Dalgety Bay Radiation

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brown]

I will come to that. It is incontestable—indeed, nobody disputes this fact—that about 50 years ago, radiation-contaminated materials were dumped in the Dalgety Bay area. Nobody disputes the fact, either, that in the past few years, 3,400 particles of radiation-contaminated materials have been collected in the Dalgety Bay area by scientists and others, who have seen coastal erosion bring many of these materials to the surface. Nobody disputes the fact that the safety risks associated with some of the finds are at a level that has made radiation experts increasingly worried. Indeed, five finds were above 76 megabecquerels, which, according to all radiation experts, constitutes a hazard that has to be dealt with.

The problem is that, even though we have all these finds and materials, the action that we have expected to be taken on Dalgety Bay is still to happen. Does the Minister agree that we need action and that the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should now agree that the previously identified programme of work should proceed as quickly as possible? The medical evidence says that action should be taken as quickly as possible, but the process of dealing with this radiation contamination has slowed down to the point where people are increasingly worried about whether the agreed timetables will be upheld.

As I have said, the reason why I have called for this debate is the medical evidence. If the Minister examines the medical evidence that has been provided to him and the residents of Dalgety Bay, he will see that the committee looked carefully at the health risks involved. Fortunately for the people in Dalgety Bay, the committee discovered that, although the radiation material was most likely to cause head or brain cancer, there was no higher incidence of those conditions in Dalgety Bay. It is also fortunate that, although rates of liver cancer are higher in the area, it is not usually identified with these radiated materials.

The committee said that there are three reasons why action should be taken as quickly as possible, however, and recommended the quick implementation of a remediation action plan. One reason was the long life of the discovered materials, which means that they will have a substantial life if nothing is done about them. Secondly, the committee was worried about the dynamic process whereby, as a result of coastal erosion, the materials were coming to the surface in Dalgety Bay and posing a health hazard to the population. The third reason is the size and scale of the materials. Not only have 3,400 materials been discovered and examined, but such materials are coming to the surface at a rate of about 1,000 a year. I suggest to the Minister that he must now take seriously the size, dynamic nature and long life of the materials located in Dalgety Bay.

I think that it was because of those things that the Ministry of Defence agreed in February last year to what was called an investigatory plan. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation agreed a timetable for action to be taken in the Dalgety Bay area. There was to be a review of the historical situation and of coastal processes. Then there was to be an investigatory report on the physical elements that made up the problem in the area. Then there was to be an assessment of that report, after which there was to be a review of the risks entailed. Then there was to be a set of options, which would be laid before us, on what needed to be done to remove the contamination. Then it was foreseen that there would be a plan that would deliver the area from the contamination.

That was set down clearly in a document that the Minister must have before him this evening: the investigation plan of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Unfortunately, that plan has not been observed. The coastal processes report, which was promised in October, did not arrive. By the time I called this debate, there was no indication that it would arrive. I understand that it was sent to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on Sunday of this week, but it was five months late, at a time when we are asking that action be taken immediately because of the health risks in the area.

Work on the investigatory report itself was to have been finished in November; again there is work to be done by the Ministry of Defence, but that report is not yet available, even though it was promised by the end of January. The investigatory assessment has obviously not been done, because the investigatory report has not been completed. Many other promises have been made. We were told that between February and May, we would have the study of the options and the risk assessment work that had been done. We would then have the summary of what needed to be done as a whole, and an agreement on that. That timetable has now been completely disrupted by the failure to produce the initial reports.

I have to say to the Minister that it is the Ministry of Defence that is responsible for these delays. The coastal processes report is a Ministry of Defence report that is going to be put to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I see him looking at his civil servants. They will confirm that that is the case. It was agreed that the Ministry of Defence should do the investigatory report, not the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Again, that has not been produced. It is now long delayed because of the Ministry of Defence’s failure to complete its work. The investigatory assessment was also to have been done by the Ministry of Defence and, as I understand it, that has not been done either. Next Monday, we have a meeting of the review group, the Dalgety Bay Forum, yet none of the reports except the coastal processes report seems to be available at this stage.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on securing this debate but on the leadership that he has shown on this issue in his community. He will obviously be aware that Helen Eadie and Fife council are backing his calls for action. Does he think that the Ministry of Defence should listen not only to him, as a Member of Parliament, but to the council and to the local MSP, who are all backing his call?

[Mr Gordon Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a real problem.

I have a letter from the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—not the Minister who is replying to the debate—in response to my raising the question of radiation. In his letter, the Minister says:

“Correspondence should be addressed to SEPA as the Agency, and not MOD”.

The Ministry of Defence has failed to produce the report. It has failed to produce the investigation. It has not yet produced the investigatory assessment. At the same time, many people regard it as the initial polluter. For that Minister to say to a Member of Parliament that correspondence should be addressed to SEPA as the agency and not to the MOD is an abrogation of the Ministry’s responsibility in this matter.

I put it to the Minister that if he was writing to the chairman of his local council or to a constituent who had raised questions about the health of constituents as a result of contamination identified with the Ministry of Defence, and if the Ministry had not produced the necessary reports, he would have to be very careful about telling the chairman of his council or any other representative official that correspondence on such a matter should not be addressed to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that he will apologise for that when he speaks this evening.

The problem is deeper, however, and that is why I have had to come back again to raise the matter in the House. What has been omitted over the last 18 months is this fiction: the Ministry of Defence has refused to accept responsibility for the contamination of the area. The Ministry has persisted in saying that it does not yet accept that it was the original polluter in the area. We have evidence on the website of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency:

“It is thought that the contamination originates from the residue of radium coated instrument panels from military aircraft…The radium used by the MoD was primarily in luminescent paints.”

