Gurkha Veterans
David Davis Excerpts(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As former Officer Cadet Francois 24663730, and latterly Lieutenant Francois, 5th Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment (Volunteers), I am proud to be asked to sum up for His Majesty’s official Opposition in this important debate about Gurkhas and their welfare. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), not just on securing this important debate, but on introducing it so very ably. As some Members of the House may know, I am something of a military history buff, so I have at least some appreciation of the noble and valiant service that the Gurkhas have provided to the British Crown for over 200 years.
We have heard a number of important Back-Bench speeches this afternoon, including from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point that, in an important debate on this subject, 27 Back-Bench rebels made the difference on the day. He cited that as an example of how Back Benchers can affect the future. I remember how 28 Tory MPs changed the future on meaningful vote three in 2019—although, for our trouble, we were nicknamed “the Spartans” by the media, and not “the Gurkhas”.
The Gurkhas celebrated their 200th anniversary in British service in 2015, when a very striking memorial was unveiled on Horse Guards Avenue, just across the road from the Ministry of Defence. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned today, the inscription on that memorial bears repetition in this context:
“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”
The Gurkhas entered British service in 1815, when a battalion of Gurkha troops was formed under the auspices of the East India Company. They continued in British service, and during the Indian rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and they became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. They remained in the British Indian Army, and fought valiantly in both the first and second world wars.
In his brilliant book “Defeat into Victory”, which was written after the end of the second world war, and is arguably one of the greatest works ever written on the subject of generalship, one of the Gurkhas’ most famous officers, Field Marshal Viscount the Lord Slim, fondly recalled his association with the Gurkhas in the following terms:
“I was able to visit my old Battalion, the 1st/6th Gurkha Rifles, in which I had served for many happy years. It was good to see them again, and to be told by the divisional commander that they had done well in the Bridgehead fighting. I spoke to Gurkha officers who I had first known 20-odd years before, when I was adjutant, and they were chubby recruits straight from the from the Nepal hills. Now they were subadars, commanding companies and platoons on a hard-fought field. Real soldiers and real leaders.”
What a marvellous tribute to the Gurkhas from Bill Slim, an absolutely exceptional leader.
The Gurkhas continued to fight valiantly in British service, including in the Malayan emergency and during the Falklands war, when a battalion of Gurkhas were part of the British taskforce that liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation in 1982. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury rightly paid tribute to Ghanendra Limbu, who was part of that successful campaign. We thank all those who have served proudly in the Gurkhas for their service.
The Gurkhas still form a fundamental part of the British Army today, serving in what is now known as the Brigade of Gurkhas, a collective term that refers to all serving Gurkha units. It includes three infantry battalions, one of which is based in Brunei. The second is in the United Kingdom, and there is now a third, smaller, specialist infantry battalion at Aldershot, as part of what is known as the Specialised Infantry Group. In addition, the Gurkhas have a number of other units, including signals, engineer and logistics regiments, and, interestingly, from 2025 onwards, there has been the new King’s Gurkha Artillery, which was based at Larkhill.
Despite some disputes over welfare issues, which I will come to in a moment, recruitment from the Gurkhas’ ancestral homeland of Nepal is still very healthy. To this day, we recruit several hundred Gurkhas every year, and those places are massively oversubscribed. Many young men from Nepal still strive to emulate their forebears and join one Gurkha regiment or another to serve the Crown, and long may that continue.
However, in the post-war period, the basis of the Gurkhas’ service was the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, the United Kingdom and India, which established terms and conditions of service for Gurkhas in the British armed forces. Under the arrangement, Gurkhas served in the British Army on distinct terms and conditions. They also had access to a Gurkha pension scheme, first introduced in 1948, which, in essence, followed the Indian army model. It provided Gurkha soldiers with an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, but, as has been pointed out, at equivalent Indian army rates.
In 2007, the Labour Government introduced the Gurkha offer to transfer—or GOTT, as it was sometimes referred to—offering Gurkhas who served after July 1997 the option to transfer their eligible service into the United Kingdom’s armed forces pension scheme, or AFPS. I remember much debate about the AFPS when I was a Minister, and about the different benefits provided by the different generations of the scheme, whether it was AFPS 1975, 2005 or 2015—I see the Minister nodding in acknowledgement.
