Defence Procurement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it is good to see the Minister in his place. I look forward to a very positive response from him, because we have discussed this matter before. The hon. Gentleman is right. Defence is very important to our economy in Northern Ireland, where it provides high-tech, skilled jobs for the workforce. It is important that defence procurement is equally shared across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that regions such as mine can receive the benefit. If that is done right, we all benefit.

[Mr Carswell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I have to say that I am a little nervous about looking at the defence budget through the prism of what it means for jobs. Clearly that is important, but the defence budget’s primary purpose is surely not to act as some sort of Keynesian demand stimulus for a regional economy, but to make sure that our armed forces have the equipment they need to defeat our enemies and keep us safe.

[Jim Shannon]

We already have established companies in Northern Ireland that deliver the best and give value for money. The point I am trying to make is that they could do more if defence procurement was regionally spread.

[Mr Carswell]

I agree. If we allocated the defence budget on the basis of value for money, I am sure companies in Northern Ireland would get an enhanced share. However, if we create a system where public money is allocated on the basis of something other than value for money, we open the door—the revolving door—to lobbying and all sorts of nefarious influences. Not only is that bad in itself, but it has negative consequences in terms of giving us value for money as part of what will, by definition, always be a finite budget.

Those in the defence establishment will claim that providing Britain’s defence protection base is a strategic industry, and of course our defence industry is a strategic industry. However, they seek to justify giving privileged contractors the privileges they get on the grounds that that maintains our defence industry and that it is critical to our national security. However, let us assess that argument a little further.

The idea that Britain is self-sufficient in defence production is a myth. We need to import defence equipment and materiel. We did so throughout the last century, and it is thanks to our ability to do so that we won wars we would not have otherwise won. In fact, during the Napoleonic wars, we imported materiel and equipment from overseas through Harwich, near my constituency, to ensure that we prevailed in that struggle. Not for centuries have we been entirely dependent for our defence on equipment produced exclusively on this island, and it would be naive to assume we ever could be.

Today, British defence manufacturers cannot produce equipment without international support. There are few systems anywhere—from mobile phones to jets to missiles—that can be built and manufactured without some sort of international trade. I would say that that is a good thing. International dependence and complex international supply chains are a good thing; apart from anything else, they help to keep the peace and to enhance international co-operation. However, many supposedly British procurement options, which are sold to politicians, civil servants and Ministers as the most British option, actually mean we end up being ever more dependent on other Governments.

Let us take the example of the RAF’s new transport plane—the Airbus A400M. It is partly manufactured in the UK, and a very good thing that is too—I do not denigrate that at all. But it has a shorter range, a lower top speed and a smaller payload than the comparable Boeing C-17 Globemaster, and it is considerably more expensive to boot. However, here is the really shocking thing: if we bought the C-17, we would need the support, compliance and good will of only one Government—the United States Government. But the A400M option requires the compliance and support of the Governments of France, Spain, Belgium, Germany and Turkey, as well as that of the United States. The supply chain is even more interdependent. Far from giving us so-called sovereignty of supply, the A400M is an example of procurement that is protectionist and, at the same time, makes us more dependent and less operationally sovereign.

Defence protectionism has also created a contractor cartel. In an attempt to prop up the defence industry, successive Governments have promoted the supply side and consolidated it. That has created what economists call—this is a rather clumsy term—a monsopoly, which is a monopoly of supply. That means that a limited number of suppliers, not the state, control the terms of trade. Britain is paying over the odds because a tiny group of producers sets the terms of trade.

Big business is not the only vested interest that distorts procurement, either. Perhaps inevitably there is inter-service rivalry, so that projects serve the interests of different sectors rather than the defence interest overall. We have unenforceable anti-lobbying rules, which mean that former defence personnel can pursue what I would regard as inappropriate contacts on behalf of clients, without censure. Protectionist policy and those various crony corporate vested interests are undermining our national security. They are preventing our nation state from being able to turn whatever fiscal power we have into military muscle. We are simply being less efficient than we ought to be. We need a procurement policy that puts the national interest first and allows us to convert the fiscal power that we have into the maximum possible military muscle.

A few weeks ago, the UK Independence party parliamentary resource unit published an excellent paper called “Rethinking Defence Procurement”, in which we set out some ideas and suggestions—I think they are rather sensible, soft suggestions—on what we can do to get things right. First we suggest that the default—though not the exclusive—approach should be to buy a weapons system off the shelf. I grant that there are some weapons systems that we need to make in-house; we need that capability. However, if we want the best value equipment possible we need to be prepared to buy off the shelf.

It would be perfectly possible for us as a nation state to build smartphones that would be manufactured exclusively in the United Kingdom. Probably, they would be the size of a brick, there would be a waiting list for them and they would run on clockwork. It makes much more sense for us to buy smartphones that are the result of international co-operation, with chips built in South Korea, design from California and software from India. International co-operation enables us to have smartphones with a higher level of technology for less cost every year. We should apply a similar principle to defence procurement. We might think of off-the-shelf procurement as being almost like urgent operational requirements—which I know the military rather like. In other words, the military can buy what it wants, from whom it wants. We can think of it as an urgent operational requirement, but without the guddle and the rush.

Secondly, we need to start consolidating not the supply side but the demand side. By working with our allies we could initiate joint procurement projects. That is not a case of our building and manufacturing things jointly; that would be a supply solution. Rather it would be a matter of putting in procurement bids collectively with our allies, ensuring that in many areas we would have a buyers’ market, where the buyers collectively could set the terms of trade. We could do that with a number of countries—not just European countries and NATO members but countries such as Australia and India. If they and we needed a weapons system, why not put in joint procurement bids with our Anglosphere allies? That would drive down prices and ensure both we and our allies got better value for money.

Thirdly, I would like Parliament to have real oversight of the procurement process. Instead of just reviewing the annual report from the Ministry of Defence, the Select Committee on Defence should be required to oversee and authorise major projects. We should take back as a Parliament the power to scrutinise what the Executive spend on our account. Specifically in relation to defence, the Defence Committee should be required to approve and sign off on particular large projects. That sort of oversight would ensure that there was genuine accountability on procurement.

Finally, anti-lobbying guidelines need to become law. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), as Chair of the Public Administration Committee, making some suggestions about that the other day. I think that is exactly what we need to be prepared to introduce, to make sure that, yes, the expertise that exists in Government Departments can be shared with contractors, but that there are public records of those contacts and that where there is a revolving door there is some accountability to ensure that nothing untoward happens.

Britain needs a defence strategy that aims above all to keep our country safe. In an era of growing threats and constrained budgets, misspending is no longer a luxury that we can afford. We need real reform. I know that the Minister recognises the need to improve the way we spend our defence budget, and that he is a reformer. I also happen to know, too, that in his Department reformers do not always get an entirely easy ride. I look forward to hearing what changes he has in mind to improve things, and whether he will consider going further and recommending any of the measures I have outlined.

Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2015.

I thank you, Mr Hanson, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to hold this debate today. The armed forces military covenant report published in December by the Ministry of Defence is the fourth such document, and together the reports tell a story of growing efforts to meet the military covenant. I was surprised to discover that although four annual reports have now been presented to Parliament, none of them has been the subject of a parliamentary debate. This is therefore a wonderful opportunity for parliamentarians to reflect on the progress being made by Departments, devolved Administrations, local service providers and organisations in the commercial as well as the voluntary sector to meet the covenant’s pledge.

The term “military covenant” was coined in 2000 in an MOD booklet called “Soldiering—The Military Covenant”. It aimed to highlight the mutual obligations between our nation and its armed forces following years of decline in that relationship. Although the term “covenant” seems to imply some form of legal guarantee or contract, it is not enshrined in law. For more than 400 years, though, the state has recognised having some obligation towards its armed forces, with Queen Elizabeth I, for instance, providing by statute in 1593 a weekly parish tax to support disabled Army veterans returning to their homes. With British troops engaged in so many difficult military campaigns and new types of warfare over the last 20 years, our armed forces leaders, with a particularly strong voice from General Lord Dannatt, called on the nation to re-engage with its obligation to our soldiers, sailors and airmen. They all have to swear an oath of loyalty to their Queen and country when they join up, and the military covenant is or should be the nation’s reply to them for their commitment and sacrifice.

A series of legal judgments in the early 2000s led my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, while still in opposition, to set up the military covenant commission. Led by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), its report led to the coalition Government in 2011 deciding that the military covenant should be covered and monitored through provision of an annual report to Parliament. That decision was enshrined in the Armed Forces Act 2011.

I am not from a military family—well, not in recent times. My French great-great-uncle was killed in the opening weeks of world war one by German fire as he acted as a lookout for the French army on the Alsace-Lorraine front.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady mentions the first world war. Does she agree that given that 2016 is the centenary of the battle of the Somme, equality for Northern Ireland service personnel would be very fitting and is long overdue? It would be recognition that every person who serves in the British Army, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, deserves the same opportunities under the covenant; we should have that in Northern Ireland as well.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I thank my colleague for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly and hope very much that in the months and years ahead we will be able to achieve that across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

In world war one, my relation was acting as a lookout for the French army and he was sent up a church tower because he had great eyesight, but he was immediately spotted by German troops because he was wearing a very bright, shiny uniform—you have to wonder. That story has always stuck in my mind; I was first told it when I was four years old. The reality is that if all efforts at diplomacy have failed and war breaks out, we ask our young men, and now our young women too, to go into harm’s way to protect us, our country, our values, our families and our way of life. We ask our armed forces to defend their nation without regard to their own safety, and I am continually in awe of every one of those people who choose a military career.

I am involved in many ways as a campaigner, and now as the local MP in north Northumberland, with serving military personnel, their families and veterans of all ages, for whom the covenant’s pledge has not always been a reality. I am acutely conscious of the fact that although many citizens agree with the covenant’s ideals and direction, far too many are not really aware of it and do not consider how they can make it a reality in their working lives or how their local community might be able to support the needs of military people and their loved ones. I am also aware that many of our serving and veteran personnel are not fully apprised of the commitment that the covenant gives to them and their families.

The Government’s commitment to all who serve and have served in our armed forces is clear: they and their families should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration is appropriate, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved. The covenant is clear about the areas in which it should apply. It covers healthcare, education, housing, deployment matters, family life, benefits and tax impacts, the responsibility of care, particularly during defence policy change periods, voting rights and support in transition and in life after service. It covers so many aspects of personnel’s lives, and every year since 2011 we have seen new projects and support being built to meet our covenant commitment and reported by the MOD to Parliament.

Armed Forces Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair]

We are debating clauses 3, 4 and 5 together if any Member wants to speak on them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Bone, for clarifying the process. I have put this all together, if the Minister could just bear with me.

The Minister referred to investigation and charging in relation to clauses 3 to 5 and I want to ask a question about that. We see a simplification of the process relating to service personnel charged with offences. I assume the Minister is saying that that will be achieved by reducing the number of stages required for the decision to bring charges. Not only will the provision make it easier to bring charges where appropriate, and ensure discipline and order are maintained in our armed forces, it will streamline the process and reduce bureaucracy so that commanding officers are free to go about other duties essential to the smooth running of all aspects of our armed services. Will the Minister clarify the role of the commanding officer in an investigation?

If the Minister will bear with me, clause 2 related to alcohol and drugs. As we are talking about investigation, I want to comment on that. The new rules on drug and alcohol testing are similar, but not identical, to the provisions under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The 2003 Act provides for an alcohol and drug testing regime that is applicable to both the maritime and aviation environments, but the armed forces have Crown exemption. Will the Minister clarify this matter in relation to the new rules on drug and alcohol testing and investigations?

The Bill will remedy that and strengthen the approach to alcohol or drug misuse within the armed forces, as well as being more specific about what grounds justify a drug or alcohol test. It will make it easier for those in charge of an investigation to order a drug or alcohol test when needed, which can only make our armed forces safer and more secure, while simplifying the process to make it easier for commanding officers to secure a drug or alcohol test.

The new statutory framework for immunity from prosecution will give the Director of Service Prosecutions and service courts powers that may assist investigators and prosecutors in cases where it may otherwise be difficult to persuade service personnel to co-operate with the service police and to give evidence. The Minister will be aware of a specific case in Northern Ireland where investigations are ongoing. I believe the provisions are a positive development that will improve transparency across our armed forces and improve the security of individuals. Of course, this could be particularly important to Northern Ireland where there have been continuous attempts, through spurious allegations, to drag the names of former soldiers through the mud. We must never let the legitimate forces of law and order be equated with cold-blooded murderous terrorists. I hope that this aspect of the Bill can ensure that the brave service personnel who fought terrorism in Northern Ireland will never be dragged through the courts by those who terrorised our state, or by their sympathisers and supporters.

On investigation and prosecution in relation to this particular issue, what role will the Minister play? I am sure we are keen to put in place a transparent method of investigation and prosecution. There has to be protection for our brave service personnel. Where we can, we should give them immunity, but we must always give them our full and unreserved legal support and aid, should they need it.

I hope that was clear for the Minister. I have raised several issues about investigation that have to be addressed.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

As it is coming towards Christmas, we let the hon. Gentleman go back slightly to clause 2. [Hon. Members: “And forward!”]. And forward, yes. But we have been moving rapidly, and he was seeking advice as he went.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

For the convenience of the Committee, I shall discuss together clauses 7 to 12, which deal with offenders assisting investigations. In overview, clauses 7 and 8 allow the Director of Service Prosecutions, in return for assistance provided by a person to an investigation or prosecution, to enter into an agreement with the person giving them immunity from prosecution or an undertaking that information will not be used against them in proceedings. Clauses 9 to 12 make provision with respect to reduced sentences for those who provide such assistance.

