Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Historical Inequalities Report

James Sunderland Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, including those about the elevation of the former Member for Dumbarton. Those of us who knew him in this House will be pleased for him.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I refer him to the points that I made earlier. What conforms to uniform and what makes a good soldier are all the qualities that I talked about earlier. It is not about colour, religion or the many other things that have been used to discriminate in the past. I hope this report is a catalyst that reminds people that many people gave their lives for this country and, supposedly, for the values that should have been agnostic to who they were and where they came from. If we are going to honour them through this report, we must do so by putting it right and making sure it does not happen again.

In the present, as Defence Secretary, I have to do much more to make sure we recruit more people from backgrounds other than the white background that we talk about—from all parts of our culture and society. That actually adds to the capability of our armed forces; it does not detract. We are sorely missing the right numbers of people to continue to make our armed forces the best in the world.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and I publicly thank the commission for its excellent work over many years. I, too, have visited several sites. What challenges does the Secretary of State see for sites located further afield? My sense is that the sites in western Europe, the UK and the Falklands are easily maintained and will be safe for the future, but are there particular difficulties that may lie ahead for sites located in Africa, across the far east and in more far-flung places?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend raises one of the key challenges in maintaining sites, sometimes in places that have been quite hostile. One of the strengths of how the modern-day Commonwealth War Graves Commission does its job is that it uses local staff and engages locally. Indeed, it is supported by the Department and the defence diplomatic network in working with host Governments. I am, in a sense, more optimistic, because I think this report will help open the door further for commemorating, finding and maintaining some of those sites. If we come along and say to the host countries, “Hands up, this is what we could have done better. This is what we didn’t do right,” we have a far greater chance of collectively being able to commemorate those people and educate their populations and our population about the contribution that was made.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this key debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, although the concept of strength of the armed forces happens to be a misnomer. First, military force will only ever be as good as the way in which it is deployed. The long asymmetric campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, were indicative of attrition, force protection and technology, more so than outright military power, but times have changed, even over this short period, and as the integrated review has made clear, we are now fighting in an era of “persistent engagement” against multiple threats, on multiple fronts and in new domains. It might be that conventional force, far from being the historical solution it was, is now just a solution.

Secondly, the word “strength” is in itself confusing. It is often used to describe disposition or size, so I would agree with the Opposition’s argument that our UK armed forces have shrunk, but that ignores the fact that “strength” can also mean availability of force, utility and, above all, potency. So, I would argue that reducing the size of our armed forces does not necessarily mean that the application of military force is any less credible. Let us be clear that the vast reduction in our armed forces since the second world war is not just a Conservative problem. It is something for which successive Governments must take responsibility.

I shall outline some facts if I may. In 2009, after over a decade of Labour government, there were 46,000 fewer service personnel than in 1997. Over the same period, the three services ended up 6,500 personnel short of the MOD’s trained requirement, a figure that is larger than the delta today. The reality is that HM forces fell in size by at least a fifth under Blair and Brown.

Before I am accused of being blindly partisan, let us not forget that the Conservatives did something similar in 2010. I spent a miserable two years in Andover doing my bit to cut the size of the Army from 102,000 to 82,000, and there were sweeping cuts, too, in the RAF and Navy.

[Bob Stewart]

I remember that in 2010 we cut the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers hugely, and said we would do the job through civilian personnel. Then, in 2015, we cut those civilian personnel. Who will keep all these highly technical things going if we do not have the people?

[James Sunderland]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, as a Corps man myself. It is imperative that we retain these specialist capabilities so that we can prosecute force using the logistical and engineering support we need.

A decade on, there is no doubt that the Government are serious about investing in defence in a way that has not been seen for years. The massive £24 billion boost over the next four years brings the total to over £188 billion before 2025. This is about military power and strength, particularly in the prosecution of force at range, and when the risks of becoming embroiled in another attritional campaign on land can be mitigated, whereby striking at the heart of enemy command and control is so important.

I am concerned about the 72,000 figure for the Regular Army. Every unit has its challenges with under-manning, the training margin, wider commitments and absence from work due to sickness, compassionate leave or maternity, and my sense is that the Army probably needs an establishment of 82,000 to mobilise a strength of 72,000. I am not convinced that the Army can generate a deployable division with those numbers, and I urge the Minister to do his estimate. However, that is the only note of real caution for me and I welcome the publication of the integrated review—an excellent bit of work.