Significantly in this context, following the handing back of Hong Kong in 1997, the Gurkhas transferred their main base from that former colony back to the United Kingdom, where they are mainly deployed today. After 2009 and a sustained campaign led by, among others, Joanna Lumley—the daughter of a former Gurkha officer—the then Government amended the immigration rules, in essence to allow those who had served in the Brigade of Gurkhas for four years or more to settle themselves and their immediate families in the United Kingdom. That effectively remains the position today. As a result, there are now clusters of Gurkhas and their families living in the UK, mainly in current or former garrison areas, but some are dispersed further afield.
For some time, there has been a campaign to amend the pensions of Gurkha veterans who served many years ago and still draw a pension, so that they are at the equivalent AFPS rate, rather than based on the comparable Indian army rate. The traditional argument is that because most Gurkhas returned to Nepal on the conclusion of their service, where costs were lower, it was appropriate to pay them under the old arrangements. However, after the end of their basing in Hong Kong and the switch of the brigade to the United Kingdom—and, indeed, given that many Gurkhas now avail themselves of the option of settling in the UK with their immediate family following their period of service—the question arises of whether the pension arrangements should be altered, including for older Gurkha veterans. I commend the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for advancing their arguments in the way he has done this afternoon. He has been a strong advocate of their case. I am afraid that I cannot, standing at the Dispatch Box, make an immediate spending commitment on behalf of my party to satisfy the hon. Member—
Mr Francois
—although I hear calls from senior Members behind me to do so. Nevertheless, I can perhaps provide at least some additional context to this debate. Let me set out what I mean by that. For many years, all western armies—be they American, Canadian, Australian, German or otherwise—have struggled to recruit and retain sufficient regular and reserve personnel. I would argue that there have been particular problems in Britain, because of an extremely poor recruitment contract with Capita, or —forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—Crapita, as it was nicknamed by Private Eye. I proved spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading Conservative Ministers to take away the contract, despite my best efforts.
At a time when all western armies have struggled to recruit and retain, the Gurkhas have provided a constant source of willing soldiers for the British Army—and as I intimated earlier, each year, the recruitments slots are still very healthily oversubscribed. That is no doubt one reason why the new Labour Government decided to form an entirely new artillery regiment, the King’s Gurkha Artillery, last year. In addition, there are still large numbers of Gurkhas who have left regular service but are living in the United Kingdom under the immigration changes I referred to, who might perhaps be persuaded to form reserve battalions of what is now the Army Reserve. I believe that such units would have as strong an ethos as their regular counterparts, and there should hopefully be a ready pool of already trained ex-regular troops to sign up, if this idea were pursued.
I mention all this because of the Conservative party’s recent announcement that, due to the worsening international situation, an incoming Conservative Government would add back to the Army; we would create a Regular Army of a minimum of 80,000 troops, and the Army Reserve would be expanded from some 26,000 soldiers at present to at least 40,000, making for an Army on mobilisation of 120,000—and there would be potential further augmentation from the strategic reserve by another nearly 100,000. That is excepting a situation in which there was full conscription. We hope to debate this matter in more detail in the Armed Forces Bill Committee after the Easter recess.
If we were to expand the British Army, both regular and reserve, there might well be merit in seeking to use that willing pool of additional Gurkha recruits to achieve at least part, if not all, of the desired expansion. If we were to ask the Gurkhas to form a proportionally slightly larger element of the British Army in the future, that might make for a stronger case for improving their terms of service, including the terms of service of those who served many years ago. I hope the House can follow my argument. I table that suggestion for discussion, and I hope that it is a positive contribution to the debate.