The provisions closely follow those in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which apply to civilian prosecutors and courts. Under these provisions, an immunity notice or restricted use undertaking must be in writing and will normally include conditions, breach of which would lead to the immunity or undertaking being revoked.

The Director of Service Prosecutions will, as a matter of good practice, consult the Attorney General in relation to any offer of immunity. The DSP will engage with the Director of Public Prosecutions and devolved Administrations in the event of concurrent jurisdiction. Immunity notices and restricted use undertakings can be provided only if the DSP considers it appropriate in relation to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal conduct service offence, where the equivalent civilian offence is capable of being tried in the Crown Court, or a disciplinary offence, for which the maximum sentence is more than two years imprisonment.

[Jim Shannon]

I have one quick question for the Minister. He mentioned contacting the devolved Administrations, and I am wondering what credence is given to those Administrations in respect of decisions made by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. In other words, if there is a disagreement between the devolved Administrations and the Ministry, which takes precedence?

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

As a member of the Select Committee, let me add that when we looked into these provisions and interviewed the relevant official, I was impressed with two things. The first was the need to refer to the Attorney General. The link between the DSP and the Attorney General is a good one. I have to say that I have forgotten what the second one was, but let the first point stand as the major point I wanted to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

The clause and schedule provide for the Armed Forces Act 2006, as it currently has effect in the United Kingdom, to come into force in the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar, although we are consulting the Government of Gibraltar about extending the provisions of the 2006 Act to that territory. I should make clear at this point that, as a matter of UK law, the 2006 Act will continue to apply to service personnel wherever in the world they are serving.We have consulted the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, and they are content with our approach. We are discussing with Gibraltar whether it would be best to provide for the 2006 Act and the Bill to extend to it as well, and if Gibraltar considers that to be the case, we will introduce an amendment to that effect.

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that the 2006 Act will come into force in the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, with the exception of Gibraltar, and that there will be the option of extending it to the Channel Islands. We too often forget those from the overseas territories and those who serve there. I am pleased to note that this is a truly British Bill which recognises our devoted armed services throughout the globe. This move is, I believe, long overdue.

I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he give us some idea what is meant by “the option of extending it to the Channel Islands”? Secondly, is he able to give a commitment—I am not sure whether he is—that, as I hope sincerely to be the case, the exemption of Gibraltar is not due to any Spanish intrusion or interference? The sovereignty of Gibraltar is down to its people, and we should firmly uphold their right to remain British, no matter what actions or words may come from Madrid.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

We support clause 13 and the accompanying schedule. It makes sense to extend the Act to the overseas territories.

May I ask the Minister what the timescale is for the negotiations with Gibraltar? I realise that the elections there may have interfered with the process. May I also ask what mechanism would operate if Gibraltar accepted that the legislation should extend to it? Would we have to wait for the next Armed Forces Bill to introduce any changes that were necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

I will come to that, but protocols are in place between MOD firefighters and local fire authorities and there have been occasions when MOD firefighters have supported local authority fire and rescue services. However, it is important that that is done in a combined and controlled way.

The Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation provides fire and rescue operational services and support across defence at airfields, specified domestic establishments and deployed locations in the UK and overseas. DFRMO falls outside the ambit of the primary legislation that governs local fire and rescue authorities in the UK. Contractors providing fire and rescue services for defence are also present at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, QinetiQ, Babcock and Serco. They operate at sites such as Aldermaston, Burghfield and Boscombe Down. DFRMO currently has 320 fire and rescue service contractors, out of a total strength of more than 2,000 personnel. Contractor firefighters, now and in future, should also be able to deal with an emergency in the same way as MOD firefighters. We are not aware of local fire and rescue authorities using or planning to use contractor firefighters. However, there are other private and specialised fire and rescue services at other sites such as ports and airports, power stations, industrial sites and some state properties.

The clauses constitute a simple, sensible change that gives MOD firefighters the same legal protections as their civilian counterparts.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister referred to the legal protections that are provided. Is insurance protection provided as well? I am conscious that with firefighters’ extra responsibilities come the possibility of someone being hurt as a result. I would like to check that point.

[Kirsten Oswald]

We appreciate the work of MOD and other firefighters. It is important that we have in mind some of the concerns that the Fire Brigades Union has raised about the potential unintended consequences of the Bill. It has concerns about the impact of deploying MOD firefighters at fires and other incidents normally dealt with by local authority firefighters. However, there is clearly a need to deal with the issue that is at hand today and to streamline things. That is dealt with by the clause. We agree that it is important that we take the action suggested to close this loophole, as the clause does.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I do not want to intervene on the substance of this debate, but since this is the last grouping of such amendments, it is appropriate to offer my appreciation—I am sure the Minister would agree with me on this—to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who chaired the Select Committee that looked at this Bill in an excellent fashion. The Select Committee showed a tremendous degree of cross-party agreement on the Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his involvement. The Bill is a direct result of that process.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the comments that the Minister has made on this subject. I am keen to see the full implementation of the military covenant and the council community covenants across the whole of Northern Ireland, from county to county and council to council, with everyone getting involved. I am also keen to hear the Minister’s ideas on how to ensure that that happens in its totality in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I have not visited the college, but I would be delighted to do so. My background is in further education, and I have taught public services courses where boys and girls—young men and young women—were actively targeted, so I have some experience in this matter.

As I have just said, the matters that I have just raised are perhaps for another time. Today, we are concerned with the specific need to change the law, so that recruitment in the armed forces is in line with international and developed world standards and norms. I urge the Government to consider the proposed new clauses. If they are not minded to accept them, perhaps they can bring forward their own proposals.

[Jim Shannon]

I rise to endorse the status quo. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), for whom I have the greatest respect.

Training starts at an early age. It starts with the cadets for a great many of our young boys and girls who go on, in the greater spectrum of life, to become the men and women in uniform. That introduction and early training at cadet level gives young people a chance to show their potential and an interest in the armed forces. It also enables them to go further with the training if that is what they wish to do. I am keen to see that training encouraged and retained. I am also conscious, as I know the Minister is, of the fact that a level of training needs to be achieved before a person reaches the age of 18. If we can start from the age of 15 or 16, or even earlier, we will have young soldiers—male and female—equipped and trained to the highest standard and with the necessary experience. With great respect, I feel that what we have at present is perfectly acceptable.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke eloquently and sincerely, but I am afraid that I disagree with her. Many young men and women in my constituency, St Helens North, join the armed forces for the benefits of a constructive education, training and employment, and for those young adults serving their country drives social mobility.

Recruitment at 16 is fully compliant with the UN convention on the rights of the child. As the hon. Lady recognised, soldiers are not deployed until they reach the age of 18.