Then we have the letter sent to me by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which states:

“Works to identify other potential polluters at Dalgety Bay is continuing. However, to date, our investigation has not identified any other persons whom may have introduced the radium to the location.”

When this matter kicked off 18 months ago, the Ministry of Defence asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for a report and asked who was responsible. The agency was very clear indeed about who was responsible—the Ministry of Defence. The MOD chose not to accept this advice and it has been looking for landowners, developers, builders, residents and other participants in the area who might have been responsible for its pollution, but there is absolutely no doubt about it. It comes back not just to a legal responsibility, as I will show later, but a moral responsibility for the MOD to accept that it dumped the material in the first place, that the material is there because it came from MOD aircraft and that the pollution is the direct effect of having dumped it there. Refusing to accept responsibility is angering people in Dalgety Bay, with good cause.

Let me give a final reason why the Minister should stand before the House now and say that he will work closely with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to get a remediation action plan under way so that work is completed by the end of the year. It is an irony that just at the time that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to accept responsibility for the contamination that exists in Dalgety Bay, a mile away at Rosyth dockyard, the MOD launched a consultation exercise two years ago and is examining whether the seven decommissioned submarines, four of them Polaris submarines, should be cut up and stored in the Rosyth area for years upon years. How is the MOD going to persuade the residents of Rosyth a mile away from Dalgety Bay that it should be entrusted with the safety and health of the local residents in decommissioning, breaking up and then storing submarines in Rosyth, when it cannot persuade the people of Dalgety Bay that the safety and health needs of the residents there are being taken seriously and it even refuses to admit its responsibility for the contamination while at the same time delaying the necessary remedial work?

I urge the Minister to be very careful in what he says to the House this evening about what the Ministry of Defence is going to do on this matter. He will say that the Ministry has tried its best, spent money on investigations and is monitoring the work. I well know the speech he is going to make, but the fact is that it has not produced the reports in time, not admitted responsibility for the pollution, not agreed the options for cleaning it up and not yet agreed to fund the remedial work.

The people of Fife county, whom I represent, have for years been servants of the Ministry of Defence. Rosyth dockyard and Rosyth naval base were set up 100 years ago, and 15,000 people work there. They refitted the ships and the submarines in war time and in peace time, and they have been loyal in support of the defence needs of this nation. They have done well by the Ministry of Defence; it is time that the Ministry of Defence does well by the people of Fife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I will explain why we dispute much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in a moment, but there is one thing that I particularly dispute. I know that when he was Prime Minister, and indeed when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was very profligate with public money. He was very willing to spend it, and then to leave us in the appalling financial condition in which we now find ourselves. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we take a rather more parsimonious and sensible view than I think he did when it comes to the spending of our constituents’ money.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of aircraft carriers. Does the Minister regret blowing £100 million on two U-turns?

[Mr Robathan]

I think that you would rule me out of order if I pursued that point, Mr. Speaker, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not the actions of a Conservative Government that led to the rather ridiculous contracts for the aircraft carriers, which we have been trying very hard to tie down in many ways.

SEPA is the lead regulator in Scotland in relation to all matters pertaining to radioactively contaminated land. Notwithstanding that, my Department has undertaken voluntarily to assist SEPA and to deliver the necessary site investigation. That is in addition to the monthly beach monitoring, and it demonstrates how seriously we are taking the matter.

It is worth repeating that, in the opinion of the Health Protection Agency, the risk to beach users remains very low. The agency is on record as stating that the risk of contracting a fatal cancer is less that 1 in 100 million, which is significantly lower than the level that the Health and Safety Executive considers to be the upper limit for an acceptable level of annual risk for members of the public. Recent investigations of the incidences of cancers in the Dalgety Bay area appear to support the HPA’s assessment. I note the recommendation of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that remediation should proceed, but this is a matter for SEPA, and it needs to be reviewed in the context of the risk posed.

Army Basing Plan

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is going ahead as planned. It is under way now. As I said in my statement, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be making an announcement in due course about other moves on the technical training estate.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in saying that the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Scots Dragoons will get a warm Fife welcome when they arrive, but may I press the Secretary of State to say why the decision has been taken not to proceed with MOD Caledonia?

[Mr Hammond]

As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, Caledonia will remain as a naval facility without any Army presence. The Army plan has been looked at from the bottom up by the Army. The considerations are particularly around patterns of training activity, so that units that need to train together are located together. Because we are severely capital constrained, we have had to look at how to make the best use of the existing estate infrastructure, which in some cases has meant not going ahead with proposals that would have involved significant new capital investment. But this is an Army-designed, military-led plan that will allow us to generate our military capability at the best value to the taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point, but I am pretty certain that that is not the case, although I will write to her if it turns out that I am wrong. Nobody has their pay stopped until and if they are convicted of a criminal offence or at a court martial. If I am wrong I will let her know.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Products from Belted Galloway beef cattle reared and slaughtered on the Falkland Islands travel 30 miles to the NAAFI shop at Mount Pleasant. To be used in the kitchens, I am told by the Falkland Islands Government, the beef travels 8,000 miles back to the United Kingdom, is rebagged and goes back. Is that smart procurement?

[Mr Dunne]

Food for our armed forces on operations, including in the Falklands, is supplied under a contract with Purple Foodservice, which undertakes supply to our forces wherever they are stationed. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will look specifically, and write to him, as to whether there is any possibility of shortening procurement lines for beef in the Falklands.

