Armed Forces

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House celebrates and commemorates the contribution of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families, in particular those currently serving overseas; recognises the important introduction of Armed Forces Day in 2006 and urges the nation to come together and champion the Services’ achievements throughout the decades; pays tribute to the UK’s Forces, their families and the charities who do so much to support them; recognises the enormous contribution of the staff who support the UK’s Forces from within Government and the workforces in industry who supply them with world-class equipment; urges all those in public life to seek additional ways to support the Armed Forces Covenant; urges the Government, local authorities, business and charities to deliver the best possible post-service support; and considers the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant essential to uphold, through public policy, the provision of welfare and frontline support.

I am pleased to start what I think is an important debate in advance of Armed Forces day on issues that should transcend party politics. The care and support that we offer those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of others in our nation’s name across the globe is something that we rightly celebrate every day and in particular this weekend. The patriotism, courage and dedication of the men and women who serve are immeasurable. The first duty of any Government to protect our citizens would not be possible without our forces’ commitment, and they must at all times be properly valued and rewarded.

I want this House to know again that the Government will always have the support of those on the Opposition Benches when they seek to support our service personnel. This is more important as Armed Forces day approaches. That is an opportunity for people across the UK to come together locally to celebrate the contribution our forces and their families make, not just to our national security, but to local communities. So it is in that spirit that I offer my comments today. In doing so, however, I cannot guarantee the tone or the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will wind up today’s debate.

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

I strongly agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said about Armed Forces day and about support for our armed forces. Having read his motion carefully, I strongly agree with every single word in it and I am most grateful to him for proposing it. However, I look forward to the response of his hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). Is it not the job of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition not simply to propose a motion on which we all agree, but to try to point out what is wrong with what the Government are doing? Why has he wasted the opportunity to do so?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The EDA spends €30.5 million a year, which is a great deal of money in the current circumstances. I think the House will agree that it would be perverse if we were forced to make cutbacks in defence at home while voting through increases at a European level. I am therefore pleased to say that in November last year I again vetoed the increase in the EDA budget. The UK was the only country to exercise its vote in that way. For as long as the EDA fails to cut the mustard, we will continue to do just that.

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

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about his planned spending review.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I have frequent conversations with my Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of Government business. The current spending review will set departmental funding limits for financial year 2015-16 and is due to report on 26 June. My officials have been working closely and collaboratively with the Treasury and Cabinet Office colleagues to identify areas where further efficiencies in defence spending can be achieved.

[Mr Gray]

I am sure the whole House agrees that we live in dangerous and difficult times. Does the Secretary of State not agree with me, and, more importantly, the Chief of the General Staff over the weekend, that any further cuts in defence spending would seriously risk undermining our capability to defend our realm and to project power overseas?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister and the Treasury have already confirmed that the equipment plan will increase in real terms plus 1% in the period from 2015 to 2020, and we are not looking at changes that will reduce military manpower. However, I have to say to him and to the House that efficiencies can always be found in any budget, and we will search for all the efficiencies that we can reasonably find and deliver.

Operation Herrick

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is not our expectation that we will continue routinely to patrol outside the main operating bases beyond the end of this year. By then, we expect to be operating from only four main operating bases, and troops will routinely be operating within those bases. Of course, they will have to retain the ability to go out in support of the Afghans if that is necessary. We intend to maintain the role 3 hospital at Camp Bastion right through to the end of the operation.

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

What the Secretary of State has announced this morning makes perfectly good sense from a straightforward operational standpoint, but does he not agree that if one is deployed for up to nine months, with a six-month pre-deployment training period prior to that—a total of up to 15 months away from the family—particular strains may come to bear on friends and family at home? What extra care will he take to ensure that those who are deployed for lengthy times are looked after from a compassionate standpoint? In particular, will he pay great attention to reservists, for whom those stresses and strains may be even greater?

[Mr Hammond]

First, I do not think my hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the six months’ training, together with a maximum theoretical deployment of nine months, would amount to 15 months away from home—certainly not all the training period will involve being away from home. However, I am quite certain that the chain of command will be sensitive to individuals’ circumstances in planning the next deployment.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about reservists. A period of service that might be extended may clearly be more problematic for reservists than for regulars. Again, we will take that fully into account when planning for individuals to be selected for deployment.

Reservists

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I start by saying happy St George’s Day to all, and in particular, to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—it is their day, too.

Reservists combine a military role with their civilian job. They are not normally kept under arms, and their traditional military task has been to fight when the country mobilises for war, or to defend against invasion. Reserve troops are not normally considered part of the nation’s standing body of military forces, although now it appears that that might change.

Reservists can be used in many ways. Most urgently, they can be BCRs—battle casualty replacements—for combat losses in front-line units during a conflict, as they were in both world wars and in more recent conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In both world wars, they were also used to form complete units. They can be used for more static activities, such as guarding, security patrols or for manning prisoner of war camps. Most certainly, their expertise enhances military intelligence, communications and medical facilities. Reservists give the nation an immediate increase in soldiers, without the months of training that it would take to build up such combat power. They are usually less expensive than maintaining a standing force, as they are used only when required.

The quality of reservists is often very high. Many have expert civilian skills that are transferable to and improve the professional efficiency of the military. For instance, some reservists involved in cyber-security are second to none, and without the Territorial Army and reservists serving in our military medical services, we would definitely have fewer survivors from the current firefights in Afghanistan. Many in the TA see military service as an integral part of their life. It may be a hobby, but it is a very serious one, about which they are normally extremely enthusiastic. That enthusiasm can often be turned to military advantage. Calling out reserves can also be a visible and deliberate signal of determined escalation during a mounting crisis.