I caution against the use of the word “children” and particularly the term “child soldier”, which is not only incorrect but somewhat offensive. Indeed, it belittles the trauma and plight of those children across the world who are forced into war and soldiery. For all those reasons, I am afraid that, despite the hon. Lady’s forceful argument, I cannot support new clauses 2 or 3.

--- Later in debate ---

We discussed the matter in the Select Committee, but I repeat that some of the cases, especially rape cases, are complex. Civilian forces have developed techniques, such as the use of rape suites for victims. The volume of cases dealt with by civilian forces means that they are more capable not only of supporting victims when they come forward, but of investigating such serious sexual assaults or rape. Thankfully, the number of instances dealt with in the armed forces is low. The Metropolitan police and other large forces clearly deal with a large number of cases, and they have both expertise and officers who have dealt with different types of sexual assault and rape. Such individuals or police forces would be better placed to ensure that a victim in the military received the same high standards and support that we would expect for the victims of such crimes in civilian life.

[Jim Shannon]

I wish to ask a question about new clause 7. I agree with the shadow Minister, who has very carefully and cautiously outlined the issues. In the past, there have been examples of women who have been abused and raped, which has led to suicide, trauma or depression. These are very important matters. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of an investigation within the existing process, an investigating officer has the power to call any soldiers whatever, male or female, who may have been present when something took place, and that none of them can say, “No, we won’t do that”? I want to make sure that there is a full investigation, and that the person assaulted is given the necessary protection.

[Kirsten Oswald]

It is vital that all matters relating to allegations of or concerns about serious and complex crimes, including sexual assault, rape and murder, are handled with the utmost seriousness, so it is important that such cases are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and with the benefit of the best legal advice. Commanding officers in our armed forces are men and women of skill, professionalism, grit and integrity, but it may simply not be fair to expect them to possess the same level of specialist investigatory skills as those with a professional background in such skills. We would not expect that of any other group. If the victims and alleged perpetrators are dealt with by specialist authorities, everyone will be aware that such matters are handled, as we would all hope, with the appropriate structure, uniformity of approach, transparency and professional best practice.

The maintenance and publication of statistics on sexual assault and rape are key. It is simply not possible or desirable to make assumptions about the level or severity of allegations, prosecutions or convictions. We can only know such details via robust, consistently formatted and regularly produced statistics that are put in the public domain. We would wish to see improvements in the 2017 survey relating to sexual harassment, compared with 2014.

Releasing such statistics is part of our duty of care towards service personnel. It was interesting and heartening to hear in the Select Committee that some of that happens anyway, but it is not approached in a uniform or consistent manner across all services. Without a uniform approach that has the same definitions, frameworks and publication dates, we cannot reasonably keep this matter under review, which we absolutely should do to ensure that we continue to work towards transparency, clarity and improvement for the benefit of all service personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I endorse the comments of the shadow Minister once again. As the Minister will know, we have had some fringe discussions on this issue in the Defence Committee. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who usually sits behind me but is not in his place, has tabled an early-day motion to highlight the issue. The Royal British Legion, as the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) have said, has been part of the campaign and has lobbied hard.

We are all aware of some constituents who have this problem, but if I can be forgiven for saying it, the longer this goes on, the more the guys who would probably qualify for any agreed compensation are likely not to be here any more. That may sound cynical, but it crosses the minds of the potential recipients of the compensation and those of elected representatives who want to reflect the opinion that they are given by such people.

I and the shadow Minister both want to see a fair and equal distribution coming out of the compensation process—as it is for civilians, so it should be for those who have served in uniform. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said when she dealt with the military covenant, these things should really happen normally, without any need for requests from this Chamber. The military covenant is clear; the negative obstacles should be taken away. Members should be able to express their opinion here on behalf of their constituents. There is an urgency about this matter because we need to put right an injustice. I just want to add my support to that of the shadow Minister and other Members who are not in their places today but would love to be here to support this request.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for tabling the new clause. I wish to associate myself with what he said, and with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also congratulate the Royal British Legion on the campaign it has been conducting over the past few months.

Armed Drones

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for bringing the issue to the House and for putting a clear analysis on the record. Drones have become an increasingly integral part of defence, and their capabilities have gone far beyond surveillance. We have the ability to use drones for combat purposes, which is what the debate is all about. We have concerns about drones being indiscriminate, and worries about whether we can be specific in our targeting using such automated systems. However, while military systems have an increasing range of automated functions, no fully autonomous systems are in use. The operation of a drone still needs human input, so it is fair to say that there is still a large enough degree of control. There is no reason why drones should be more indiscriminate than air strikes, boots on the ground or any other method of combat. Humans control drones and work within the rules.

When it comes to surveillance, there is no doubt that drones have revolutionised our ability effectively to gather intelligence across all corners of the globe. We have already seen drones take out incredibly dangerous individuals and gather the intelligence required for forces to go in at ground level and take targets out. Clearly there have been positives resulting from drone use, but that does not mean we should not be mindful of the concerns about their use expressed by some Members. We can do more to address such concerns by taking formal steps better to educate stakeholders and the public as to what drones actually are. Contrary to popular belief, they are not indiscriminate, pilotless killing machines, but state-of-the-art, precise and remotely piloted military systems, controlled by highly professional, highly trained individuals. Decisions about how a drone behaves when on an operation are made by pilots, analysts and a whole team in real time, just like the crew of a traditional aircraft. All UK drone pilots have to follow the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement in exactly the same manner as pilots of traditional manned aircraft.

The decision-making process leading to the identification and engagement of targets is identical to that for conventionally manned aircraft. More than that, as our drone pilots have greater access to information, through a combination of the aircraft’s on-board sensors and the ability to access off-board information, they are the best informed and least pressurised of all our aircrew who have to make critical decisions about when to strike.

In the real world, drones’ capabilities save the lives of our personnel, allies and civilians daily. The vast majority of civilian casualties in the middle east are caused by insurgents, terrorists and truly indiscriminate murderers. It is our remotely piloted aircraft that the terrorists fear most. They know just as well as we do that these systems contribute massively to our identifying them and their weapons.

In the time remaining, which I wish to share with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I want to get to the facts. As of January 2014, Reaper has flown for more than 54,000 hours over Afghanistan. In that time, it has fired just 459 precision weapons. The sophistication of the weapons means that they can change course after release if innocent civilians stray into a strike area. That is one example of the many safeguards in place. We need to be able to harness that effectiveness in future conflicts, including those currently spiralling out of control in the middle east.

We know of one highly regrettable incident in which civilians were killed by a weapon deployed from a UK Reaper. Of course that is one incident too many, but in that case, a strike on two trucks carrying insurgent explosives resulted in four civilian casualties, in addition to the death of the insurgents.