Maritime Surveillance

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Arbuthnot]

No, that was a joke—at least, I think it was. But the cancellation of the project was the one change that troubled the Ministry of Defence most in the SDSR. The Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff told the Defence Committee:

“It would be fair to say that among the Chiefs of Staff and in the military advice, it was one of the most difficult decisions to come to terms with, because it has multiple uses.”

In the Government’s answer to the concerns that the Defence Committee expressed in our report on the SDSR of August 2011, they said:

“Like the Committee we regret that we had to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 programme. It was a capability that we would, in an ideal world, have preferred to acquire…we reluctantly concluded that cancellation was the least bad option.”

The reason for that unhappiness was described to us by Professor Julian Lindley-French. He told us that

“the point is that of the seven military tasks in the SDSR, the MRA4 could have played a very important role in all of them. It was the loss of the enablers, because the single services were forced back to defend their own core competencies by the process, which for me was the biggest failing of the SDSR process. Forget all the strategic stuff: there was a haggle at that last weekend, which was utterly unacceptable in terms of the national strategic requirements.”

The report that the Defence Committee produced earlier this week on defence acquisition contains a bit of an echo of that statement.

In our report on the strategic defence and security review, we expressed concern about the resultant capability gaps of cancelling MRA4. In their response, the Government acknowledged that there is currently no single asset or collection of assets that could fully mitigate the resultant capability gap. That is enough about Nimrod; let us look at the other assets and look to the future.

The Government said in 2011 that they continued

“to maximise the use of…assets”—

other than Nimrod—

“such as Type 23 Frigates, Merlin Helicopters, Sentry and C-130 to contribute to Anti-Submarine Warfare, Search and Rescue and Maritime Counter-Terrorism where possible. In the longer term, if the Government were to conclude that it needed to close the gaps completely because”

threats emerged that could no longer be managed in the same way as today,

“some additional funding or reprioritisation would be required.”

In our report, “Future Maritime Surveillance”, we concentrated on the strategic requirements for maritime surveillance, identifying current capability gaps and the future requirements for maritime surveillance and how they might be met. Given the wide range of maritime surveillance tasks and the number of Departments and agencies that require access to maritime surveillance capabilities, we also looked at cross-Government co-operation. We published our report in September 2012 and the Government’s response in December 2012. We have also placed on our website the Minister’s response to some follow-up issues that we raised following the Government’s response. I am grateful to him for that.

I pay tribute to the Committee’s staff and military advisers, who provide us with invaluable support and advice. We are all grateful to them. I would like to thank personally the Committee members themselves. They work extremely hard to very good effect, which is one of the reasons why chairing it is the best job that I have ever had.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for being slightly late. May I point out that the reason why it is such a good Committee is that its Chairman is so excellent?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

The hon. Gentleman might say that, but as a former Chief Whip, I couldn’t possibly comment.

The threats that require maritime surveillance are evolving and have become more non-military in nature. The Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 rather illustrate that, in that they were launched from the sea. Our report concluded that it was a weakness that there was not a single individual within the Ministry of Defence who should be responsible for maritime surveillance. The Government did not agree.

We acknowledged that the new joint forces command could have a role in delivering, co-ordinating and strengthening maritime surveillance. We are nevertheless disappointed that the Government do not think that there is a requirement for an individual within the MOD to take responsibility for maritime surveillance. We accept that it is not the JFC’s role, but we are concerned that the left hand of the MOD may not know what its right hand is doing, let alone be able to co-ordinate the interests of the MOD with all the other Departments and agencies that require maritime surveillance capabilities.

Here I begin a number of requests to the Minister for information, which I will be grateful if he responds to, if not in today’s debate, perhaps in writing later, with whatever degree of classification he considers necessary. It will be helpful if he first outlines how the co-ordination that we are concerned about is being taken forward, particularly as the MOD starts work on the 2015 SDSR. Our concerns were highlighted when we were told that there was an “informal group of Ministers” who were responsible for taking forward maritime surveillance issues.

Although decisions may ultimately be taken in Cabinet or the National Security Council, we thought there should be greater ministerial involvement. This contains an echo of our report, “Defence and Cyber-Security”, published in January this year and our report, “Developing Threats: Electro-Magnetic Pulses”, published in February last year: we worry that Ministers faced with a threat or a vulnerability that crosses departmental responsibilities have inadequate structures and insufficient practice in getting together to work out responses, which may be needed very quickly indeed.

Against that, we welcome the establishment of the maritime security oversight group and the National Maritime Information Centre. The Government told us that the risk assessment was expected to be completed in December 2012. Will the Minister update us on progress? What threats, including new ones, have been identified? Such strategic analysis is important. Future threats are increasingly likely to be identified through intelligence gathering.

Maritime ISTAR—forgive the acronym, which stands for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—of which maritime surveillance is a part, will be essential. Without effective surveillance, both maritime and elsewhere, the UK armed forces are operating at a much reduced effectiveness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I commend the Committee for its excellent report; I too have had the pleasure of serving under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I would probably bow to no one in my respect for the knowledge that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has of ageing military capabilities. [Laughter.]

[Bob Stewart]

I take that personally; I will get you later.

[Thomas Docherty]

I look forward to being shepherded out safely by the Doorkeepers later.