To finish, I pay tribute to the extremely loyal and valiant service to the Crown that the Gurkhas have provided for over two centuries, during which 26 Victoria Crosses and many hundreds—indeed, thousands—of other gallantry medals have been awarded to those serving in Gurkha regiments. The Gurkhas have been great friends to Britain over many decades—indeed, centuries—and we thank them most heartily for that record. As they have a fearsome reputation on the battlefield, we should be wary of upsetting them, and avoid doing so if at all possible. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and to hearing whether he can provide any comfort to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, or to the House more broadly, on this admittedly rather complicated subject, which affects some of the bravest and most dedicated soldiers the British Army has ever seen.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention
David Davis Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. In this role and in my last role, I have visited Sandhurst several times; it is the best leadership academy in the country, and its “Serve to lead” motto is absolutely essential. I am sure that the 156 cadets who have just started will progress and graduate with flying colours. I look forward to them serving in the military, and enjoying their service throughout a full and wholesome career.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister has said that veterans will have Government support. I am sure that is what he intends, but the hard reality is that the Bill that he is defending will lead to coroner’s court inquiries into decisions taken in a fraction of a second, 40 years ago. The best way to look at that issue is to look at what has already happened, as described by the senior judge who oversaw the judicial review of the Coagh inquiry:
“In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame and to address the issue of absolute necessity in slow-motion…It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”,
but that is what will happen with Loughgall and all the other issues that will come before the courts, and our brave and honourable soldiers will be humiliated through that process. That is why the process is the punishment.
Remembrance Day: Armed Forces
David Davis Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Every nation rightly celebrates the heroism of its soldiers, but in the United Kingdom’s case, we also celebrate their skill in avoiding innocent deaths when dealing with the enemies of our nation and our democracy. When nations neutralise terrorists, they typically use a bomb or a missile, but bombs and missiles also kill innocent bystanders in the house, in the wedding party or in the bus, so Britain, as the Minister knows better than anybody else, often uses special forces in those circumstances.
Richard Williams, the former commanding officer of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment during our operations in Iraq, said that
“the SAS soldiers took extreme risks, facing violent and well-prepared opposition to capture these terrorists and hand them on to Iraqi justice and detention. It was a deliberate and careful approach…It required precision, intelligence, self-control, skill…in the face of immense danger—the very opposite of the hot-blooded, murderous drama depicted by poorly informed outsiders.
At the start of 2005, approximately 100 vehicle-borne suicide bombs were being detonated every month in Baghdad by AQ-I”—
al-Qaeda in Iraq—
“and thousands of Shia Muslims were being slaughtered by assassination gangs. But by the end of 2007, after the combined US and SAS effort…The number of suicide bombs had dropped to a single detonation per month”—
saving lives—
“and the Sunni population of central Iraq was supporting the coalition efforts in eradicating AQ-I from their midst. It was a remarkable outcome justifiably celebrated by military and political leaders”,
and it was all down to our soldiers.
However, those special forces and that capacity to protect innocent lives are at risk. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, only today we have seen nine retired four-star generals warning in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare. I will quote some of their words extensively and put them on the parliamentary record. They said:
“Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces…we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.
Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of ‘lawfare’…which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative.”
Mr Francois
Can my right hon. Friend confirm for the parliamentary record that of the nine generals who have written this unprecedented letter, three formerly served as Chief of the General Staff—in other words, the professional head of the British Army?
David Davis
Yes, that is right. All of them had soldiers serve under them at risk on the frontline and had soldiers die under their command, so they are all people with strong knowledge of what we are talking about.
To go on with the quotation:
“And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”
If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer, as I have described, because we will not be able to do what we have done in the past and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation when called upon.
The Minister did not like it when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire raised this issue, and I understand that it is an uncomfortable one for a day like today, but it is important that we are not guilty of hypocrisy in this Chamber, and that we recognise that the people we are standing up for face a new threat that we have to deal with. I have to say to the House, again to the Minister’s probable discomfort, that I have been surprised, on two occasions in the last two weeks, to have people on the frontline on this issue quote Martin Luther King:
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
We owe it to them not to be silent on these issues.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The veterans who served under Op Banner served to protect civilian lives and secure the peace in Northern Ireland. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s deep concern that many may now be caught up in investigations or litigation, and I am determined that we protect them further. I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary, as are our officials, to ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans as part of the necessary plans to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
David Davis
During Operation Banner, every single time a paramilitary was killed by a British soldier, it was subject to judicial investigation. The Director of Public Prosecutions went through the evidence at the time, interviewed people, looked at the planning documents and was able to talk to people contemporaneously while they could still remember it. It was not a rubber stamp; it was rigorous, as was proven by the fact that, where necessary, it led to prosecution. What is happening now is double jeopardy. Worse still, it is double jeopardy under new rules but with no new evidence. Indeed, there is a risk of lost evidence and lost memory, given the passage of time. I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, but will he commit to ensuring that soldiers who were subject to reviews at the time will not be subject to further risk of prosecution under the Government’s replacement for the legacy Act?