Yet too often in the past, the TA has become the repository for weapons and equipment no longer used by the Regular Army. Selection may be neither as rigorous nor as well funded as that of regular soldiers. Members of the TA obviously do not have the same amount of time to sharpen or maintain their military skills, as they normally hold down full-time jobs as well. TA or reserve service is an add-on to their lives and it is one that sometimes has to be squeezed. Employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, are always concerned that a key member of their team might, just might, be mobilised, leaving them with a gaping and difficult gap in their companies for up to a year.

I accept that the Ministry of Defence fully recognises those problems and is trying to take steps to mitigate them. I agree, too, that a fix is perfectly possible for some of the points I have outlined, but I find it difficult to see how the worries of SMEs, which may lose a vital worker, can be overcome.

Reservists serving on the front line is a subject that has interested me for some time. In 2007, I wrote and presented a television programme on the TA’s involvement in Iraq. In doing so, I interviewed a number of TA and reservist soldiers on the job at the coalition air base near Basra. I was surprised to find that about 14% of the personnel in the British forces there were TA or reservists. In truth, I was very impressed by the TA soldiers and reservists I found there. They were clearly professional and up to the job. In my time in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, I, too, had excellent TA soldiers under my command. They did very well. Today, I gather that routinely about 10% of any force that the UK deploys will be made up of TA and reservists. Since 2003, more than 28,000 TA soldiers and reservists have been deployed on operations. That is a tremendous record of service, which is a great credit to the TA and reservists.

The “Future Reserves 2020” public consultation exercise ended on Friday 18 January. Comments on it have been sought from reservists, their families and employers, as well as members of the regular forces. That feedback is being used by the Ministry of Defence to help shape the White Paper, which is due to be published at any moment. Once that happens, we will have a much better idea about what the future reserves will look like. However, one thing is clear already: the Ministry of Defence wants reserve forces to be an integral and integrated element of the UK’s armed forces, and I support that fully.

A major proposal is to increase the number of trained soldiers in the TA, or what seems likely to be called the “Army Reserve”, to 30,000 by 2018. Apparently, future reservists will be better resourced, better equipped, and better trained than the current TA. They are also expected to take on a broader range of roles to meet the changing security challenges that the UK will face in future. However, all that has to be managed with very little change in man training days—envisaged to be 35 days a year per soldier, I think. Many in the Regular Army, as well as the TA, think that that is too little and, based on my experience, I agree with them.

I understand that the Ministry of Defence is designing Army Reserve units to deploy and operate intact. That has happened in the recent past: for example, the 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion the Cheshire Regiment took on United Nations duties in Cyprus for six months, although at reduced strength. However, to do an operation at full strength when we are not in a total war would be very difficult.

I accept that the Government will maintain that we are in a totally new ball game, but over recent years, the TA has consistently shrunk. In 1997, the 4th (Volunteer) Battalion the King’s Own Royal Border Regiment went on its annual two-week camp with more than 400 soldiers. Last year, its successor battalion, the 4th Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, which is, in fact, an amalgamation of three 1997 volunteer battalions—from the King’s Regiment and the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, as well as the Kings Own Royal Border Regiment—went on its annual camp with just 250 soldiers. That is worrying.

The trained strength of the TA this month apparently stands at 19,000 and its total strength is 26,640. I presume that the figure of 19,000 must be based on TA soldiers who have passed stage two of their training and have picked up their bounty for doing their full annual commitment. However, to be honest, I do not believe that 19,000 TA soldiers are readily available for operational deployment if required.

In 2007, when I researched the programme about TA soldiers deployed in Iraq, my investigations suggested that, from a total TA strength of in excess of 30,000 then, only about 7,000 to 8,000 were prepared to deploy, could be released from their jobs, or indeed, were medically fit enough to fight. A considerable number of TA officers and soldiers seemed to be classified sick or, at least, lacked the required FE medical category—FE meaning “fit for everywhere”. Therefore, I am cagey about believing that the current TA really has 19,000 soldiers ready to fight. I bet that the figure is much lower, and if that is the case, the idea that we will have 30,000 deployable Army Reservists by 2018 stretches belief.

According to Defence Analytical Services and Advice, in the nine months between 1 April 2012 and 1 January this year, the TA actually reduced by 600 trained soldiers. That is hardly a good omen as we start the drive to recruit 30,000 deployable and trained soldiers. I suspect that considerably less than 50% of the current 19,000 trained TA personnel could actually do the business. Even the Defence Secretary, when questioned by the Defence Committee, suggested that that figure was considerably lower—as I recall, about 14,000. I know that disquiet about the exact number of fully trained TA soldiers is also widely shared by current Army officers, both regular and TA.

Two days ago, I spoke to Nicholas Watkis, who has recently retired from the TA after 40 years and, during that time, very often completed specialist operational service in support of deployments overseas. He told me that, to get 30,000 deployable soldiers, our Army Reserve would need to fish for them in a pool in excess of 80,000. He says that he repeatedly made this point when serving and had sent a letter stressing this requirement to the Chief of the General Staff last July. If I am right, getting 30,000 trained and deployable soldiers by 2018 may be something of a pipe dream, and, if so, this will have a dramatic impact on the post-2020 assumption that our Army could reach a total strength of 112,000 trained personnel quickly with mobilisation.

An old military maxim—and a great one—is that soldiers who train together should fight together. Indeed, this was what gave the famous pals battalions of the first world war such strength in battle. They all knew each other well and were determined not to let down their mates. I know that the Ministry of Defence is devising cunning plans to try to ensure that Army Reserve units deploy complete, but getting a large number of people released from their normal jobs simultaneously and with agreement from the individuals, families and employers would be very difficult. Undoubtedly, it would require an incredible amount of staff work and effort, unless, of course, the nation is fighting for its life, as it was from 1939 to 1945. So I am intrigued to see how the forthcoming White Paper will address this difficult problem.