If the decision about the carrier was the largest financial decision, the break-up of the Nimrod aircraft is probably the most visually impressive one to come out of the 2010 SDSR. I do not think that there is anyone who did not watch those images of JCBs tearing up a multi-billion pound project with incredulity. I shall touch briefly on the lessons that the MOD must learn and things that the Committee has discussed in our subsequent report on defence acquisition.

Quite a lot has been said about the Nimrod model and its role, but other capabilities were deleted as a result of the SDSR. The most notable for maritime surveillance was, of course, the Type 22 frigate, which the hon. Member for Beckenham also mentioned. The Type 22 was, as the report says, originally designed and constructed purely as an anti-submarine warfare vessel during the cold war. In its latter years, it took on a broader role, and the Committee was, I think, unconvinced by some of the MOD’s arguments that that capability had been fully covered. Perhaps the new Minister for the Armed Forces will say something about how that matter is being addressed. I should probably take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to his new role.

[Mr Robathan]

You are kind. It was six months ago.

[Thomas Docherty]

It feels like yesterday, I am sure, to many in the MOD. I had the pleasure of serving with the Minister in the Armed Forces Bill Committee when he was merely an Under-Secretary, and I thank him for the letter that he kindly sent me this morning on another matter; I am most grateful that we could resolve the issue. Obviously, he is not directly responsible for many of the decisions, or the comments made by the MOD on the report; but of course he believes in collective responsibility, and I am sure that he will be happy to respond in relation to his predecessor’s comments and to our observations. I have a huge amount of time for the Minister’s predecessor, who was very able and sound, which is probably why the Deputy Prime Minister got rid of him in the Liberal Democrat reshuffle.

Without a doubt, as we said on the acquisition report earlier this week, many decisions in the lead-up to the SDSR were rushed and not fully thought through. Thinking was not done for the long term. With a little charity towards the Government, I must say that the programme is probably the finest example of how not to procure. Four parties each bear some responsibility. First, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who played no part in the decision when he was at the Ministry of Defence, will accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and other colleagues over the years perhaps did not provide enough scrutiny of the acquisition process.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend must remember that the contract was procured under the previous Conservative Government. If I remember rightly, when I was on the Select Committee, we produced a report suggesting that it should have been cancelled back in the early 2000s. I think that I moved the amendment.

[Thomas Docherty]

As I said, I know that my hon. Friend played no part in the decision to proceed. I cannot quite remember who was the Minister responsible for acquisition in the previous Conservative Government, but perhaps it will come back to me later in the debate.

Not just Ministers need to take some responsibility for mistakes; Ministry of Defence officials and the Royal Air Force need to take some, too. There was an 86% change in the aircraft specification from the time of commissioning under that previous Minister and October 2010. Mr Brady, you worked in industry prior to coming to the House. You know that making that amount of change to a project means that costs will go up and it will be delayed.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Does 86% of the blame therefore need to lie with the Labour Government?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am sure that a previous Minister with responsibility for defence acquisition would always be happy to take responsibility for all the decisions that he made, even if he was not always fully aware of that at the time.

As our report on acquisition makes clear, the MOD must learn the lessons of past acquisition decisions. I think that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that, although we welcome the Government’s progress on acquisition, we are not convinced that they have learned all the lessons yet. There is still more work to be done. Perhaps the Minister will say more about what improvements can be made, in the light of those lessons.

The third responsible party is BAE Systems. It should not sit around and blame the MOD, the RAF and the two Governments, and try to get by without accepting some responsibility for its decisions. The Minister nods, and I welcome the fact that there is acceptance on both sides of the Chamber that BAE was not an exemplar: in much the same way as I have been critical of Lockheed Martin’s approach to the strike fighter, I consider that BAE Systems bears some blame.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is being entirely fair. The fault on the programme rests wholly and entirely with BAE Systems. It was the design authority on the aircraft and should have understood its technical capabilities. No two wing sets were the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the then Minister for Defence Procurement, was perfectly entitled to rely on the bid that was put in and on the advice of the civil servants. It is not fair to blame Ministers. I do not think that it is even fair to blame officials. I think that BAE Systems, as the design authority for that aircraft, is entirely responsible for what ended as a disaster.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful comments. I respectfully disagree, in this sense: I was having a private dinner with members of the defence community last night, and we were talking about lack of intellectual curiosity. There were examples that I shall not go into today, but I think that far too often there is a lack of the intellectual curiosity to challenge defence procurement decisions, among those in uniform, politicians—both in the Committee and perhaps in Departments—and civil servants. Too often, Governments have simply gone along with what they are told. But I absolutely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that BAE Systems is a major villain in this play. Nevertheless, the current Government need to take some responsibility, and I will explain why shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), who has had to step out briefly, talked about Nimrod and the deterrent. I was actually wondering at one point if I had wandered into a deterrent debate. She mentioned Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has been a friend of mine for more than 15 years. I typed up—I will not say that I wrote—his maiden speech for him, back in the days of 7 Millbank, Mr Brady, when you, too, first entered the House. You will remember—it is not so many years ago—Mr Browne, as he was then, as a new MP. I have a huge amount of respect for Lord Browne, but I respectfully disagree with his analysis yesterday in The Daily Telegraph. It was a thoughtful piece, but Lord Browne—who, as I say, I have known for many years and regard as a friend—has a habit of treating a conversation as a one- way talk, and I hope that what he has actually done is to help to stimulate a broader debate.

[Bob Stewart]

He was a friend of yours.