This exceptionally useful tool contributes greatly toward protecting and defending UK forces and civilians. The Government’s use of unmanned and remotely piloted aircraft means that we have to safeguard information relating to our targeting and intelligence capabilities, and that applies across the board. The debate has given us an opportunity to provide the public with more information about drones and how, in reality, they are far from indiscriminate killing machines; rather, they are important and life-saving assets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the Type 26 procurement programme as the next major platform where there will be a significant steel component. We are determined, as a Government who are keen to support our steel industry, that defence contractors will have the opportunity to source that steel from the UK, and we will do as much as we can to help them in that endeavour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to monitor the effects of the Lariam form of mefloquine on service personnel who have taken that drug.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)]

Clinical studies and audits have been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence to assess the effects of Lariam. Those reports and their conclusions are a matter of public record. Lariam is not our first-line treatment and makes up about 1% of our anti-malarial stocks, but for some people, deployed in certain parts of the world, it will be the best drug to protect them from malaria.

[Jim Shannon]

It is becoming patently obvious that those who have had Lariam were not assessed fully before using it. Some of my constituents are those who are suffering most. Given the high level of potential suicide among service personnel, increased mental health concerns and stress-related issues, can the Minister confirm that the MOD will do a thorough review of the use of Lariam and that all service personnel will be assessed before Lariam is used again?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Before any drug is prescribed, an individual risk assessment of the patient is undertaken. In addition, as soon as a prescription is entered on to the electronic records system, a warning is flagged to ensure that the prescriber is absolutely sure that the recipient has not had a mental health problem. That policy is audited by defence primary healthcare organisations. If Members have constituents about whom they are concerned, they should encourage them to see their GP or their medical officer.

Reserve Forces

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I apologise to the shadow Minister and the Minister; two of us have another meeting at half-past 10, which we are duty-bound to go to, so I will have to leave. I mean no disrespect to either hon. Gentleman; it is simply that business presses in other places.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on bringing this important issue to the House and setting the scene well and in great detail. I declare an interest as a member of the Defence Committee—as are others here—and as a former part-time soldier, with three years in the Ulster Defence Regiment and 11 and a half years as a Territorial Army soldier in the Royal Artillery. I never achieved officer status; I drove a 4-tonne lorry—someone had to drive the lorries—and I achieved the very high rank of lance bombardier. I was an ordinary soldier, and so bring some knowledge to the debate.

We have a proud history as a military nation, and are always at the forefront of defending justice, democracy and the vulnerable. That has never been more important, in the light of the attacks on Paris last weekend. We are living in tough economic times, but must ensure that we do not retreat from the world stage. We cannot become isolationist. We are Great Britain—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and are bigger and better than that. Our role is on the global stage, as a strong extrovert international voice. We have been a force for good in the past, and can be in the future. We cannot put that at risk by making huge decisions about our armed forces and our reserve forces without taking into account the changing global environment.

The tragic events of Friday are a stark reminder of the global nature of the threats that we, as a civilisation, face today, so we must think more carefully than ever about the implications of cuts to any aspect of our armed services. I know times are tough and we are being asked to tighten our belts, but the goalposts have moved. The global security environment has changed. The world has changed, and is changing again, and we need to be aware of that. Our armed forces and reserve forces are there if we need them, and we do not want to have depleted armed forces when they are most needed.

I understand that we have to have 82,000 full-time service personnel; on the present figures, we have about 79,500, so we have not even met the figures for full-time personnel. If we are having problems filling the uniforms in our full-time Navy, Air Force and Army, the issues for reserve forces are even more acute. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that the figures have changed and that, in the last few months, we have recruited about 2,500. That would be marvellous news, but let us make sure that when we talk about reserve forces, we do not unknowingly disregard our full-time forces.

I welcome the recruitment drive to increase the reserve forces to 35,000 in strength by 2018, but I reiterate that it is imperative that our armed forces’ effectiveness as a whole is not adversely affected as a result. The Minister and the hon. Member for Kettering, in his introduction, have set the scene relating to our reserve force capacity. It is obvious that we are not yet achieving our aim, but we cannot keep depleting our full-time forces if the reserve forces do not fill the gap—and, to be fair to our reserve forces, they should do so in a way that allows them to compete, and to add to what is already there. With proper training and the appropriate services and amenities, I am sure that we can have the future reserves that we are talking about, whom we can depend on when needed, but we have to make sure that that happens. We cannot replace lost service personnel with reservists who need to be fully trained, because the ultimate consequences of that would be simply too much to bear.

Many of the people who sign up to reserve forces, and are first in line for call-up, work in small businesses; that is probably more the case in Northern Ireland than on the mainland. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how to make sure that there is an employer-employee relationship that ensures that the reservist can give their commitment, and the small business employing 10 or a dozen people can operate. That small business might even employ fewer people than that. If it employs five people and one is taken out, it has a 20% reduction in its workforce. We need to address those issues for the employer as well.

[Mr Brazier]

I am avoiding making interventions because time is so short and so many people want to speak, but I shall, given that the hon. Gentleman has to leave. We have not only expanded the provision for employers in general when people are mobilised, but have introduced a supplementary £500 per month per individual mobilised for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I welcome his point.

[Jim Shannon]

It is obvious that the Government are responding to the situation, but I am conscious of the mechanics of how that works in a small business. I appreciate the Minister’s response, however.

In Northern Ireland, we are already almost at our capacity for reserve forces. Our numbers are very clear. I have said in the past, and I say it again for the record, that if there is room to take more reservists, and I believe there is, it is important to make up at least some of those numbers in Northern Ireland. We can expand recruitment capacity in the Province to help meet the required number of reserves, as the Province has a long history of serving. Indeed, it provides more service personnel proportionally than any other British region.

The British Medical Association is concerned about undermanning in the Defence Medical Services and the effect that will have on morale, motivation and retention. The 253 (North Irish) Medical Regiment has an important role to play in the future of any Army action, wherever that may be in the world. The reservists’ role in that is so important. DMS says that although many who are willing to serve Queen and country get the very best, which is no less than they deserve, there are concerns about how the numbers will be made up, so there needs to be a strong recruitment drive. Constituents of mine who are doctors, and other personnel and staff from hospitals, are involved in that. Some specialities, such as neurology or urology, will be provided entirely by the reserve forces, as I understand it, and perhaps the Minister will comment on that. According to the BMA, there is a shortfall of approximately 68% in DMS. We need to deal with some of those issues.

Time is going by, so I will finish. We need to focus on where the shortfalls are in DMS, and to ensure that employers have a role and can let their personnel be part of that. We should offer our strongest condolences to those affected by the Paris attacks. I urge Members to learn from those events, and to be mindful, when deciding the future of our armed forces, that evil forces such as Daesh or ISIS are exactly why we must maintain strong, influential and quality armed services. Our reserves are very much part of that.

Military Personnel and Veterans (Children and Young Carers)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am glad to have secured this Adjournment debate on the need to support the children, young people and young carers of military personnel and veterans. In the week leading up to Remembrance Sunday, I am glad that so many Members—at least on the SNP Benches—have chosen to stay for the debate.