John Healey
Any incoming Government would have to repeal the legacy Act. It is unlawful legislation—it has been rejected by domestic courts, and rejected by communities across Northern Ireland, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. We owe it to those affected by the troubles, whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks about, including our armed forces communities and veterans, to be honest about the unworkability of that legacy Act and to get this legislation right. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working together to ensure we can do, taking full account of all the interested parties, in particular those veterans and armed forces communities that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about.
Armed Forces Day
David Davis Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for sharing with us those powerful words by Kipling, which have sunk into our national consciousness. I appreciate the cordial nature of the debate between the Minister for the Armed Forces and the shadow Minister. We three were together earlier this week for a debate on recruitment in the north-east, which was also incredibly cordial. This is a great opportunity to continue that conversation.
In Stockton, we celebrated Armed Forces Day early, on Saturday, with a flag-raising ceremony, many celebrations on the high street, and a service led by Rev. Paul. I was pleased to see representatives of our local armed forces. Members of the Yorkshire Regiment, which largely serves my constituency, were there, although people in the north of my constituency might tend to join The Rifles, and we had representatives from our local cadet forces, including the Royal Marines Cadets, the Sea Cadets and the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, who are based in Norton, in my constituency. There were also representatives from the Royal Military Police Reserves, who I am proud to say are also based in Norton. Stockton has strong representation from the armed forces in our local community; I am pleased to say that one in 20 people in my constituency are either serving in the armed forces or veterans.
I mentioned the Royal Military Police. I wondered if they were not mentioned enough in the House, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to commend their work. They can claim to be the longest-established regiment or corps, with a history stretching all the way back to the 13th century and the appointment of the first sergeant of the peace. Today, they are a vital part of our armed forces, with around 2,200 soldiers and civilian staff. They support operations in conflict zones, peace- keeping missions and humanitarian efforts. This is perhaps a suitable moment to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for her service as a captain in the Royal Military Police, and for her continued advocacy for the armed forces community.
The Royal Military Police are much like other skilled units in the armed forces, but they have three main roles: the policing of the Army, special investigations and close protection. In policing the Army, they will be attached to a unit in the field, and will ensure that captured members of enemy forces are treated appropriately, legally and humanely, which is clearly an important role. They were recently deployed in Ukraine as close protection for staff of the Foreign Office. There are airborne RMP, based in Colchester; they were part of Operation Market Garden at Pegasus Bridge.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he accept that the actions of the Royal Military Police attached to fighting units are a direct reflection of the Army and of our national character in upholding the rule of law even in warfare?
Chris McDonald
I would. I may go on to develop this point, but that role creates for members of the Royal Military Police a unique duty and a serious responsibility that puts them in a slightly different position from their comrades, which must be quite difficult. That is why I wanted to highlight the role of the RMP.
Members of the RMP can also find themselves in incredibly dangerous situations. A friend of mine, who is a member of the RMP reserves, highlighted to me the role of Royal Military Police officers during the second world war and in other conflicts in managing traffic points. Those fixed grid reference points are vital in managing the traffic flow of equipment and personnel appropriately for our logistics, but they also mean that RMP personnel are easy to target by artillery and aircraft. They carry out that role with great bravery; I commend them for that.