[Thomas Docherty]

Much in the same way that the hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine, probably.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock made a thoughtful contribution this afternoon, but again I must respectfully say that her logic is back to front. We need to make a decision about the deterrent and then decide, in effect, the relatively minor costs of providing maritime surveillance; maritime surveillance needs to come second. We do not say whether or not we will have a maritime surveillance capability and therefore whether or not we will have the deterrent, but I suspect that we will have that debate on more than one occasion in the next two to three years.

[Bob Stewart]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We do not just need maritime patrol aircraft for the deterrent; we need maritime patrol aircraft because of our international responsibilities of oversight out to 1,200 nautical miles, and we cannot do that properly at the moment.

[Thomas Docherty]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to that very point shortly.

There has been some discussion already about the joint equipment programme and the whiteboard, and we have touched on the balanced budget. Without prejudging what the Minister might say in response to the debate, I suspect that that might be one of the arguments that he seeks to advance. He knows well my view—and, I think, that of the Defence Committee—and that is a healthy scepticism about the claims that have been made about the size of the so-called black hole and whether or not, in the space of eight months, it has been balanced.

One of the things that concerned us in producing our report was an issue that was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Beckenham: the long-term replacement for the maritime surveillance capability is sitting on the whiteboard, without a funding line and without even a probable time line for moving off that whiteboard and into the joint equipment programme. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will clarify for the House what the status is of the whiteboard. The Minister shakes his head. With the greatest of respect to him, it is difficult for the Defence Committee to believe that the Ministry of Defence has a fully funded JEP and a clear idea of what is on the whiteboard when they will not tell us what is on the whiteboard.

[Mr Robathan]

Until now, the hon. Gentleman has been making rather a lot of sense—it is unlike me to compliment him, as he knows—but the whole point of the whiteboard is that we look at things that we want to have and then we assess whether we can afford them, and if everything that we thought that we would like to have was revealed to everyone else, I am afraid that we probably would not be mentioning a whiteboard at all, because we would not want to have our internal thinking announced before we have got as far as making decisions. These are not decisions; these are things that we want to have.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am very conscious that the title of this debate is “Maritime Surveillance” rather than “Acquisition”; I suspect that we may well seek a broader debate on acquisition. Let me just say to the Minister—again, I thank him for his career-helpful advice and praise—that maritime surveillance, as the Committee has so clearly identified, is not a “like” or a “nice to have”. It is absolutely essential.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am intrigued by the Minister’s intervention on my hon. Friend. Is that not exactly what the Government did when they came into power in May 2010? They added up every piece of equipment in the future equipment programme, which covered 10 years and not one year, and somehow assumed that that is where we get to the figure of the black hole.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is entirely what happened. Let us just remind ourselves that the so-called black hole is a single line from a National Audit Office report from before the 2010 general election that said—

[Mr Jones]

It was in 2009.

[Thomas Docherty]

Indeed. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It said that if there was no increase in defence equipment spending during the next decade and all the current programmes went ahead, that would create a £38 billion black hole.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but it did not actually say that. It said £36 billion. I do not know where the extra £2 billion came from.

[Thomas Docherty]

Well, I cannot possibly comment on the sums. However, that principle of not committing to a future increase in spending is exactly what this Government have done. We saw it again yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, when the Prime Minister, in response to what was not the most difficult question from the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire, the Chairman of the Defence Committee—

[Mr Arbuthnot]

It was a very important question.

[Thomas Docherty]

Indeed, but in response to it the Prime Minister failed to give a clear commitment to increase spending.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to help us further? Has he heard Leader of the Opposition give a commitment to increase defence spending after 2015?

[Thomas Docherty]

I will say two things. First, I have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition speak on many occasions of his great appreciation for the role of our armed forces. Secondly, however, I am also fairly conscious that I am not sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Yet.

[Thomas Docherty]

It may not be happening any time soon after my earlier remarks, and I will perhaps leave it to other colleagues—including perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—to address the right hon. Gentleman’s point later in the debate.

The hon. Member for Beckenham made a point about seedcorn. On pages 41 and 42 of the Committee’s report, we very clearly tackled the point about seedcorn and future remuneration. We welcome seedcorn as a principle; we very much welcome the notion that we would use our international allies to provide training and personnel support. However, we are also very clear that we do not believe that that can continue beyond 2019, and we actually say that there is huge scepticism about it continuing until 2030. The more that we have examined the issue—again, the Minister can correct me if he wants to—the more that it looks as though 2030 is the realistic time line now, in light of both our inquiry and of course our recent correspondence with the Minister, before we will get back that full capability. I wonder whether the Minister has absolute confidence that our partners—particularly our Five Eye partners—will be able to continue to provide that support to us for effectively 17 years, or perhaps even longer?

On replacement platforms, I hope that one of the things that the Minister reflects on, particularly given the BAE Systems debacle, is that there are other ways to procure replacement platforms. Of course, he will be aware of the model of Saab aircraft. In effect, an existing, tried and proven airframe is taken and then the software is fitted on to that system. Obviously, that model needs to be considered in the light of our report on Tuesday about the need for a defence industrial strategy. Can the Minister confirm whether or not the MOD is actively considering that model as one of the options?

There has also been mention of what the MOD has now called remotely piloted aircraft, which we know as unmanned aerial vehicles, and their future role. Again, there was talk about joined-up government. When we had the debate before Christmas, with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, the point was made by a number of colleagues that, in relation to maritime surveillance and the role of RPAs, a number of Departments clearly have an interest in maritime surveillance. The Minister might be able to correct me if I miss any on the list, but my note would say that, as well as the MOD, other Departments that have an interest in maritime surveillance include the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has lead responsibility for fishing and ensuring that Icelandic boats or, indeed, those of our European partners do not break the law. The Home Office has a role for maritime surveillance, as has the Foreign Office, with its responsibilities for overseas territories.