Given that we are approaching Remembrance Sunday, I should not need to remind the House that communities and politicians across these islands will seek to commemorate the fallen. During a recent Adjournment debate on mental health and armed forces veterans, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), it became clear to me and to those watching that there is a glaring omission in this House’s public policy with regard to military personnel, veterans and those who suffer as a result of a familial connection with the armed forces. I am grateful to the Minister for Community and Social Care for taking an intervention from me during that debate, but I am sure that neither he nor the Ministry of Defence would have thought it would lead to this Adjournment debate on the support that should be offered to the children, young people and young carers of the families of military personnel and veterans. I hope that the House will forgive me for reiterating the title of the debate. It is critical, given some of the glaring omissions in public policy that we are currently seeing.

Academics are rightly continuing to explore the impact, effect and outcome of participation in combat. I am grateful to Mr Paul Watson, who, having listened to the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, forwarded to me a range of research material and other information relating to the issue. I am especially grateful to Paul for highlighting the lack of research on the lives and experiences of children within the wider military family, which includes the Ministry of Defence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to be involved in Adjournment debates, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. According to Beyond the Battlefield, a charity in my constituency that looks after ex-service personnel and veterans, 18,700 of them are receiving some sort of care in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the veterans who suffer, but their wives and children, and that the effects are far-reaching and long-lasting?

[Martin John Docherty]

I certainly could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—who, indeed, has stolen some of the thunder from the rest of my speech—about the wider impact of service life on the partners, spouses and children of both veterans and those in active service.

Armed Forces Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Let me begin by expressing, on behalf of my party, sincere sympathies to the families of Flight Lieutenant Alan Scott and Flight Lieutenant Geraint Roberts, who gave their lives in Afghanistan.

I thank, with sincere appreciation, all who have contributed to the Bill’s progress so far, and who have introduced changes that have been in reserve until now. The issue that we are discussing is of the utmost importance to every Member. Those who are present have a specific interest in it, but many others who would like to be present are unable to attend. For the record, let me convey an apology from the Chair of the Defence Committee, and from other Committee members who cannot be here because they are dealing with other business, but who would have wished to participate if that had been possible.

A strong, effective and renowned armed forces has always been at the heart of our great nation—that united nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with all four of its regions together—and has always been a proud and important pillar of our national identity. Like others who are present, I am strongly committed to the armed forces covenant, which I want to see delivered in its entirety throughout all four regions in the United Kingdom. I also believe that it is important to look after veterans with mental and physical disabilities. Last night, we had the opportunity to listen to an excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who presented the case for those veterans. As we heard just now from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), the report of that debate is well worth reading, including the positive response from the Minister for Community and Social Care.

I am sure Members agree that when our armed forces are having a positive impact, whether delivering aid to the needy or toppling a tyrant, that instils in us a great sense of pride in being British—and no one is prouder than I am of being British. That said, however, when something is broken it needs to be fixed, and when something could be better, it needs reform. Unfortunately, not all our personnel are receiving the protection that they deserve in terms of their human rights. It is time for a review and time for change, and that is what the Bill proposes. The key focus of the Bill must be on ensuring that we protect and uphold the human rights of those who serve in our armed forces.

I commend the Defence Secretary for creating a service complaints ombudsman. That positive legislative change was necessary, and it is vitally important to ensuring that our armed forces receive the fair treatment that they have earned and deserve. I was delighted with the amendment to the Armed Forces (Services Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, which granted the new ombudsman power to investigate the nature of service complaints rather than merely processing claims of maladministration. That was clearly a positive step.

However, while those developments are most welcome, more could and needs to be done. Members have mentioned alcohol and drugs: the Secretary of State did so in setting the scene, and no doubt others will do so as well. We need armed forces that are accountable and responsible, we need a system of regulating and legislating, and we need testing for alcohol and drugs.

There is overwhelming evidence that sexual assault and rape are a pressing issue for many of our service personnel, especially our servicewomen. In its 2015 sexual harassment report, the Army recorded that 39% of servicewomen questioned had received unwelcome comments about their appearance, body or sexual activities, compared with just 22% of servicemen. Furthermore, 33% of servicewomen had been subject to unwelcome attempts to talk about sexual matters, compared with only 19% of servicemen; 12% of servicewomen had received unwanted attempts to talk about sexual matters, compared with just 6% of servicemen; 10% of servicewomen had received unwanted attempts to establish a sexual relationship, despite discouragement, compared with only 2% of servicemen; 4% of servicewomen had been told that they would be treated better in return for a sexual relationship; and 2% reported that they had been sexually assaulted.

Those statistics reveal something that is totally horrendous and totally unacceptable, and the need for significant change. The Bill gives us a chance to make that change, which is good news. Some of the figures may seem small, but that does not make them any less unacceptable. Would any other line of work tolerate such figures? The Departments concerned would certainly be asked to make legislative changes. Indeed, would such figures feature in any other line of work? The figures that I have given show that sexual assault and rape are a problem that needs to be tackled within our armed forces—not least for women, who fare far worse than men.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the existence of a representative body—a federation—would help or hinder a solution to the problem that he is rightly identifying?

[Jim Shannon]

We shall obviously have some idea of the Government’s thoughts on that when the Minister responds to the debate, but I think that the establishment of such a body would be very helpful, although its terms of reference would have to be discussed.

The nature of the Army prevents many women from speaking out, because they do not want to be perceived as weak in such an environment. The problem is that there is such a strong bond of camaraderie that the culture makes it important for servicemen and servicewomen to get along without creating a fuss. As we know, there have been stories in the press about service personnel who have been abused and subsequently traumatised, and who, unfortunately, may have succumbed to loss of life as a result. There needs to be a change in the culture of our armed forces in relation to this serious subject, but we, as legislators, can do our part by means of the Bill.

Data and evidence of such offences are scarce, because we lack a comprehensive and reliable collection of data. That, too, must change: we need to get a serious grip on the issue, and we need records so that we can monitor our progress. As well as monitoring, however, we should set a target for administrative change, and the Bill may make that possible. To fix any problem, it is necessary first to understand the extent of it, and the lack of data does not reassure those concerned that the issue is being taken seriously enough. This is just one of a number of areas that urgently need reform.

It is incredibly worrying that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not ensure that a commanding officer is required to notify the police of an allegation of a sexual assault. In fact, such an inherently serious offence ought to be subject to an automatic referral, and I should like that to be considered during debates on the Bill. Sexual assault is a gross violation of an individual’s physical integrity, and the repercussions for the victim can be endless. As I said earlier, we are well aware of high-profile cases in which people have taken their lives. The figures and statistics that have been cited today should shock each and every Member, and I hope they have made clear the need for urgent action.

I commend the changes relating to Ministry of Defence firefighters. It seems ludicrous that when firefighters need to break into a place, they should not be able to do so, and it also seems ludicrous that they cannot regulate traffic. Those are small changes, and it is only right that they should be made.

I hope and trust—indeed, I know—that Members will take seriously all the comments that have been made, and will continue to pay the utmost attention and respect to these incredibly important issues. I commend the Armed Forces Bill.

