Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Debate between John McDonnell and James Gray

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and James Gray

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

We shall have another discussion, on aesthetics, later.

I am sure that all Members will be aware that Brian Haw is being treated for cancer, and, whatever our feelings about the protest camp and, in particular, Brian himself, I am sure that we all wish him well in his recovery, even though some might not want a specific geographical location designated for that recovery.

I will explain the background to the amendments, because the issue was excellently debated in what was an entertaining Committee. I am not often placed on such Committees—on average, it happens once every 10 years—but I read the Committee notes and thought that it was an excellent debate about the background to the Bill and the amendments themselves.

As people know, Brian took up his protest a decade ago, and anyone who has ever talked to him will understand his fervent belief in the need for peace and for the avoidance of war, and his concern for the innocent victims of war. His chosen method of protest has been to bear witness in front of the Houses of Parliament to the suffering of others as a result of war, and he has done so by choosing to place an encampment in the square, by addressing Members and others with a loudhailer and by engaging in discussions with others to try to convince them of the errors of entering into military action.

Brian reminds us all of the consequences of the decisions that we take in this place, and he perhaps attempts to influence us in our future decisions. His is a traditional form of protest: peaceful, non-violent and similar to protests that have occurred elsewhere in this country and throughout the world.

When the original proposals came forward under the previous Government, we engaged in that debate and a number of Members expressed their extreme dislike of Brian Haw and his colleagues’ presence outside Parliament. I sat through endless pompous speeches about the sanctity of Parliament square, complaints about not being able to work for the noise of the loudhailer that Brian used, and long-winded debates about the aesthetics of Parliament square. I have a sneaking suspicion that what a number of Members did not like was being reminded of the impact of the decisions that they had taken in this House—decisions that have caused so much human suffering.

The previous Government nevertheless brought forward legislation, which, I think we all agree now, was tedious, bureaucratic and unworkable—and has degenerated into farce. I commend the comedian Mark Thomas for his work to expose its farcical nature. Interestingly, the poor drafting of that legislation meant that it failed to deal with what many Members thought was the harm being done by Brian’s presence, because the legislators—I did not like to point it out to them at the time—failed to make it retrospective, so it never addressed the issue of the encampments. In addition, the permit system became a mockery of what the legislation intended. It degenerated into farce when one person was arrested simply for reading out the names of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I welcomed—and I said so publicly—the statements by the former Opposition that that legislation would be repealed. I made that very clear before the election and during the election campaign as a result of which the coalition Government were formed. The problem is that this Bill does not scrap the previous Government’s proposals. In fact, it impedes peaceful protest. I give this warning: if it goes through, it will degenerate into the same unworkable and unmanageable farce that the previous legislation degenerated into. Having looked at the evidence from Committee and read the discussions, I think that these proposals will put an unmanageable burden on police officers and local authority officers, and increase their vulnerability to conflict rather than reducing it.

In my view, the Government’s proposals are unacceptably restrictive. They replace one unworkable system with another and have the same effect of restricting, for no good, sensible reason, the right of peaceful protest and assembly and free speech in Parliament square. These proposals are still specific to Parliament square, although I accept that the definition is narrower than in the previous Government’s legislation. The proposals still place a burden on a constable, but extend it to a local council officer to direct a person to stop doing something and to use physical force to take equipment away. Under the proposals, a person who is convicted may be fined up to £5,000, which is a level 5 offence—I find that draconian, to say the least, and well over the top—and a formal application would still have to be made concerning loudspeaker use and to prevent the erection of sleeping structures.

The bizarre debate in Committee about what is a sleeping structure was extremely entertaining. The most intense and heated part of the debate involved the modernist versus the traditionalist: those who supported the duvet approach to sleep as against those who supported the blanket and sheet approach. That is the nature of the judgments and valuations that individual police officers will have to make: “Is that a sleeping bag I see in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?”; “Is that a sleeping structure you’re carrying with you or a banner supporting the Police Federation?” It will become absolutely ludicrous. The other issue is this: what if someone can sleep standing up, leaning against a structure or against a wall? Does that become a sleeping structure itself? We will go through the same old problems that we had with the previous legislation.

I will be brief, because other Members want to speak, and there is another important group of amendments to discuss. The reasons for the amendments are very straightforward; they have been rehearsed in Committee and in debates on the previous Government’s legislation. In this country, we pride ourselves on a strong democratic tradition of peaceful protest. That has created climates of opinion external to Parliament that have influenced decisions in this House and the decisions of Governments of all political persuasions. It is linked to the fundamental right to free speech and fundamental right of assembly and association. In everything that we do in this House, it behoves us to guard against undermining any of those basic human rights.

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

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the right of peaceful protest and the strength of our great British democracy in allowing that. Surely, however, there is a distinction to be made between those who are genuine protesters—I rather agree with him about loudspeakers, incidentally—and those who are campers and dossers staying on a permanent basis, and who are demonstrably an eyesore.

[John McDonnell]

I do not think that the peace campaigners in Parliament square are vagrants or dossers; they are performing a basic democratic service. If they were vagrants or dossers, other legislation, which is used on a regular basis across the country, is available to address that problem. Spending parliamentary time specifically to target half a dozen people who are trying to express their democratic wishes demonstrates to the outside world that we might not have our priorities right.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Whether or not people agree with Brian—and I do—he provides us with an essential service in reminding us of the consequences of our decisions in the House. That might offend some people, but sometimes it is helpful to have such offence to draw our attention to the consequences of what we do here. Whatever Members think, and whether or not the tents annoy people who think they are messy or untidy, that is no reason to take away people’s right to choose their method of peaceful protest.

[Mr Gray]

If the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept the distinction that I proposed to him a moment ago, might he not accept that there is a distinction to be made between Brian Haw, who is quite possibly a genuine peace protester and possibly to be respected for his commitment, and the large number of other people who have appeared in recent months and put up their tents? Who knows who they are? If he will not accept that distinction, how many more tents should we accept in Parliament square before we decide that the people in them are illegal campers rather than protestors?

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman has an exceptionally valid point, which has to be addressed reasonably. Wherever in the country we find that constructions have been erected that people find objectionable, we use planning legislation to deal with them. That legislation already exists. The other people who have joined Brian Haw are mostly peace protestors, and others have come along in support of other causes. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, we had the Tamils come along when the war in Sri Lanka was going on. They camped there for a week, and it would have been heart-rending to try to shift them when they were seeking to influence us to intervene to seek peace, which we did. We helped as best we could to prevent further disaster in Sri Lanka. It is all a matter of reasonable judgment and trying to ensure that we protect basic human rights. The grounds for incursions on human rights cannot just be about the aesthetic displeasure of a number of Members of the House. That is why repealing the previous Government’s legislation was extremely important.

In the debate on that legislation, and I believe in Committee on the Bill, the question was asked whether allowing one group of people to protest precluded others from turning up to protest. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, to which I pay tribute for the support it has given us on the issue, has made it clear that there has been no evidence of other people saying that they cannot protest, or of a backlog of protestors unable to get to Parliament square.