I hope that the Minister takes this as genuinely helpful advice: the Committee believes that we need a much more joined-up Government. Perhaps the Minister can clarify, in a way that the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement could not, what proactive steps the Department is taking to bring other Departments together to discuss whether we can have a shared acquisition policy for RPA, rather than having four Departments acting differently.

I think that, up to now, this has been a genuinely consensual debate, but the final issue I want to raise, which we touched on in the report, is slightly contentious with the Department. It is about the wide area maritime underwater search project. My colleagues know more about it than I do, so I will not go into any great detail. The Committee feels that WAMUS is an exercise that should have been carried out before or during the SDSR and not afterwards, while we were undertaking an inquiry. It was only after extensive questioning by the Chairman of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) that we discovered that the RAF and the Ministry of Defence had failed to tell us that the WAMUS project had not only started but had been completed while we were carrying out our SDSR inquiry. Air Vice-Marshal Green and the Minister’s predecessor both accepted that the information should have been shared with the Committee.

I am not suggesting that the RAF, the MOD and the Minister were malicious in withholding information, but I do suggest that there was either arrogance on the part of the Department—not the Minister—or incompetence. I think that it is fair to say that the Chairman of the Committee expressed his disappointment with both the Royal Air Force and the Minister. Mr Brady, I am sure that when the Chairman of the Committee was Chief Whip you never gave him the opportunity to express his disappointment in you. As one of the members of the Committee to whom that has occasionally happened, I can assure you that the Chairman’s disappointment is something that one does not seek to invoke. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will set out how the MOD has learnt the lesson of that mistake and how it is ensuring that the Committee is not let down by the Department again.

I commend the report to the House. This has been an excellent debate, and I look forward to hearing from colleagues.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sir Gerald Howarth, I want to say that I hope the wind-ups will start at or by 4 o’clock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for providing me with my cue. It says in the few brief notes that I scribbled down, “Reasons for cancellation”. The first reason for cancellation was indeed that BAE Systems had persistently failed to deliver.

BAE Systems is headquartered in my constituency, and there are people who think that I am in BAE’s pay. Lady Thatcher once said to me, “I hope BAE is still paying you.” BAE Systems has never paid me a penny piece in my life. I think that it is a great company, but on this project, as successive major project reports and National Audit Office reports showed, it failed to deliver. For those who do not understand what I mean when I say that BAE was the design authority—I speak as an aviator—the company is responsible for the design of every bit of the aeroplane. BAE did not even know that the wingsets were about 4 inches different, so it had to more or less hand-make whole new wingsets for each aircraft. That is why I believe the company to be culpable. Yes, I take the point that perhaps more diligence should have been shown by technical officials in the Department, but Ministers cannot be expected to understand all the details of aerodynamics.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I feel passionately about the issue, and I want to get my comments on the record and hear what my right hon. Friend and former esteemed ministerial colleague has to say.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire is right: the aircraft, which was already nine years late, had not been accepted into service by the Royal Air Force. I was told, for example, that it was porpoising through the air, and that BAE was going to deal with that by installing software to make the elevator go up and down. Forgive me, but that is metal against metal. I said to the then Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Glenn Torpy, “It’s going to wear out.” He said, “You don’t need to worry, Gerald,” but I do worry, and I did at the time. I was also told, although I do not know whether it is true, that at a certain high angle of attack, the air flow into the engine intakes was disrupted, which would lead the engine to stall. There were technical problems that were not overcome.

Secondly, as the report mentions, there was a question of finance. Again, I want to put this firmly on record. Leaving aside the £36 billion, £38 billion or whatever black hole it was, whatever chaos there was in the Department’s finances—there was chaos in the MOD’s accounts long before the last Government came into office—the fact is that this Government inherited a budget deficit of £156 billion, and we had to deal with that deficit.

I would not say this to my colleagues, but it might be true of other people listening to this debate: hands up, those who knew what the budget deficit was in 2010. I addressed a land warfare conference of 300 officers. Three put up their hands, and all three got it wrong. They were intelligent people. The country needs to understand. If people do not understand the magnitude of the deficit that we inherited—that £156 billion would have bought us three Type 45 destroyers every week of the year—nothing done in the Ministry of Defence can possibly make any sense whatever.

[Thomas Docherty]

What is it now?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The deficit is down, but not far enough, because of the magnitude of the challenge that faced us. Instead of pointing at me, the hon. Gentleman should get up and apologise for what his ghastly, contemptible friend the then Prime Minister did to this country—

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Brady. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, is a little over-emotional and will want to withdraw his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

It is always advisable to use temperate language, especially in the Chamber. I am sure that Sir Gerald will wish to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful, Mr Brady. I just feel nothing but contempt for him. That is a personal view, and if it is unparliamentary, I am sorry.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Brady. I have been gracious enough to say that I think the hon. Gentleman probably regrets it. Will he now withdraw what he said about my right hon. Friend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am not surprised at that. I have dealt with the Treasury myself when in the Ministry of Defence. The current Secretary of State is doing the Treasury’s bidding, no doubt. What I am about to say might sound strange: at least the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the former Secretary of State, actually argued for defence and got into disagreements. To be fair to him, he tried his best on that decision. The whole problem with the SDSR was that it put the Treasury in the driving seat. My experience of dealing with Treasury officials about our budget when I was a Minister was that they had limited knowledge and understanding of how defence works in practice. That is one of the weaknesses: letting the lion into the room, with very little understanding of how defence works.