Drones in Conflict

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

After this debate there will be a small ceremony to mark the three crests in memory of three Members of this House who died during the great war and who, until this point, have not been recognised.

In the immediate aftermath of that war, the strategist J.F.C. Fuller predicted the demilitarisation of warfare as machines replaced men on the battlefield. General Fuller was well ahead of his time, but the recent use of unmanned machines to eliminate people in a country where we are not actively engaged in war fighting was described by the Prime Minister on 7 September as a “new departure”. Perhaps in time, drones will rank alongside the longbow in the hundred years war, and submarines a century ago. Both in their time were castigated as disreputable and even cowardly, on the grounds that they appeared—initially at least—to be capable of killing with little risk to the operator.

This debate takes place as we contemplate a further vote on military action in Syria, and in the meantime drones have been used to kill two British citizens in Raqqa on 21 August under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Last week the Prime Minister announced that the number of RAF drones would be doubled, and yesterday the Defence Secretary issued a written ministerial statement about the Protector replacement for Reaper.

I support the development of unmanned air systems as part of the UK’s defence and security. Their endurance, the removal of personal risk from our troops, and the potential for reducing civilian casualties, together with the cost implications of simulator-based training, are all impressive. However, like any “new departure” they must be appraised critically.

Ministers have said that drones operate under existing generic rules of engagement and that nothing more is required. I would like to unpack that a bit, particularly since that assertion appears to conflict with the Ministry of Defence development, concepts and doctrine organisation’s joint doctrine note of March 2011. That JDN notes what we now know to be a “new departure”, and calls explicitly for an unmanned aerial vehicle governance road map. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in advancing the JDN’s recommendations? Will the road map be published? If so, when?

The availability of low-risk, low-cost means of delivering military effect risks lowering the bar for military intervention. It could be that the killings in Raqqa, which I volubly supported in September, illustrate the point. Would the Government have ordered this new departure without the risk-free means of delivery made possible by drones? Indeed, the absence of any obvious criminal or disruptive proceedings against collaborators of the individuals killed in Raqqa suggests that the unmanned aerial vehicle action was not as pressing as we initially understood it to be. Were it otherwise, one would have expected a highly sophisticated delivery and support system in the UK where the offence or offences were to be committed. As yet, we have seen no evidence of that.

In its response to the Defence Committee’s report, the Government denied that the availability of drones lowers the bar for military intervention. I expect the Minister to reiterate that today. However, unless Ministers are prepared to say that risk to our own troops is immaterial in determining whether to embark on military action, which I do not think she will, that line will have to be finessed in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this important debate. He has clearly outlined the issue for military use, but there is an opportunity to use drones for surveillance. In Northern Ireland, we have very active dissident republicans and the threat level is severe. Does he feel that drones could be used, for example by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to enable better surveillance and to catch terrorists involved in illegal activity?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his normal fashion. He will understand that Northern Ireland falls outwith the scope of today’s debate, but those responsible for security in Northern Ireland will no doubt examine all the options open to them to safeguard the people living in Northern Ireland.

I hope the newly repopulated Intelligence and Security Committee will be assisted by Ministers in applying its forensic skills to investigate the Raqqa killings. I am confident that the action was only taken, as the Prime Minister said on 7 September, as there was “no alternative”, so it should be able to reassure the public fairly easily. However, it or others must substantiate or refute the hypothesis that, in the Raqqa case, the availability of drones lowered the bar for intervention under article 51 on 21 August. If the former is the case, UAVs will indeed be a new departure in the tradition of J.F.C. Fuller, and the argument for tailored doctrine and rules of engagement will be overwhelming.

This is especially important as what may seem like surgical, low-risk interventions have an unnerving history of altogether bigger consequences that are difficult to predict and control. What is more, the use of particular systems by the UK legitimises their use by other states. The quality of our doctrine and our rules of engagement have a direct bearing on those of others. If we are seen to be relaxed about this new departure, we cannot be surprised if others take a similar line.

The use of drones by the US to eliminate operatives in Pakistan and Yemen is highly controversial. I am one of the greatest admirers of the United States, but its post-war history of what has become known as blowback —provoking sometimes game-changing retaliation through the generation of civilian collateral—is alarming. America’s allies are at risk of being seen as colluding to the point that the Defence Committee has called for a clear demarcation in the operation of drones where, of course, interchangeability of US and UK personnel and airframes is very advanced. The Birmingham Policy Commission was assured that UK personnel releasing a weapon from a United States air force vehicle remain subject to UK rules of engagement. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, since manned air operations in Syria—despite the express will of this House two years ago, however right or wrong—suggest otherwise?

We cannot directly influence our allies’ ROEs, but we can ensure that joint operations are conducted appropriately, that NATO doctrine is acceptable and that UK personnel are not compromised. Will the Minister say how many UK servicemen are involved in the operational use of drones with US or other forces and what arrangements she has made to ensure that the ROEs they are required to use do not fall short of the standards applicable in the UK? What will be done to ensure that data acquired using drones are not then used by allies to act against targets in a way that the UK public might find objectionable? The Defence Committee has suggested that the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this. Without wishing to overburden the ISC, would she agree that that suggestion is sound and do what she can to facilitate it?

Drones are all controlled by human beings, but concern remains over the development of autonomous airframes and so-called killer robots. Some level of independence already applies to a few of our existing weapon systems, such as Phalanx, but it would be useful if the Minister delineated the bounds of acceptability. Can she confirm that the UK is bound by the missile technology control regime, the Wassenaar arrangement and not least the consolidated criteria? What is her view of the future for unmanned technology exploitation in the UK aerospace and defence sector? Will she confirm that the UK Government would be unlikely to license the export of autonomous weapon systems?

Can I tempt the Minister to indicate how UAVs will feature in the upcoming strategic defence and security review? It sometimes seems that the only defence policy the Scottish National party has is the restoration of maritime patrol aircraft. Manned airframes for that purpose seem increasingly last century, so will she say whether UAVs—perhaps the US systems Poseidon or Triton, or NATO’s high altitude long endurance proposition —are being actively considered to restore capability taken at risk on withdrawal of Nimrod? Will the MOD now undertake to publish the study we understand is being conducted by the MOD into that matter?

Will the Minister say where we are with the future combat air system? A joint BAE Systems and Dassault post-Typhoon and Rafael unmanned combat air system concept trailed in the Lancaster House treaties and launched in 2012 appears to have stalled. Will she say what has happened to it and the extent to which the challenges of evolving technology designed for permissive airspace and data feeds to deal with hostile environments and semi-autonomy are delaying progress?