The dilemma for me and for all of us in this place is whether our focus on coalition operations, higher dependence on technology and the perceived peace dividend since the second world war justify the risks of ever smaller armed forces. But none of us can predict the future—not even politicians—and only time will tell whether this is again a bridge too far.

Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We have another 12 questions to get through and we have run rather over time already, so I urge Members to be brief.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Although I am concerned about cuts to my own service and possible stretch, I recognise that this is an excellent bit of work, and I commend my right hon. Friend for the intellectual rigour that has gone into this modern and innovative paper. Given our increasing focus on expeditionary capabilities and our allies, notably in the Pacific, does he see any change to how we might operate east of Suez?

UN Mission in Mali: Armed Forces Deployment

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is not, of course, for MPs to dig into the tactical weeds of military deployments, but given the vast lines of communication in Mali can the Minister please assure the House that British forces will be operating with sufficient mass, force protection and an effective reserve to deal with a potent insurgency?

[James Heappey]

There speaketh a voice of great experience. My hon. Friend’s caution is well noted. He will be reassured to know that, as I said in my statement, we will start with the first rotation focusing on understanding the ground immediately around Gao. As we develop that understanding, grow in confidence and develop our in-country ability to support ourselves at greater range, then we will expand the mission as the UN mission commander requires.

Defence Procurement and Supply Chains

James Sunderland Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is an honour to be called to speak in this important debate, Sir Charles. Having served in uniform for many years, I know a bit about defence procurement. I am also privileged to have used some of the best British-made equipment in the world.

In 2018-19, the Ministry of Defence spent £19.2 billion with UK industry and commerce, deliberately supporting 119,000 jobs. It is jobs that we are talking about today. In 2020, our commitment under the spending review is to spend an extra £16 billion, on top of the extra £8 billion that was promised in last year’s manifesto. That is exactly what the Ministry of Defence and our defence industry have been waiting for. Keeping people safe is the primary role of Government, but it is also about providing the commitment, the certainty and the spending guarantees that allow our nascent defence industry to plan ahead, at what is now well over 2% of GDP.

In the time I have today, I want to emphasise three key things. First, we have fantastic equipment in the UK. I am confident that, in the main, our forces have what they need. Secondly, I am proud to serve under a Conservative Government that get defence. Thirdly, we must spend responsibly and flexibly to secure what we need and to keep our British defence industry at the forefront of R&D, and to be able to produce competitive exports.

What do we have to be proud of right now? Lightning II, the F-35B aircraft, is an advanced, fifth generation aircraft, but it is American. Typhoon is another fantastic aircraft, and almost British. The Dreadnought to come is British, and is being built in Barrow. Our Astute boats are again British and being built in Barrow. The QE2 carriers—two of them—are British. Ajax is integrated in the UK, although it is not a UK platform. Type 26 frigates are British, Type 31 frigates are British, and the fleet solid support ships are British.

That is all good so far, but there is a note of caution. The message for post-Brexit UK is that we need to export our way out of trouble. To do that, we must showcase what we make and build. When we have a UK-based product or project with export potential we must back it, even if it involves some security compromise. We must also lower production costs to make it fit for the export market. We must develop a longer-term strategy to design and build UK equipment. That will avoid often substandard commercial off-the-shelf solutions. The UK must also design with export in mind. Expensive platforms are all very well, but we need to be able to sell them to those who do not have a huge amount of money in comparison, particularly to our emerging allies. As for legacy EU competition rules, the simple answer is no.

It is time now for liberal freedom of choice in public money to be over. For example, I do not want to see Hyundai police cars in Thames valley. The point extends across the whole of government. Let us invest in our British defence industry; let us relinquish these ridiculous EU competition rules; let us plan ahead, design for export and sell ourselves out of our financial woes with the most cost-effective kit that money can buy. Above all, we must build British, buy British and sell British to put us back on the map.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair]

As everyone has been so well behaved, speakers can now have five minutes.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

James Sunderland Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

When the guns stopped in 1918, at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, the curtain effectively fell on the most devastating world war we have ever seen. I have never understood why we call it the “great war”, because there is nothing great about warfare whatsoever, but it may just be that the greatness refers to those who fought in such appalling conditions and gave so much. Exactly 100 years ago today, the unknown warrior was interred at Westminster Abbey, and the poppy is still worn with pride by so many people today as a memory of the appalling circumstances of Flanders fields and elsewhere.