As I have mentioned, policing puts individuals in a difficult and unique position. That is also true for the civilian police force, but I think there is a particular additional burden on members of the Royal Military Police in how they discharge their duty. I was struck by the story of Royal Military Police veteran Kate Green, which she told 20 years after the lifting of the LGBT military ban. When she served in the Royal Military Police, the thing that she feared most was being asked to investigate those suspected of hiding their sexuality from the Army. If an LGBT serviceperson admitted their sexuality, they were out and that was the end of their military career. Eventually, Kate decided that she could not continue with her service anymore and that she did not want to continue to live a lie herself, so she handed in her one-year notice. The LGBT ban was lifted on 12 January 2000, just a short time after her career ended. Kate now works with the Royal British Legion and maintains a strong connection with the Army, despite no longer serving. This is an opportunity for us all to welcome the lifting of the LGBT ban and to recognise the service of LGBT veterans.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
It is an honour to speak today ahead of Armed Forces Day—a day not just of pageantry, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, but of principle. I congratulate the Government on reinstating the pageantry as well—it is a good thing. It is a day to recognise the men and women who serve, or who have served, in His Majesty’s armed forces: the quiet professionals who carry the weight of our security, often in silence and too often without thanks. As we have heard, we owe them and their families a debt of gratitude that we can never really pay, but gratitude alone is not enough. As the Minister said, only a quarter of veterans feel that their service is properly recognised, and there is a reason for that. I will speak plainly about it, and I hope the Minister will not take it as partisan. I hope he will take what I have to say, in what will be a difficult five minutes of listening for him, as a call for action and assistance—or, if he likes, a call for help.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces: the political and legal vendetta targeting the veterans of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Those men answered their country’s call in one of our country’s darkest hours. Without hesitation, they stood between the innocent and the terrorists, often literally—they were often in the way of the bullets. Now, decades later, they are treated not as heroes but as suspects. The frankly inadequately informed inquest into the SAS-IRA conflict at Clonoe is just one incident in which elderly veterans are being persecuted; there will be many more.
We should never forget that terrorists killed 722 British soldiers during the troubles. The people who carried out those murders have effectively been exonerated by the British state. I do not blame the state for that—it was necessary at the time—but today, we witness a legal crusade against the men who risked everything in the service of peace. This is not justice; it is an attempt to rewrite history. It is prosecution driven by politics, not facts. While the killers walk free, authorities hound the soldiers who stopped them from killing and treat those soldiers like criminals. The legacy Act—forgive my shorthand —was designed to put an end to this travesty. For their own reasons, the Government have decided to repeal that Act, but if they do not properly replace it with effective legislation, they will hand the initiative back to those who spent decades glorifying violence. I hope the Minister will pay attention to every detail of the paragraph I have just spoken, because it is important.
The Government must decide whose side they are on in this exercise. Our veterans, who are now in their 70s or even older, deserve peace in retirement, not a knock on the door and questions about battles they fought to defend the public half a lifetime ago. Those battles were fought under orders, under supervision and under yellow card rules, and immediately afterwards, everybody faced close judicial examination of their behaviour to ensure they had obeyed the law in every respect. To refer back to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the military police were often involved in those investigations—it did not always make them popular, but it was a necessary part of the process. Not one of the conditions I have described applied to the psychopathic murderers those soldiers were up against.
I have repeatedly asked the Government to end this shameful campaign of retrospective injustice, and I will continue to ask until I get a meaningful answer and a resolution to this running sore of injustice. That is why I support the petition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford referred to, with its 145,000 signatures—an astonishing number in such a short time. However, this is just the start. This issue is not just massively important to our veterans; if this rewriting of history succeeds, this weapon of lawfare can be used against soldiers in any future conflict, destroying the effectiveness of our troops in future operations.
This morning’s edition of the Daily Mail carried a powerful headline announcing the start of a campaign to highlight that very problem. When we look at that headline, though, we should remember that this is not just about our special forces; it is about the whole of the armed forces. There are at least 20 inquests into actions by Government agencies and forces that could potentially be restarted by the Government after the end of the legacy legislation. Only a minority of those inquests are about special forces; most are about conventional forces, or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment.
If we continue down this path, not only will we betray our past; we will jeopardise our future. This campaign of persecution sends a chilling message to the next generation: “Serve your country, risk your life, and face prosecution in your old age.” Why would any young man or woman sign up for that? The truth is that many will not. I know that the Minister referred to better recruitment and retention figures, but that will not last if this battle is lost by the British state.