[Thomas Docherty]

On the point of being Treasury-driven, we mentioned the deterrent several times. Is my hon. Friend as surprised as me that, in a written answer to me last year, the Treasury stated that, although leading the review of the deterrent, its representatives had not once set foot in the MOD building, and that not one single admiral or air marshal had gone across to the Cabinet Office to see them?

[Mr Jones]

That does not surprise me at all. If we had more time, I could bore Members with some of the ludicrous ideas that were presented to me when I was a Minister by the Treasury, showing a lack of understanding.

The Ministry of Defence claims to have balanced the budget, even though we do not know what is on the whiteboard. The Minister said again this afternoon that he is not prepared to tell us what is on the whiteboard. Is the replacement on there, yes or no? Is, for example, Sentinel, another very important piece of kit, on the whiteboard? Even though it has been deployed to Mali, the Secretary of State indicated in Defence questions the other day that it will somehow be reprieved. If so, what is coming off the budget? Last week’s NAO report said that the £8 billion put aside in reserve may not be enough even to cover the risk in the existing programme. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) keeps asking at Defence questions for that whiteboard. Until we get to see that and what is actually in the equipment budget, there is no way of telling when the capability will be put forward.

When the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) came before the Committee, he was clear that there was no money or indication to replace this capability until 2015. There are unanswered questions. There is clearly a capability gap; the Government admit that. The Committee and the NAO report identified that. No solution has been put forward to resolve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend asks a good question, but I am afraid that I cannot answer at this moment. I will write to him and let him know but, certainly, technological advance does not go away—it has happened.

We have not been idle in dealing with the consequences of the decision. Revised plans and operating procedures are in place for other platforms to mitigate the absence of a maritime patrol aircraft capability. I will not go into too much detail, as some things are classified, but we can request support from allies and partners if necessary and we have established a seedcorn initiative to maintain the skills and knowledge necessary to operate maritime patrol aircraft in the future, should circumstances change. I was in New Zealand last year and saw some of our RAF personnel who were taking part in the seedcorn initiative. They said it was extremely valuable, and I thought it also sounded like a pretty good posting.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Committee said that we support seedcorn, which was a sensible move by the Government, but we were specifically concerned that the capability could not be maintained beyond 2019. Given the ongoing delays, what reassurances can the Minister offer to the Committee that that issue has been met?

[Mr Robathan]

That is a perfectly good question. We are coming up to another SDSR in two years’ time, when we will consider how to take this forward. I was going to cover the subject subsequently, but we are stretched for time. Hot off the press, I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that some of the equipment destined for the MRA4 is now destined for the Merlin Mark 2 from 2015. Living within our means will continue to guide our decisions. Hard-headed realism and rigour will determine what we buy.

I have many things that I want to put on the record, but the sitting ends at 4.30 pm, so I must be circumspect in what I say. I turn to submarines, which have been much discussed. Submarines use their stealth and global reach to collect information, indications and warnings of threatening activity; where appropriate, they operate in support of naval taskforces. Bringing in the Astute submarine is a major step forward; it is a quieter submarine and gives us greater capabilities. Also, internationally we are not operating alone. Not only the French and Norwegians, but the Americans and Canadians can provide support through maritime patrol aircraft. We have existing agreements with some of those countries and have recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Norway to co-operate on maritime air surveillance. We are also supporting a NATO smart defence initiative to look at long-term solutions to challenges, which could involve buying maritime patrol aircraft.

We are not complacent. There is a great deal of agreement in the Chamber that this is something we wish to have: greater ability for maritime surveillance. We are looking at ways to have that in future. In order to answer the questions, however, I will not go through the rest of my speech, except to comment on the helicopters. We are looking at the Merlin Mark 2 coming into service this year—two are already in service—and we have SKASaC or Sea King airborne surveillance and control, which will operate until 2016, although the airframe is quite aged, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said. We are not in any way suggesting that life is perfect at the moment.

When winding up, one should answer Members, so I will give some replies. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire asked five questions. We see co-ordination of maritime surveillance as being done by the maritime security oversight group, up to the National Security Council. I agree that further development is needed, and I think that it will develop further. His second question was on the strategic analysis of maritime threats and the need for surveillance. I do not have a specific answer, because that is something we are doing the whole time. If he wants to ask a specific question later, I am happy to answer it. On progress on developing maritime ISTAR, some is classified, but optimisation study is going on as we speak. The air ISTAR optimisation study will consider the potential contribution to maritime surveillance of lighter-than-air vehicles, which were mentioned earlier; the initial report will appear in April this year, for consideration of options by April next year. His fourth question was the general ability to deal with contingency operations. Generally, contingency—a much overused word in the MOD—seems to rule everything at the moment. After Afghanistan, that is very much where we are looking. His fifth question was on updates, which we will continue to provide. If we do not, he can come back to me and ask for them, as I certainly will update him.

I did not entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on the deterrent, although I entirely agreed with her point about Scottish separation. We have layers of defence for the deterrent, so I echo the CDS, and I have just mentioned the Merlin upgrade to Mark 2, going into service this year. They regularly deploy to Prestwick to rehearse anti-submarine warfare in support of deterrence protection. Therefore, what she said is something we are using, although not permanently.

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

“In this age of moral equivalence it must be said that no other occupational group in the United Kingdom matches up to UNMS”—

the unique nature of military service.