There really is not much recruiting and training time until 2018, and yet we still have no idea about where Reserve Army units will be based, especially as it is suggested that many TA centres will be sold off. If local TA centres go, I think there is far less chance that Army Reserve soldiers will travel long distances from home for training, presumably in Regular Army bases. Not having their parent unit close to their families is hardly an Army Reserve recruiting incentive. On that point, local TA centres will often be the only evidence available to local people that we actually have an Army, as the regulars all seem to be being grouped in regional super-garrisons.

As the Army Reserve expands, the Government plan to cut the number of regulars in the British Army by about 20,000 to 82,000. If that happens, one in three of our soldiers will be civilians in uniform. To me that seems a high percentage and a gamble with our nation’s defences. Ministers have told me that they are confident we will reach that target of 30,000 available Army Reservists by 2018. I truly hope they are right, but I remain to be convinced. I am also a little worried that identifying, training, deploying and retaining such individuals will really be a saving on the costs of maintaining regular soldiers when all other factors are considered, including the difficulties of getting people mobilised, up to speed militarily and then looking after them and their families when their specific operation ends.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. There is a further danger that he has not yet described. If this grand plan works, all will be fine and dandy, but there is a huge problem of timing. The redundancies in the Regular Army are happening now, but we will not know until 2020 whether recruiting the TA to replace them has been successful. If it is not successful, we as a nation are scuppered.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention. I totally agree with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Some great work has been done on mental health care for veterans since the seminal report by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), some years ago. Does the Minister agree that there is a particular problem associated with members of the Territorial Army and other reservists who have come back from active service and who may not know that they have a mental problem? It may be many years later, when they have left the regimental family, that the problems become apparent. What extra can be done to help members of the Territorial Army who have been dispersed around the country?

[Mr Francois]

I understand the issue that my hon. Friend raises. Like him, I pay tribute to the excellent “Fighting Fit” report, which addressed mental health for both serving personnel and veterans. He may be aware that there was a lacuna a few years ago in that reservists returning from theatre were not subject to the same decompression package as regulars and did not necessarily receive the same mental health briefings as regular troops. We have changed that so that reservists coming back from theatre get the same decompression package and mental health briefings as their regular counterparts, which helps to alleviate problems later on.

Army Basing Plan

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

There are some detailed questions there. I hope that the retention of Imphal barracks in York puts to rest a concern that I know there has been in the city. There will be a marginal increase in the numbers of Army personnel at Imphal as a result of this statement. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will check the figures on the other bases he mentioned in surrounding constituencies and drop him a note later this afternoon.

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

I very much welcome the extra stability that the announcement will make in the lives of service personnel and their families. The people of Wiltshire will very much welcome the extra 4,000 soldiers to come there and the resulting investment in the infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reconfirm that the tri-service technical training base, which is due to move into RAF Lyneham by 2015, will go ahead as planned?

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is going ahead as planned. It is under way now. As I said in my statement, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be making an announcement in due course about other moves on the technical training estate.

Deployment to Mali

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. The EU training mission in Somalia and the support arrangements for the African Union intervention in Somalia have come to work very well, but they took a while to get together at the beginning. Now we are embarking on a new activity on the other side of the continent and we are starting from scratch again. His point is well made. Is there a mechanism by which we can create some standing apparatus to ensure that when the need arises for local or regional intervention, supported by outside expertise and resources, we can provide it quickly and effectively? I am happy to pass on those thoughts to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurances about the very limited commitment in Mali not cutting across our capabilities in Afghanistan, but he well knows that the C-17s play a central role in the air bridge and in our commitment to withdrawing by the end of next year. Is he absolutely certain that there will be no possible diminution in that determination if, for example, the commitment of the C-17s were to be extended beyond the three months to which he is committed?

[Mr Hammond]

The commitment that we have made on the C-17 is for three months and the reason that we have limited it to three months is precisely because we would want at that point to review what impact, if any, any extension beyond that time would have on the air bridge to Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains our principal focus and we will not do anything that will impinge upon success there.

Afghanistan

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to update the House on the detention situation, which is an important aspect of our operations. We suspended transfers into the Afghan justice system earlier this year because of concerns about the potential for the mistreatment of prisoners in National Directorate of Security facilities. Over a period of months, a significant number of steps were taken to increase our oversight of what happens to transferred prisoners. We were hoping to recommence transfers in the autumn, but two things happened. First, in a case that is being heard in the High Court in London, an injunction was granted against us, preventing further transfers into the Afghan system without the permission of the High Court. Secondly, new and classified information came to my attention that led me to make a decision to continue as a matter of policy to suspend transfers into the Afghan system. That means that we are holding significant numbers of detainees who are to be charged in the Afghan judicial system but cannot, for reasons of policy and legal impediment, be transferred into the Afghan system at present. We are improving and increasing the size of the detention facility at Bastion to reflect the fact that those people will be held in larger numbers and for longer periods.

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

People across Wiltshire, to where many of these soldiers will return, will strongly welcome the announcement about what is effectively the beginning of the end of our combat involvement in Afghanistan. It is very welcome indeed. Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of our withdrawal will be judged by two kinds of Afghan confidence? First, they must be confident that they can do the job, which increasingly seems to be the case, and secondly they must be confident that we will not cut and run—that we are not leaving them to it, but that we will keep an eye on what happens and stand ready, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, to intervene again should that become necessary in the years to come.