This challenge has been most high-profile when it has struck at our elite units, such as the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—the Det, as it was once known—but it applies to every rifleman, soldier and member of the military who carries and wields a weapon in defence of his country. Those soldiers, who operate in conditions of extreme danger and uncertainty, are required to make impossible decisions at great speed while under fire, or in terror of being under fire. They expect neither recognition nor reward, but just one thing: the support of their Government. We expect our soldiers to put their lives on the line for our country, but why would they do that if their country will abandon them after their service? Instead, they face doubt—doubt that creeps into the field, into the command and into mission planning.
If soldiers must weigh every trigger pull against a future court case, we cripple their ability to act. What is the point of the armed forces if we render them useless through legal ambiguity? I am the last person to tolerate unnecessary killing or misbehaviour by our troops. Those who were in the House at the time will know of my past campaigns on torture and rendition. I will not stand for that, but we must balance properly the rule of law as it applies to each environment. We already have thought-through rules of lawfare established in the Geneva convention, and that is where we must look first when conducting a war.
From 2005 to 2007, during the operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, our military achieved, along with the Americans, spectacular results in saving lives. I reiterate that that was about saving lives. In Baghdad, the number of vehicle-borne suicide bombings fell from 100 a month to just one after we engaged. Sectarian assassinations—once rife—all but ceased, care of our military. That was not the work of indiscriminate bombing or division-level assaults; it was achieved through precise, controlled and surgical raids into some of the most hostile environments, generally by elite forces, and backed by careful planning.
The impact was staggering. Even a hostile “Panorama” programme showed that 95% of terrorist neutralisations were captures, not kills. That was under unbelievable circumstances, and thousands of innocent lives were saved. That was a matter not just of operational skill, but of moral discipline. In the midst of close-quarters combat against some of the most dangerous men on earth, our forces showed a restraint few could match.
I have no doubt that mistakes are made from time to time, and those should be answered for, but if we allow our opponents to use lawfare to destroy these capabilities, we are left with blunt instruments—the bomb, the missile and the drone—with which, instead of capturing or killing just the guilty, we kill every innocent civilian on a bus or every guest at a wedding party. Our military has been brilliant at doing the opposite—at being targeted, lawful and effective. Dismantling that capacity would be not only militarily reckless, but a betrayal of the principles that the Minister said we stand for, which distinguish us from those whom we fight.
Let us today do rather more than clap politely at a parade. Let us act. Let us end the relentless hounding of our veterans. Let us give our serving forces the legal protection and political support they deserve. Let us recognise that if we find it difficult to recruit, it is a consequence of a state that too often turns its back on its defenders. This Armed Forces Day, let us make one promise: that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the very nation they have so bravely protected.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
We made an election commitment to put the armed forces covenant fully into law, and we will do that. The Minister for Veterans and People is working across Government to ensure that veterans receive the support they need from all services, including Op Nova, which provides for ex-forces people who become caught up in the criminal justice system. I know that I can speak for my hon. Friend the Minister while he is on Everest in saying that he would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend, and I will ensure that it takes place.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I take it that the meeting will not be on Everest.
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that one of the most distressing experiences for our veterans today is the fear of being dragged into court in the face of politically motivated prosecutions after the Clonoe and Coagh inquiries, which opened a month ago. Some action will obviously have to be taken to protect them. Is the MOD currently researching the legal, judicial and legislative requirements that are necessary to protect our veterans from this appalling treatment?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right. We owe the Operation Banner veterans a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and, in many cases, sacrifices of their lives saved civilian lives and helped to bring about the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys. In respect of Clonoe, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the MOD is seeking a judicial review of the coroner’s findings, and he will also know that I am working closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the welfare and legal support that we have provided for veterans who are caught up in any investigations is reinforced further so that we can protect this special group of veterans from the impact of such investigations.
Luke Pollard
It is absolutely vital that we support veterans who encounter difficulties in transitioning from military service to civilian life. The vast majority transition successfully, but support schemes are available nationwide for people who have served in our armed forces, especially through Operation Valour, which was announced by the Minister for Veterans and People last week. There is more to do in this space. I would be happy to arrange a conversation between my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and that Minister very soon, when he is down from operation mountain goat on Everest.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
David Davis
I do apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that the Secretary of State is here. As we have heard today, a very successful parliamentary petition was put up by a member of the public just over a week ago, and was supported by a large number of regimental associations. In the middle of last week, an email was sent from the Directorate of Infantry to regimental headquarters. It said:
“With immediate effect”—
that bit is highlighted in red—
“please ensure that all of your communication channels (including Twitter/X etc) remove any feeds related to the Northern Ireland Troubles Act announcement and any associated petitions.”
