategy and the comprehensive spending review on the same day, as we did in 2010, it will be said—possibly wrongly, but it will be said—that the SDSR is entirely driven by the Treasury, and will be concerned with cuts.

This year, defence budgets have been cut by half a billion pounds, and it is alleged around the souks that quite a lot more has been cut. Ministers have said very firmly that that does not change the baseline, which remains at £34 billion and will increase. I should like them to repeat that today. I should like them to say that half a billion pounds is only half a billion pounds, that we will start with £34 billion next year, that we will not see further defence cuts, and that we will stick by our manifesto commitments to make no manpower cuts and to increase spending on equipment by 1% per annum. All that is terribly important. Whether or not we spend 2% of GDP on defence, we need to see the output.

I want the national security strategy, the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review to be entirely separate—I want them to be logical and consequential, and not mixed up together—and I want our Government to commit themselves to doing what they should have done in the first place. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the new Chairman of the Defence Committee—I look forward to serving under his chairmanship—that the first duty of a Government is the defence of the realm, and I want to hear the Government repeat that mantra tonight.