[Mr Hammond]

As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear and I have emphasised again today, although our combat mission will be coming to an end, our commitment to the Afghan people will be enduring and is underpinned by a firm commitment of more than £250 million a year of military aid support and development aid.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for having missed the first few moments of her very interesting remarks. I was held up elsewhere. I apologise for that to her and to the House. I also apologise to Mr Speaker because I did not intend to speak in the debate and therefore did not write to him on the subject. However, having heard the very interesting contributions from the hon. Lady and from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), I hope that the House will forgive me for expressing a few ill formed thoughts. That may not take up much time, and we have plenty of time available.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising the issue. She is right to say that discussion about the ethics and morals surrounding the use of unmanned air vehicles is as great as or greater than discussion about the ethics and morals associated with armaments or any warfare that exists. It is a huge ethical problem and one that needs to be addressed. She is right to say that so far we have addressed it too little in this place, so I congratulate her on raising it. I listened carefully to her and I commend the extremely subtle and intelligent way in which she approached the issue. I agree very much with every aspect of what she said.

None the less, there is a series of misunderstandings in the world about the use of UAVs. The word “drones” itself often brings into people’s minds an image of something that is almost by definition worse than any other kind of warfare. If we asked people out in the street, “What do you think of the use of drones—unmanned vehicles firing weapons at civilians in Pakistan, for example?”, they would say, “That is absolutely disgraceful. It is scandalous. We must stop it. It is wicked. It is wrong.” There is a significant degree of misunderstanding in the public domain about the use of these vehicles. Therefore, it is right that we in this place should try as best we can to correct it.

There are two aspects to the ethical considerations. First, there are those who say that the use of any weapon of this kind at all is illegal and wicked and should not be allowed. That was said by perfectly good pacifists in this building for many hundreds of years. They would say that any weapon that potentially kills people is a bad thing and should not be allowed, and we should disarm and turn our weapons into ploughshares, or words to that general effect. That is a perfectly legitimate, although in my view incorrect, stance.

The motto of my regiment, the Honourable Artillery Company, is “Arma pacis fulcra”, which is of course the Latin for arms are the balance of peace. I have always held very strongly to that. We won the cold war not because we disarmed, but because Margaret Thatcher took a tough line by arming the United Kingdom and supporting the United States in our nuclear deterrence. That is why the Soviet Union fell. Arms were very much the balance of peace in that context.

Therefore, to those who say that in any conditions UAVs are by definition a bad thing, I simply say that the same could apply to almost any weapon or piece of warfare that they care to mention. Of course, the tragedy is that people are killed in wars. An even greater tragedy is that civilians are killed in wars. That is an unacceptable and unforgivable thing, but unfortunately it does happen. Therefore, one of the important things that we must do in considering warfare is to work out ways in which civilian casualties—collateral damage, as it is rather heartlessly called—can be minimised. We must find ways of minimising the damage to civilians and those who are not involved in the conflict.

In addition to the belief that all weapons are a bad thing, there is a strange piece of psychology that people seem to have in their minds. The hon. Lady touched on it in her interesting tale about Winston Churchill in a cavalry charge at, I think, Mafeking. Is shooting a man from a foot or two feet away more or less ethical than firing a weapon in Nevada that kills people in Afghanistan? Most people would say that Churchill was courageous: he galloped into the teeth of the enemy and fired. He fought a person: he looked him in the eye and shot him. That is courageous. However, a technician fiddling with a computer in Nevada, who will potentially kill hundreds of people, is somehow being cowardly. He is hiding behind technology and saying, “We want no part of that; I’m doing it remotely.”

It was interesting to hear the intervention from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the psychological effect that there may be on people who are firing these weapons at remote distances. Of course they are aware of what they are doing and of course they will be affected by it for the rest of their lives. The notion that because they are in a bunker in Nevada, they are somehow less affected by it than the chap on the front line is incorrect. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point on that subject.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I am very grateful that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that point, because that is where the institutional ethics of the training of our military come in to ensure that there is awareness that on the other end of every piece of machinery there is a human being and that therefore the relationship and the ethical considerations must remain the same. It is a constant battle of vigilance to ensure that that is never lost.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is terribly important that we train all our people in the military and working in foreign affairs and elsewhere that there are human beings at the end of the weapon, whether that weapon is a knife used on the front line or a UAV from which a missile is fired remotely.

On a recent visit to Afghanistan, I was chilled by the conversation I had with a 19-year-old sniper in The Rifles. I said to him, “How many kills have you had?”, and he said, “Thirty-seven confirmed kills, sir, and about 40 or 50 others unconfirmed.” There was a young man of 19 who knew that he had killed 37 people—I think it was 37—and had probably killed 70 or 80. Is the psychological effect on him any greater or any less than the psychological effect on the man sitting in the bunker in Nevada or wherever it may be who is called on to press the switch that finally fires the weapon from the UAV?

There are two elements of concern. One is about the use of weapons themselves, which I think is a perfectly reasonable concern, although not one to which I would subscribe. The second is the question whether a remote killing is somehow less brave or less ethically supportable than an immediate killing. Again, I would not support that particular angle.

That leads me away from the negatives that people might raise on the subject of UAVs to the positives. As I said, it is terribly important that in all our warfare, whatever we are doing, whether it involves planes, bombs or UAVs, we seek to minimise civilian casualties. The use of UAVs and this extremely complex high technology is precisely the thing that will reduce collateral damage. We can, by using these things, spot a particular person from a very great height and track his movements. We know precisely who he is and can kill him very precisely, very technically, and minimise damage to civilians who may be nearby. That contrasts sharply with the use of artillery, for example. One round takes out a good square—1,000 metres by 1,000 metres—and who knows what is in that good square? It contrasts sharply with the use of bombs of all kinds, which also involves very substantial collateral damage. The use of these weapons is very particular and very precise and for that reason must be supported.