Today, many wars later, Armistice Day is commemorated by so many people, but for different reasons. For world leaders, politicians and dignitaries, it is about marking democracy—marking the freedoms we have, and the sacrifices that were made. For veterans groups, it is about coming back together in solidarity to mark their service and their comrades. For veterans like me, it is about thinking back on former colleagues, friends and soldiers, many of whom are no longer here with us today. For families, it is about handing medals down and wearing them with pride. For the rest of us, it is simply about saying thank you.

One of the most poignant experiences of my life took place last summer, in June, at the D-day 75 commemoration in Portsmouth. It was a spectacular, magnificent event that had everything: royalty, Presidents, Chancellors and Prime Ministers; fantastic fly-pasts; ships in the Solent; and brilliant stage shows. But for me it was all about those wonderful veterans, resplendent in their immaculate uniforms, polished boots, polished medals and shiny brass. The twinkle in their eye was matched only by the brilliance of the sunshine.

Talking to these heroes, these living legends in their 90s and 100s, two things really struck me. The first was a sense of fuss, as they wondered, “Why all the fuss? Why are the Government and all these nations going to so much trouble for us?” They had a sense of bewilderment, as they thought, “We were just doing our job.” Funny thing that, they did their job and fantastically so. Bizarrely, they also had a sense of shame. When I scratched the surface with many of these fantastic people, I found it was a sense of shame that they had lived long and fulfilling lives whereas so many of their friends and comrades never came home. That is exactly why we remember these important events on Armistice Day. We do so to pay homage to those who have gone before and to those whom we owe so much.

Before I finish, I wish to make some quick points that I believe are relevant to today. First, I was proud earlier this year to introduce the Desecration of War Memorials Bill to this House with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), a good friend of mine. It is absolutely right that we bring that legislation into law. Secondly, the Government, in their 2019 manifesto, were clear that they wanted to bring the armed forces covenant into statute. I absolutely endorse and support it, and look forward to the Bill coming to this House in January or February next year. I will be supporting it, as will the all-party groups, I am sure.

Lastly, I am clear in my mind that when someone serves as a soldier in this country—when they wear the uniform, bear arms, serve the Crown and go on operations—they are British, wherever they come from. I want to make the point right now: this nonsense about visa fees for Commonwealth soldiers must stop. I also hope that we can be magnanimous in giving an amnesty to our Fijian friends who still suffer today. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here, after many years of service, and I thank all of those who have gone before.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

James Sunderland Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be called so early in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might be new to this place, but I spent three decades in uniform. I have worked with many veterans charities across the UK, not least in my previous role as commander of the Army engagement group at Sandhurst and in my Bracknell constituency where our armed forces champions are working wonders.

The Bill needs to be considered for what it is, not for what it is not. Given that it is groundbreaking, it needs to start somewhere and is therefore bound to attract negative interest. For those who have not noticed, the architect of the Bill is a veteran. I cannot think of a single Minister who has invested so much of himself against such a tough backdrop and I commend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for everything he has done this far. He has fulfilled his promise, to date, to our veterans and it is incumbent on us in this place to be objective, because we will not be forgiven if we fail. I do not believe that anybody can be a supporter of our armed forces and vote against the Bill.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I will not have that. The armed forces look to this place to get this right—the hon. Gentleman is correct on that—but they expect and deserve a better standard than the comment he has just made. I know he is new, but I like him and I just ask him to withdraw it. Please withdraw it.

[James Sunderland]

I am a great fan of the Bill and the Bill is right. We need to put it through.

At its simplest level, the imposition of a presumption in law against prosecution after five years will provide greater certainty for our service personnel. Since 2002, the MOD has faced 1,400 judicial review claims and over 2,000 civil claims relating to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Many are valid, but about 3,400 allegations of unlawful killings have also been received by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, of which at least 70% have been filtered out as being spurious. Members will also be aware of the al-Sweady inquiry, which cost the taxpayer £31 million and was proven to be based on

“deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.

