Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this important debate. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, she has considerable knowledge of such matters and it is interesting to hear her views on the issue.

Unmanned aerial vehicles can play a crucial role in keeping our servicemen and women on the front line safe. We know that the military operate in a hostile environment on the front line in Afghanistan, and convoys provide a target for rebels and improvised explosive devices. However, with the ability to scout their route with surveillance drones, commanders on the ground can avoid potential hazards quickly. Drones can also take the place of human pilots when carrying out dull, dangerous or dirty jobs, such as repetitive reconnaissance work, surveillance in hostile territory, or flying through areas where chemical or biological weapons have been used.

We can acknowledge that drones save the lives of many in our armed forces, but we must accept, as others have said, that there are civilian casualties and deaths from drones. That is principally an issue in Pakistan, and as “Panorama” reported yesterday, it affects real people, young and old, and has an indelible and devastating effect on their families and local communities. Therefore, drones must be used in accordance with international law, with every effort made to minimise civilian casualties.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I point to the Medact report that was launched a few months ago in the House of Commons—I was involved in that—which says that the weapon is not damage-free for users. We now have significant medical evidence from monitoring the psychological effects of drones on those who are engaged in their use. Although it initially appears to have no effect, it undermines psychological well-being.

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. More research must be done in this field. It could be very important.

Like regular manned aircraft, drones come in many shapes and sizes. I understand that the Global Hawk has a wingspan of 116 feet, while the technology is developing so quickly that we may soon see drones the size of insects. What is going on is incredible. Things are moving very quickly. The US air force now has more flight hours with drones than with manned aircraft. This innovation will see all branches of the armed forces benefiting from the technology. It has been reported that the Royal Navy is investigating the development of marine drones to detect mines in important shipping routes.

Developments in the military sphere can also lead to changes in routine or unpleasant jobs in civilian life. We read that old silos in Sellafield that were sealed off and left undisturbed since the 1950s are finally being examined by scientists using drone technology. Who knows what we could learn from those important investigations? Difficult or repetitive tasks, such as patrolling borders or monitoring weather patterns, could also be made easier.

With important work being done on the front line and potentially life-saving developments in the pipeline, this technology offers significant capability and may soon offer a range of important domestic applications, so it is essential that we have an open debate about both the ethics of drones and their practical deployment. This is an important debate, and I am glad that we are starting to have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gray]

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

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

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

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

[John McDonnell]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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