[John McDonnell]

There is a problem with mythologising drones by saying that they are precision weapons that can target individuals and not have an impact on innocent civilians. We now know, from more detailed research, that in Pakistan, for example, at least 3,225 civilians have been killed as a result of the use of drones. Therefore, it is also important not to exaggerate the clinical effect of these weapons.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; every single civilian death that has occurred as a result of the use of drones, or through any other act of warfare, is to be regretted. He mentioned that 3,000 civilians have been killed through the use of drones in Pakistan, but many times that number of civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other theatres of war across the world—collateral damage—by bombs and conventional warfare of one kind or another. The deaths are questionable, and I will come on to how UAVs are being used in Pakistan, in particular, across the border from the theatre of war.

Every death is regrettable. As the technology develops, it becomes more accurate and more reliable, so the risk of collateral damage lessens, whereas conventional weapons of warfare are no more accurate than they ever were. Indeed, one could argue that because such weapons are covering bigger areas, they are becoming less accurate, so the likelihood of collateral damage is greater.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington brings me to where and how such weapons should be used. Most are used for surveillance, not as weapons. They are not armed. They provide a fantastic resource for our forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with their ability to see what is happening on the ground over a large area for an extended period. They can hover for significant periods over an area, which a plane or helicopter could not do. Their value as surveillance machines is incredible, even if they are not armed. We must be extremely proud of the development of such technology and encourage it in every possible way.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we were to look at a battlefield 50 years from now, we would be likely to see a significant part of it dominated by UAVs. They will be used extensively in battlefields in future, which I welcome for several allied reasons. The first reason is accuracy, which may not exist at the moment, but I hope such weapons will become increasingly accurate in future. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned, war is no longer nice and easy, state on state warfare—invade that country and we can sort them out. It was nice and easy to do in the Falklands war and nice and easy to do in Gulf one, but warfare like that no longer exists. Civilians and all kinds of people are now mixed up in it. Wicked people often use civilians as shields. Accuracy is terribly important.

Secondly, maximising the effect while minimising the cost is terribly important. Of course, we can pile in tens of thousands of foot soldiers, who will slog around large parts of the theatre of war—often without ever seeing the enemy at all—but it costs an enormous amount of money. Of course, we can use conventional weapons of one sort or another, but they cost an enormous amount of money. By comparison, UAVs cost remarkably little because they can fly for a very long time and never fire anything, or if they do fire, the weapons need not be as expensive as conventional weapons often are.

Thirdly, there is no question about it; they are much safer for our own forces than most conventional warfare. If we send soldiers into the theatre of war to fire a tank or an artillery piece, take part in an infantry attack or, as Churchill did, gallop against the whirling Dervishes at the battle of Mafeking—I think it was the Dervishes—we are putting our own troops in significant danger. The worst that can possibly happen with UAVs is that they will be shot out of the sky. Not a single person will be killed if they are disabled, but that does not apply to any other type of warfare. There are huge benefits to be gained from the standpoint of the security and safety of our troops.

I shall make my final point briefly. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: such weapons in the wrong hands or used incorrectly could become terrible weapons of war. We should never allow that to occur. It is vital that we know precisely who is allowed to use them and under what conditions. What are the rules of engagement? What is the chain of command? Who has the authority to use them and who does not? Is their use purely military or could other Government agencies use them in future? If so, who will authorise that use? What uses are they authorised for? Are they to be used entirely against military targets? Are there conditions under which they could be used against a civilian target? If we knew that a terrible dictator was driving along in his car, for example, would it be right to use a military UAV to kill him? Possibly. Possibly not. We need to know precisely.

The debate that the hon. Lady has opened is extremely important. UAVs are potentially enormously powerful and important weapons and vehicles. They could be of huge benefit to Britain as a war-going nation, but could be of huge disbenefit if they fell into the wrong hands or were used incorrectly. She is right that now is the time to initiate a widespread, deep and ongoing debate about precisely what these things are, what they should be used for, what the rules of engagement are and who should be allowed to use them. If we do that, this afternoon will have been well spent.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

The battle of Omdurman was in Sudan. Mafeking is in South Africa. I am glad the hon. Gentleman is not driving a drone at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We want no obscene gestures.

[Mr Gray]

It is not obscene at all.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will not come between blue-on-blue discussions. I think a similar gesture was offered to the Prime Minister at last night’s 1922 committee discussion on gay marriage.

My hon. Friend is right to mention archers; he is thinking particularly of 1415 and the battle of Agincourt. Archery was an extension of the ballistic weapons used in ancient times, but he is right to mention it. The archers were underpinned by the cavalry charge, at the end of the battle, by King Harry’s noble British troops—many were Scots and Welshmen who, as ever, came to his rescue—who defeated the French.

Let me talk a bit more about warfare between the French and the British.

Defence Personnel

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Stuart]

Yes, I am holding a piece of paper—or several of them—in my hand.

Before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire beats himself up too much about having been wrong, he should remember that we have not yet withdrawn from Afghanistan. I hope that we will both end up having to say that we have been proved wrong, but we should be anything but complacent about what happens in Afghanistan and about the ease of withdrawal. The closer we get to the withdrawal date and the more we have to ensure the safety of our own troops—we are not entirely clear who provides that security—the more difficult it will get. The situation reminds me of when children leave home: we cannot wait for them to leave home, but the closer the time gets, the more nervous we get about their having to step out.