Will the Minister confirm that the UK has no interest in the European Defence Agency’s medium altitude long endurance remotely piloted aircraft systems project? I remember being distinctly lukewarm about that, as I am with “more Europe” in defence generally, at the Foreign Affairs Council when I was at the MOD. When will the Navy’s maritime UAV strategy paper be finished and published? If drones are relatively cheap, easy to control, low risk and readily deployable, they may well become a weapon of choice for non-state actors. What assessment has been made of this and, while spending on UAVs is bucking the defence spending trend in this country, what investment is being made in countermeasures?

I would like to consider the implications of emerging technology on military software—on uniformed men and women who serve this country. With the SDSR pending, it is important for Ministers to understand where technological advances are taking not only defence hardware but its software—the human beings who populate the military today and will do so over the next two decades. Air marshals gamely tried to convince us that a drone pilot playing with his joystick in the Nevada desert or Lincolnshire is the lineal descendent of “the few” and of airmen in conflicts since—that is, people who engage directly with or are engaged by the enemy in the air.

Although the mental challenge to a person who logs off and goes home after a shift in Lincolnshire should not be equated with an infanteer in Basra or Helmand, the psychological implications of killing the enemy at a distance rather than at close quarters merit close examination, particularly since operators lack the unit cohesion and support systems of those physically on the frontline.

If Fuller is right, military practitioners will increasingly be technicians, not tough men at the end of a bayonet. “Professional spirit” will replace “fighting spirit”: it will be as if the Royal Army Dental Corps has taken over from the Black Watch. If so, in the sanitised operations of the future, “fighting spirit” may become a positive disadvantage. The military covenant exists because of the extraordinary risks run by fighting forces. If there are few risks beyond the expectation of routine civilian employment, there is no need for a covenant.

General Fuller’s prediction of the end of the infantry was premature, but it may yet have its day as we shift from hand-to-hand to hands-off combat in an environment where societal tolerance for taking and inflicting casualties is low. If so, there are profound implications for how we structure our armed forces, the sort of people we recruit to them and the implicit deal struck between servicemen and the nation, reflected in the military covenant.

Sgt Alexander Blackman (Marine A)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is an honour and a privilege to take part in this vital debate. I commend the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for giving us all the chance to participate and to hear at first hand his presentation in Westminster Hall today. I spoke to him last week to get some ideas and I asked whether the story would appear in the Daily Mail. He said, “I am not sure about that”—he knew of course, but he was preparing for the story to break.

This debate, arguably more than any other, is of the utmost importance as it comes at a time when a man’s fight for justice hangs in the balance. I am in the Chamber to participate both as the Member of Parliament for Strangford and as someone who is honoured to have served Queen and country in my time: as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a Territorial Army soldier in the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years. I am here along with many other hon. and gallant Members.

Perhaps the case strikes such a chord with me because of my background, although it might simply be because justice was not done. That would explain why the case has caused such a public outcry, with more than 100,000 people calling for Sergeant Blackman’s conviction to be quashed. We in Britain pride ourselves on ensuring that justice prevails, but in this case I am afraid that it has not been done.

For the first time in history, a British serviceman has been convicted of murder. Given the injustices surrounding the court case, I am not surprised that the Daily Mail dubbed Sergeant Blackman a “political scapegoat”—well done to the Daily Mail for highlighting the case and giving us the chance to find out more about the background. What I find most shocking is that vital evidence was withheld and that a colonel who was blocked from telling the truth to the court martial was so disgusted that he resigned his commission.

Forgive me for a rather long quote, but it is important that it goes on the record. It needs to be heard in its entirety, because it is undoubtedly one of the most damning remarks made about the case. On his resignation, Colonel Lee said:

“Sgt Blackman’s investigation, court martial and sentencing authority remain unaware to this day of the wider context within which he was being commanded when he acted as he did.

My attempts to bring proper transparency to this process were denied by the chain of command. Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation on his behalf”—

that is the thrust of the contribution of the hon. Member for South Dorset.

“The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command.”

That is the quotation.

Given the evidence that has come to light and the failure to provide original evidence that might have resulted in a lesser charge of manslaughter, which was “deliberately withheld”, I see no reason why the case cannot be reviewed by the courts-martial appeal court. What has happened simply would not happen in any other case, particularly not in the British justice system that we regard so highly. For a British serviceman and acting colour sergeant in the Royal Marines, deemed to be a man of “impeccable moral courage”, to have been treated in such a way and to have been served with such injustice is downright wrong and completely and utterly unacceptable.

Sergeant Blackman was a man prepared to lay down his life for his country, who saw two of his comrades blown up, saw another comrade tortured and murdered, and saw another’s severed limbs hung from a tree by the Taliban. That was the daily hell that Sergeant Blackman faced. He had to keep it together for the men he led, just as now he keeps it together for the sake of his wife. He did all that in the face of post-traumatic stress disorder, another factor that might have significantly impaired his judgment on that fateful day. Now, this man has been let down by the country he fought so courageously for. I understand that the members of the panel that decided Sergeant Blackman’s fate were not informed of facts that could have helped to reduce his sentence.

This whole situation has come about because of a great failing in the justice system and in the court martial, as well as the failings of those in command who left Sergeant Blackman’s troop isolated, without enough manpower, under-resourced and sustaining a daily onslaught from the Taliban. Those failings were not Sergeant Blackman’s fault, but he had to deal with the situation regardless. It is no wonder that we have found out that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly as he was the one who had to lead a troop of men. He has said—I quote from the Library information pack:

“I had been sent to a brutal battlefield to fight for my country in an unpopular war.”

Given where he was and what he was doing, he was very clearly under physical and emotional pressure. He had no choice but to keep it together as best he could.

It is important to note that the man killed was one of two Taliban fighters sneaking up on a British outpost called Taalanda. Those two men had only one purpose: to kill the British troops at the outpost. An Apache crew was assembled and 139 rounds were fired from a 30 mm cannon; unsurprisingly, the crew did not think it possible that anyone had survived. Upon finding the casualty, it was noted that he had been fatally wounded and was unconscious, although at that point he had not passed away.

Sergeant Blackman knows that what he did was wrong. He claims that the remark he made about the Geneva Convention was in relation to the mistreatment of the corpse, something he knows he should not have done. However, the pressures that he was facing, frequently caused by the poor judgment of senior command, and the daily bloodshed that he witnessed while struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder are valid reasons why, in a moment’s lack of judgment, something like that can occur. It saddens me that someone as highly thought of and well-respected as Sergeant Blackman, can, because of one split-second mistake, be dismissed and treated with such disdain and disrespect.

I fully support the e-petition, with over 100,000 signatures, calling for Sergeant Blackman’s conviction to be quashed. When I read about Big Al, as he was known to friends and family, it saddened me to learn that the 6 foot 3 inch giant had grown gaunt during his time in prison—it has obviously had an effect. It is little wonder, particularly as I am sure that Sergeant Blackman never in a million years expected to be serving a life sentence after serving his country with determination, bravery and dedication. His case needs to be referred urgently to the court martial appeals court, so that this shameful injustice can be fully investigated—this time, with all the available evidence and statements.