Regimental associations are there to defend and look after the interests of, and to support, veterans. It is not for the MOD hierarchy to dictate what they can or cannot promote, particularly through legitimate parliamentary engagement. Veterans’ voices must not be silenced by bureaucratic interference. Is it appropriate, Mr Speaker, to pressurise regimental associations to remove content that supports democratic participation?
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
That is a great question. The Royal Marine band service is the best band service in our armed forces, and it is absolutely safe under our watch. It provides a fantastic influence opportunity, as well as essential military services outside the musical profession.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Defence Secretary should know that the whole House supports the Government’s actions to preserve peace in Ukraine, but that was not the point that the shadow Secretary of State was making. He was asking whether the Ministry of Defence recognises that it has a duty of care towards soldiers who fight for their country and then face decades of lawfare and the misuse of the European convention on human rights. Will the Ministry do something to protect those soldiers?
John Healey
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to our duty of care and to standing by our forces. We also recognise that the previous Government put in place legislation—the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021—to deal with any concerns in this place.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Pollard
It is vital that we seek to invest in Defence Medical Services, especially as we live in more difficult and contested times where we may need to use its expertise and that of the national health service across the UK to support a warfighting effort. I know the Minister for Veterans and People is looking forward to visiting Whittington later this year. I hope that when the strategic defence review comes out, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) will see the path to investment and support that we are offering Defence Medical Services as we look to create a whole-of-society approach to our defence.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Soldiers will be leaving the Army, rather than being recruited, if we continue to allow the persecution of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. Last week’s coroner’s report into the Clonoe and Coalisland shootings was 51 pages of facts and eight pages of naïve speculation, which led right into the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland. Without the Northern Ireland legacy legislation, how will the Secretary of State prevent that, because if he fails, what should be a process of peace and reconciliation will turn into a vindictive, vengeful pursuit of men whose only sin was to serve their country with honour, heroism and skill, and in the most terrifying conditions? If we cannot prevent that, all the recruiting efforts will fail.
Luke Pollard
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his passion is also felt on the Government Benches, and the ministerial team want to support all our veterans. The issue that he raises is difficult for me to comment on as it is subject to ongoing legal matters, and he will appreciate that it is hard for a Minister to comment in such circumstances—
Afghan Relocations: Special Forces
David Davis Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Heappey
I know that the hon. Gentleman, who has been advocating for some cases and is as passionate about the matter as anybody, will feel aggrieved, as will many colleagues around the House. The responsibility of any Minister is to own any failure of process that happens in their Department, and I accept that responsibility.
The reality is that these are very difficult decisions to make. The hon. Gentleman said that the Triples were funded by the UK Government. That is not entirely accurate; they were funded as a donor alongside many other donors, into the Government of Afghanistan, who funded the units. As he will well know from colleagues on his own Benches who commanded units that worked closely with the Triples, top-up payments were made in order to generate loyalty and, frankly, to avoid the Triples being poached by other coalition partners, which had similar forces of their own.
The records of those top-up payments were very ad hoc. I take my responsibilities for accuracy to the House seriously, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness that we have looked for employment records and none of those ad hoc records of additional payments is available to us. We have spoken to colleagues who have experience of these matters in the House and beyond, to ask for any records that they have, but even then a lot of the records produced are those that are put together by charities advocating for the Triples, rather than contemporary records of those top-up payments.
The reality is that whatever the challenges have been, some decisions were made in an inconsistent way. That is why they must be reviewed. We will aim to get the review done as quickly as possible—we anticipate that it will take around 12 weeks. Before that, we need to put in place the people who will do the review, who will be independent of everything that has gone before. In the first instance, it will be a review of the robustness of the decisions themselves, and where it finds that decisions were not robust, we will, of course, seek new information both from the applicant and from colleagues in the House who have advocated for them.