I want to start by addressing a big issue and then move on to something more specific. I am often accused of having a typical foreigner’s emotional attachment to British institutions, which is probably true of a few people. I have always been extremely proud of a country that has a sense of itself and its role in the world, but the recent strategic defence reviews and what has been happening in other Departments have made me begin to wonder whether we still have that sense of self and of our role in the world.

I would assert that we now have a Ministry of Defence that says that we will provide the amount of troops that we can afford in order to balance the books, rather than starting off by saying, “This is the role we wish to play in the world.” I would have expected a strategic defence review to start by saying, “We have a Navy because we are an island and therefore we need x, y and z,” and, “Our air force is a certain size because we have assessed the risk from the air.” The commitment and engagement that we wish to see outside these islands should determine the size of our Army. I have seen no such clear statement as to what we are about.

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

I absolutely agree with and entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says about the foreign policy baseline for any strategic defence review, but does she not agree that, if we were to start from that standpoint, it would be almost inevitable that we would end up with a requirement that was vastly greater than the nation could afford?

[Ms Stuart]

That may well be the case, but we have to start with where we think we should be and then we can work out where we ought to be. It is not just the MOD that lacks that strategic sense. At one stage, the Department for International Development had a clear statutory duty of poverty reduction, but even that is being reviewed and rethought at the moment—I am not entirely sure where that takes us. Our Foreign Office is also reducing its influence. If we consider how this country projects itself to the rest of the world, we will see that there is a lack of clarity in those lead Departments that ought to provide a collective view.

I asked myself whether this was happening all over the world and looked at comparative figures for GDP spending on NATO. Even if we look back as far as the 1950s, there is a consistent pattern within the European Union. Our country and France contribute well over 2% of GDP commitment, so we clearly have a view on where we should be in terms of spending.

It is sometimes difficult to make comparisons between armed forces numbers, because we ended conscription. The Italian and German figures in particular—they sometimes include police forces—are somewhat misleading, but nevertheless the pattern shows that we are still big significant players. We have no sense, however, of why we want to be the big players. What are we going to do?

I want to leave the Minister with a final example of that muddled, confused thinking. In my experience, it is always when we are not entirely sure what we want to say that we end up constructing sentences that are utterly meaningless. The Defence Committee took evidence yesterday on the Army 2020 review and I was struck by something called, “Figure 1: Force Development Deductions”. I invite the Minister to look at the relevant paragraph. I will not bore the House by reading it. It has about 10 sentences and I am glad that the word “broadband” is in there, because that is about the only word I understood. I drew the attention of our witness, General Sir Peter Wall, to that paragraph and asked him about it, and he confessed his confusion about the precise meaning of that integral part of the report. He promised the Committee that he would consult the Babel fish and provide us with an English translation. I think that demonstrates that the MOD needs to be much clearer, particularly post-Afghanistan, of what we think our forces are for. It is no good just to say, “This is how much money we’ve got,” even though the money is important.

This might again be a sign of my emotional attachment as a foreigner, but I am always struck by the island blindness of this country. This is an island, so how can we compromise some of our surveillance abilities? What will happen to maritime security? It is staggering. That is my general point for the Minister.

My second point is much more grounded at home. Last week, I went to meet Malala Yousafzai’s father—the family are currently in my constituency at the Queen Elizabeth hospital and the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, which do extraordinary work. It was particularly pleasing for me to see that good work, because I was the evil Minister who closed down the military hospitals in places such as Gosport and I remember being denounced in endless Adjournment debates for doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

That is a good question. I met the premier of Lower Saxony, David McAllister, when I was in Germany. Because many of the decisions to be taken on amelioration of basing policy are effectively devolved functions—Ländersache—in Germany, decision makers such as David McAllister will have to work with local communities to help with the transition following any announcement on the basing review. Not one of my interlocutors both at Länder and community level was aware of any fixed timetable beyond what was said in previous statements. I was not told that there has been any clarity on what is likely to happen. I am sure the Minister does not disagree—he will no doubt say that clarity will be given as soon as possible—but I should underline the point that many hon. Members were given the impression that we would hear on Tuesday, but it now appears that we will not.

For communities such as Bad Fallingbostel, the likelihood of the withdrawal of UK forces is significant. The role of the military in that part of the world goes back a long time, to the time of the Hanoverian redcoats. While they were tramping around parts of Scotland in the mid-18th century, they were also beginning to train on the Lüneburg Heath. The area has since become the most significant training area anywhere in Europe. A series of communities around the training area, whether in Bergen, Celle or Bad Fallingbostel itself, are exceptionally defence dependent. The impact of the basing review is significant not only in Lower Saxony; there are large-scale UK military presences in places such as Gütersloh and Paderborn. We should not lose sight of the fact that basing announcements will be relevant not only here, but in friendly nations such as Germany. It is important that people there have as much notice of any changes as we have here, and as quickly as possible.

I have a couple of constituency matters to raise. Right hon. and hon. Members know that I represent one of the most defence-dependent constituencies in the UK—it contains RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss barracks. I stress to the Minister that I am hearing loud and clear that people want clarity on what will happen. There is uncertainty on the time scale for the transfer of the Typhoons from Leuchars and uncertainty in Leuchars about what will happen at the base. There is uncertainty in Angus about the Condor facility, which has been there for a very long time. If the Minister is not aware of that uncertainty, I strongly advise him to look closely at the trends at bases such as RAF Lossiemouth, where over and above compulsory and voluntary release we are seeing, in some very important trade groups and specialisations, people leaving in droves. That is due largely to uncertainty and, it has to be said, the success of the offshore oil and gas industry, which is offering tremendous opportunities to people starting a career in the civilian world.