That was just the tip of the iceberg, and it is right that public interest lawyers, such as Phil Shiner, should have been struck off. But that is nothing compared to the anguish of our veterans, many of whom are innocent.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in the Bill will reduce the uncertainty and anguish of both current armed forces personnel and veterans?

[James Sunderland]

I agree very much. The bottom line is that veterans I have spoken to over the years are worried about the next knock at the door. I believe that the Bill will give certainty to the current generation and to who those come afterwards.

To tackle the conjecture, if I may, the Bill does not absolve any member of Her Majesty’s forces from the obligation to operate within the law. It does not impact on criminal investigations and it does not create, or come close to creating, any de facto immunity for service personnel, as the few bad apples will always be brought to justice. As for the downright fabrication, the Bill does not place our troops on a collision course with the Geneva convention or The Hague, and it does not break international law.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It does! Read the Bill.

[James Sunderland]

I have read the Bill.

In fact, I cannot think of a more robust institution than the MOD for upholding the law, and the UK has a proud record of overseas military service which is to be applauded, not undermined.

As for part 2, I comfortable that the six-year long stop of civil claims for personal injury and death is about right given that 94% of all claims since 2007 have been settled within five years. However, we have Committee stage to unpick that further if we need to. I also understand that the long stop applies to the point at which legacy issues, such as hearing loss, PTSD and physical illness first come to light, therefore providing a safety net.

Most important for me, the Bill requires that, when making legal judgments, the courts must consider the unique circumstances of overseas operations and any adverse effect on our personnel. Those who have served will know that warfighting is dangerous and terrifying, with confusion all around, friends falling beside you, sweat dripping into your eyes, the ground exploding, people moving in every direction, images of family flashing before your eyes and abject terror everywhere. What would you do? Fortunately, the training is good, the loyalty and camaraderie in HM forces are unparalleled and our soldiers do operate within the law of armed conflict. I salute all those who got closer to danger than I did.

Despite what others would have us think, the Bill does not provide blanket immunity for soldiers to commit war crimes. Indeed, the suggestion in some of what I have read that the best trained and best led armed forces in the world are somehow predisposed to inflicting torture or sex crimes on operations is ridiculous. It is deeply offensive to those who serve, and the people who peddle this nonsense just need to stop. [An Hon. Member: “Nobody has said it.”] I have seen it.

To those who seek to judge our veterans after many years of service from the sanctity of their courtroom or the comfort of their armchair, I say, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whatever notion you have of idealism, it may be that you just don’t get it.” That is why the Government need to provide the protection in law.

To conclude, I pass on three messages on behalf of many of our 2.2 million veterans who have contacted me to offer support. First, to the esteemed figures who have chosen to unpick the Bill by writing divisive articles for the national media, I regret, you do not speak for me. Secondly, I say to those dishonourable lawyers who have pursued the victims of a witch hunt into their later years, “You need to be struck off.” To my esteemed colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I say, “Please pay heed today, to stay on the right side of this. Unlike the thousands of soldiers I was proud to serve with, your constituents might not be quite so forgiving.” Let us do the right thing for those who have endured so much for so long and put the Bill through.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Sunderland Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We have deployed military personnel on a number of return flights, for example from Wuhan. We have always made our assets available where possible, subject to medical advice and where the destination country is willing to engage. We always stand ready to help our citizens, wherever they are around the world. It is really important, however, that in this outbreak we ensure that we balance medical advice with an individual’s desire to come home. It may be that they are best suited to being treated where they are.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the strategic defence and security review will be aligned to a defence industrial strategy that places British manufacturing at the heart of defence?

[Mr Wallace]

It will certainly place prosperity and manufacturing at its heart. It will also place at its heart our very real obligation to give the men and women of the armed forces the best equipment we can, so they can fight with the best chance of success. There is always a natural tension where we are not providing that. The industrial strategy will hopefully indicate to industry where it should invest to ensure it competes with a competitive edge, so that the Ministry of Defence can buy from it for our men and women.