The shadow Minister makes some good points about what this means for people who are in Pakistan. It is impossible to say who, of those who were not already in the pipeline as approved applicants, has been deported. We do not track that, so I cannot answer his specific question but, of course, we will alert the Government of Pakistan to those who are included within the review, so that they can enjoy the same protection from deportation as those who have already been approved and are awaiting their onward move to the UK.
The shadow Minister necessarily points to the politics and the alleged disagreement among Conservative Members —that is the nature of his role—but I am simply not motivated by such things. The reality is that we are trying our best to bring as many people to the UK from Afghanistan as possible. Some decisions are relatively straightforward, because we hold the employment records, but others are far more complicated. Although there have undoubtedly been some decisions that are not robust and need to be reviewed, I put on record that the people involved in making those decisions, across the MOD, have been working their hardest and doing their best. I stand up for their service and for what they have done, and I take responsibility for their shortcomings.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I have been approached by people who were involved in training these soldiers—333, 444 and BOST 170—and they tell me that they are the most loyal, bravest and most effective soldiers who were operating in Afghanistan. As a result, they are the soldiers the Taliban feared the most, which I guess is why the Taliban have been executing them in front of their families whenever they catch them.
The Minister rightly says that we owe them a debt of gratitude, but this is more than that. It is a debt of honour. Can we ensure that, both in our administration and in our relationship with Pakistan, we do everything to deliver on that debt of honour as quickly as possible?
James Heappey
We certainly will. It is important to mention that the Government of Pakistan have often been the subject of questions in relation to ARAP over the past year or so. In my experience, they have been incredibly co-operative. We are hugely grateful to them for that.
The limit on the speed of flow is not any problem with the Government of Pakistan, but the challenge of getting people out of Afghanistan. The reality is that, no matter how many decisions we review and no matter how many additional people we add as eligible for the scheme, there is a limit to how fast we can move people over the border into Pakistan. That will take time.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Davis Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wallace
That is because the Type 32 frigate will not come in until after 2030 or 2031, because it will come after the Type 31s, which are being constructed in Rosyth as we speak. What the Type 32s are going to be, how they will be designed and who will build them is obviously a matter for between now and towards the centre of the decade. Even if the hon. Gentleman gets into government, no Treasury will give a budget for seven years forward, so it is important to make sure that we do not sign on the dotted line before we have the budget in line. It is absolutely the intention of the Royal Navy to have more frigates and destroyers, including the Type 32.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Defence procurement is some of the most complex in government, but our defence and security industrial strategy represents a step change that will see industry, Government and academia working closer together, while fundamentally reforming regulations to improve the speed of acquisition and to incentivise innovation and productivity. Our acquisition reforms will drive pace and agility into procurement to improve delivery.
Mr Davis
I very much agree with the Secretary of State on the need for increased defence expenditure if we are to remain a tier 1 power. Nevertheless, in every one of the past 21 years, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have criticised the MOD’s procurement of equipment, poor identification of military needs, poor quality of equipment, slow delivery of projects, an inability to control costs and a corporate culture too traditional and resistant to change. Those are just some of the criticisms. Does he agree that we need to put those issues right if we are to be a tier 1 power?
Mr Wallace
I absolutely agree. First, that is why for the second year in a row, and nearly for a third, under my stewardship the Ministry of Defence will come in on budget or under budget—the first time in decades—to make sure that we live within our means. Secondly, it is also important to point out that it is always a challenge for any Secretary of State for Defence that the Treasury likes to deal in one, two, three or four years. Some of the programmes we are talking about, such as the Type 31 or the future solid support ship, are decades-long, and in that long process of complexity, threat changes, technology changes and inflation changes, and indeed there are all the challenges around. If we are going to have Governments investing in long-term infrastructure, whether civil or military, it is important to understand that long-term investment has a different risk profile. If we do everything year by year, we will always end up in a similar position.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
I will write to my hon. Friend on that important question.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Secretary of State referred to the allegations in the weekend press about 77th Brigade. I know him well enough to know that when he told us that he gave clear instructions and guidelines to the brigade, which operates only against foreign powers and extremists, he was telling the exact truth. However, will he review the issue and ensure that his guidelines have been followed in all cases?
Mr Wallace
I thank my right hon. Friend for the compliment. I have already instructed that we not only look into the story but check that the instructions that I issued after a visit were carried out.