It would be useful to remind ourselves of the commitments given on basing, which I imagine will be the starting point for the Ministry of Defence. We do not have to look back very far, because the previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), was explicit about the MOD’s plans for Scotland and I would like to remind the House what they are. He made a statement on defence transformation, and I will read the entire paragraph, because it is important:

“Army brigades currently stationed around Catterick and Salisbury will make up three of the five multi-role brigades. The other two MRBs will be based in the east of England, centred on Cottesmore, and in Scotland, centred on Kirknewton, south-west of Edinburgh. The MRB centred in Scotland will require a new training area, and positive discussions are being taken forward with the Scottish Government. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars, increasing the number of posts there from 1,200 to more than 1,300. Consequently, the Typhoon force due to be built up there will instead be built up at RAF Lossiemouth. Other MRB units will be moved into Glencorse, Caledonia, Albemarle barracks and eventually Arbroath, as we intend over time to bring the bulk of the Royal Marines together in the south-west.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2011; Vol. 531, c. 644-5.]

That was outlined only last year, and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. A month later, he went on to give welcome clarity on numbers. When asked about the number of troops expected to return from Germany to Scotland, he said:

“It is impossible to give an exact number, but I would imagine that between 6,500 and 7,000, or something of that order, of the 20,000 personnel we currently have in Germany will be coming back to the multi-role brigades in Scotland. The precise number and lay-down will be subject to the plans that the Army will bring forward in the months and years ahead, assuming of course that we have the agreement of the local authorities and the Scottish Government.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 655.]

The UK Government obviously had the support of the Scottish Government in relation to the training area and any planning that would need to take place. That was a very clear and unambiguous commitment about the number of troops coming back from Germany to Scotland.

All the mood music and noise we hear about the basing review makes me concerned that there will be a rowing back on those commitments only a year after they were made. The context is important and we should not lose sight of it. The former Secretary of State for Defence gave an important number when he told the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 7 June 2011 that

“between 2000 and 2010, the total reduction”—

in service jobs—

“was 11.6% but the reduction in Scotland was 27.9%. Over the decade 2000 to 2010 there were bigger reductions made in total personnel as a proportion than in other parts of the United Kingdom.”

That is the inheritance with which we have found ourselves, and we have the commitment given by the former Secretary of State that one would try to make good some of the disproportionate cuts visited on defence in Scotland.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

I will of course give way to the chairman of the all-party group on the armed forces.

[Mr Gray]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I am reluctant to bring a note of party political angst into what has been an extremely well informed and sensible debate so far. However, does he not agree that if his party’s great ambition of an independent Scotland was to happen, the amount of UK troops based in Scotland would be significantly lower?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This has been a fascinating, well balanced and intelligent debate, covering a wide variety of topics. That includes the contribution from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), whom I am delighted to follow. He knows his stuff and has made a useful contribution to the all-party armed forces group over the years. I am grateful to him for that, although the possibility of he and I ever coming to a mutual understanding on what will happen to defence in the unlikely event of Scottish independence is perhaps rather remote. I am grateful to him for his remarks and his help over the years.

I rather regret that the old parliamentary tradition of set-piece defence debates has been abolished—I seem to recall that at one time there were six, and then there were three, I think. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, has made representations on this subject to the Procedure Committee, on which I sit. Those debates have been replaced by a bid—in this case to be made by the Defence Committee—to the Backbench Business Committee for time. That means that defence, which ought to be the greatest and heaviest duty of the nation, has to compete with other more topical, interesting or amusing subjects for debating time. That is wrong. The Procedure Committee has considered whether time should be given for set-piece debates of this kind and has undertaken to keep the subject under review. It is always worth making the point that we ought to have set-piece debates during the year on defence, the Intelligence and Security Committee and one or two other equally grave and weighty subjects, which might not be quite as popular as some others.

Today’s debate is about defence personnel. If defence of the realm is our greatest duty, it is right that paying our respects, thanks and homage to the people who make that possible—our armed forces—should be high on our list of priorities as a Parliament. I am therefore glad that in recent years we have had the opportunity to welcome back the two brigades a year that return from Afghanistan, as we did successfully the other day. I am grateful to Mr Speaker, Black Rod, the Serjeant at Arms and others who make those parades possible. They are terribly important in allowing Parliament to remember and be physically shown the people we have sent off to war. They are also terribly important from the brigades’ point of view.

Let me quote from a letter I received this morning from the commander of 12th Mechanized Brigade, who came to Parliament last week:

“The opportunity to celebrate and thank our young soldiers is rarely done in such a special way. Although respect for our soldiers is often talked about, the Parliamentary Parade and reception brought it firmly home to me that those sentiments are both genuine and heartfelt. Understanding this was particularly important for the more junior members on parade, as it is they who often faced the gravest danger and all too often it is our youngest who are forced to make the ultimate sacrifice. When that price is paid we know that they will never be forgotten. That response is often expressed by others as well. Last Monday confirmed that it is truly meant by those we serve.”

Brigadier Chalmers’ letter is of great importance and brings it home to us that it is right and proper to pay our respects to those young soldiers. We should be aware that the things they do—as well as the discomforts they face, quite apart from the dangers—are things that very few people in this Chamber would ever contemplate doing themselves. We should take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to them for all they do.

[Mr Francois]

I want absolutely to echo from the Dispatch Box what my hon. Friend has just said. I pay tribute to his work as chairman of the all-party armed forces group in helping to organise the homecoming parades. I have seen for myself, on the faces of the troops, how much they appreciate those parades. I endorse the value of these exercises and celebrate the achievements of the men who came back to Parliament. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I ask the Minister to face the Chamber when he next stands at the Dispatch Box, so that we can hear what he says and so that he can see the Chair, just in case there needs to be an intervention from the Chair?

[Mr Gray]

The Minister was simply overcome by the passion of what he was saying that he forgot one or two conventions of the House. I am most grateful to him for his extremely kind remarks.

The all-party armed forces group does a useful job. Many of its officers are in the Chamber today, and I am grateful to them for all the things they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is chairman of the Army section of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is chairman of that part of the group that looks after the Royal Marines.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned the all-party group, so will he say a few words about the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with which he and I have long been associated, as well as about the magnificent work of Sir Neil Thorne and the amazing effect the scheme has had of creating links between parliamentarians and members of the armed forces?

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend not only anticipates what I was about to say but rips the heart out of the central part of the comments that I was about to make. I shall come to that subject in a moment.

The way in which the people of Britain respect our armed forces has changed over the years. It was unanimous after the second world war, as we knew what our armed forces had done for us through those years. At certain times since, there has been a similar increase in respect for them. There have also been periods, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, when people’s knowledge of and respect for our armed forces has been significantly lower.

I pay respect to my own constituents in Royal Wootton Bassett for the way in which they welcomed home the fallen soldiers for five or six years before handing back the duty to Brize Norton in the Prime Minister’s constituency. They spoke for the nation in paying their respects to the armed forces and the way in which they had served. They did so quietly, modestly and sensibly without pomp or ceremony. They simply stood in the high street getting wet and bowing their heads at the appropriate moment. They spoke for the people of Britain and the way in which we respect our armed forces.

A similar transition in attitudes has occurred here in Parliament. Following the retirement of brigadiers and soldiers who had served in the second world war from this place some 20 or 30 years ago, I suspect that our knowledge of and respect for our armed forces declined significantly for a time. That would have been around the late ’60s and early ’70s, when not much was happening of a military nature and most Members of Parliament who had been soldiers, sailors or airmen had retired.

[Oliver Colvile]

We must not forget the commitment made by our troops in Northern Ireland during the late ’60s, ’70s and’80s. There were a lot of Royal Marines there, and I would like to pay tribute to them. Those events would certainly have kept people interested in what was going on in the military.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to speak up for the Royal Marines, and he is absolutely correct. I was not for one second suggesting that the House was silent on these matters during those years; I merely said that their prominence had declined somewhat at various times over the past 50 years.

Into that relative desert of knowledge, awareness and understanding of our armed forces came the figure of Sir Neil Thorne—this is where my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did me a disservice a moment ago. Realising the shortage of information and awareness in the House, Sir Neil created the armed forces parliamentary scheme 25 years ago this year. Since then, he has run the scheme more or less single-handedly. He has help from a variety of people, but he is the driving force behind it. The scheme has gone through all sorts of changes. When I joined it in 1997, it was extremely small, with one MP from each side of the House attached to each of the four services. This year, there are about 70 people involved, including MEPs, Clerks of the House, Members of the House of Lords and others.

The work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme under Sir Neil has significantly increased the level of understanding and awareness of our armed forces and, in particular, of the work done by our boys and girls on the ground. A significant cadre of Members of Parliament now truly understand what happens on the ground. MPs are embedded for up to 22 days a year, perhaps wearing some kind of uniform, and they get intimately involved with activities of our armed forces on a variety of levels. That is central to the excellence of the understanding that the scheme has brought to this place.

In that context, it is probably known around the House that there will be some changes coming to the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Sir Neil has indicated that he would like to see changes, and the Secretary of State for Defence and Mr Speaker have joined him in that. The scheme will soon be re-established as a charitable trust under nine trustees, and we very much look forward to its continuation under the slightly new format.

Two things are central. First, it seems to me essential that the armed forces parliamentary scheme should remain as it is, or very much like it is, for 25 or 50 years to come. It would be no good at all if we said right now, “That’s it. It has been great, but let’s say goodbye to it.” We must not do that—the armed forces parliamentary scheme plays a terribly important part in all our parliamentary debates. Secondly, there are all sorts of ways of doing this, but on this 25th anniversary of the scheme’s foundation, it is terribly important that we pay due respect to the fantastic contribution to the defence of the realm and to our understanding of it that Sir Neil and his wife have made. He has done a great job; it is right that we should acknowledge it.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Sir Neil has not only put in a large amount of his own time and considerable expertise but has invested a large amount of his own money into creating the scheme, and that it is has proved so successful that it has been copied in other countries around the world and has given rise to similar schemes for the police, for example?

[Mr Gray]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: Sir Neil’s personal contribution in respect of time, money and, indeed, the excellent Lady Thorne has been significant. A similar scheme has been established in Australia and, as my right hon. Friend says, there is a similar police scheme in existence—in this Parliament, and who knows where else it might spread.

On an occasion such as today’s when we are talking about defence personnel, it is right to pay our respects to and honour those people who do things that we in the Chamber could not contemplate doing, although one or two of us have done them—my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for example, who is not in his place at the moment. He has had the great advantage of having spent six months in Afghanistan, with 36 hours of contact, firing a light gun at the enemy. Very few Members of Parliament have achieved anything of that kind; I think we should pay our respects to my hon. Friend for that.

It is right that we should make use of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, the all-party group for the armed forces and the welcome home parades. We should also celebrate the respects paid to the armed forces down the streets of Royal Wootton Bassett—or now in Carterton in Oxfordshire. The people of the United Kingdom and the Members of this House understand what a great contribution our armed forces make to the defence of our realm. It is right that we should convert that understanding into visible signs of it; various organisations do that very well.