“In particular, none belong 24/7 to the Crown, is exempted from normal working practices of the sort governed by the European working-time directive and national minimum wage legislation, has no organised representation, may not easily terminate their service particularly on notice for deployment, will probably sustain some sort of illness or injury if deployed and has liability up to and including death with all that means for dependants cascading through the generations.”

Those are eloquent words, and because they are eloquent words, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you realised that they were not mine. They are the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who I think, in the genuine cross-party spirit of this subject matter, has eloquently defined the unique challenges facing our military.

I have introduced the Bill after reading, as I know the Minister has done, the report published last year about some of the adversities that our armed forces face, not on the battlefield, not in theatre of operations, but when they are here in the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I have had the privilege of serving with him in the House for the past two and a half years. I know he is a passionate supporter and champion of our military personnel and I welcome him to his role. I think this is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate the issue.

I thank The Sun, which has supported our campaign to put in statute particular protection for members of our armed forces. It is fair to say that there is no sensible Member of the House present today—I see that the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) is not here, so I am fairly confident that I can say that—who does not believe that protecting our armed forces is the first duty of the Ministry of Defence.

I have drawn the Bill narrowly. I place on record my thanks to Ms Kate Emms and Mr Simon Patrick for their incredibly sterling work in helping to draft the Bill. Let me clarify what the Bill does not cover. It does not cover the issue of trade and sales, or the outrageous cases in which service personnel are refused entry to pubs. I commend to the Minister of State an excellent book which he can probably get from the Library, although as I know he has deep pockets, he would probably go on to a website and buy his ministerial colleague’s book, “Tommy This an’ Tommy That”, which eloquently sets out some examples. There was the notorious case where Harrods refused service to a serving member of the armed forces who, I think, had come in after a Remembrance day parade.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words earlier and also for his reference to the book, which was written by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is sitting on the Front Bench next to me. I am delighted to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I was present at my hon. Friend’s book launch and purchased a copy of the book from my own perhaps not quite so deep pockets. It is a very good read.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that, and I am reassured that the right hon. Gentleman used his own money to purchase the book and did not borrow the £15 from his ministerial colleague.

As the book sets out, there have been some ridiculous examples, such as the one, when somebody in their uniform who had been at a Remembrance day service was refused service by Harrods. The Under-Secretary subsequently visited the store after a bit of a campaign in which he had been involved, and thankfully Harrods has changed its policy. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in your own constituency and others you are aware of incidents where, regrettably, members of the armed forces have been refused service on rare occasions.

The report contains allegations that banks and building societies have turned down mortgage applications from armed forces personnel, and they have been unable to get mobile phones. I am conscious of hon. Members’ comments on previous occasions about narrowly defining Bills, so on this occasion I have not put such incidents into the Bill, but when the Minister responds I hope he will consider how widespread the problem is. The Ministry of Defence may wish to use a report mechanism to provide greater clarity on it.

I want to focus on the even more abhorrent incidents, which, thankfully, are relatively rare, but do occur, of verbal and physical abuse of members of our armed forces. No one present today and no one watching our proceedings would not condemn unequivocally the actions of a mindless tiny minority who when, for example, the coffins returned from theatre felt the need to hurl abuse and intimidate those who had gathered to pay their respects. I know that the Minister takes that very seriously.

The report also contains accounts of an RAF recruiter who reported that she had regularly faced verbal abuse. People had apparently called her a baby killer, which I am sure the House would find utterly despicable. It is such incidents that the Bill seeks to address, as well as physical assaults. I am clear, as I am sure is the House, that we are not talking about where soldiers, sailors or RAF personnel get into a fight as any other person might, but where they have been subject to an assault because of the fact that they are either in or out of uniform.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for his Bill. In my constituency we are proud of our links with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which has now effectively taken over from the Lancashire Fusiliers. Fortunately, I have not come across any cases like those he describes. Has he had representations resulting from occurrences in his constituency, and if so, will he outline them to the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s attendance today and the points he has made. I refer him for the detail to the report, or indeed to the Under-Secretary’s excellent book, which he can purchase for a small sum. Just to give one example from the book, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) will recall, as I am sure you will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in June 2010, an organisation calling itself Muslims against Crusades attacked members of the 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment’s homecoming parade in Barking. That is the kind of despicable act that he asks about, which we all take incredibly seriously.

Another point that the Under-Secretary makes very well in his book is that this works both ways. The Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the General Staff have also made that point. The Minister of State will recall that when we had the privilege of serving together on the Armed Forces Public Bill Committee we discussed the difference between our culture and that of the United States, which holds its armed forces in great respect. On the rare occasions that you get away from the House of Commons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and travel to an airport in the United States, you will often find a VSO office providing refreshments and the opportunity to enjoy some relaxation. Regrettably, we have not yet persuaded our airports to do something similar. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on how we could do that.

The Chief of the Defence Staff makes the valid point that members of the armed forces have not always helped themselves. There is an ill-judged perception that some soldiers have gone looking for trouble. I think that perception is false, but I welcome what Army representatives said to the Defence Committee—that the issue is a cultural thing that they are working on. That is why the Bill is so important. It says that we recognise that the military have to do more, but we have to do more to protect the military.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The Bill is incredibly important. Has the hon. Gentleman received any correspondence or communication from my friends and colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches apologising for not contributing in any way to the debate and not being here at all today—or, indeed, last Friday? Perhaps they have sent a note of apology and said they are all in Eastleigh delivering leaflets.

[Thomas Docherty]

I often think that Liberal Democrats are neither here nor there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that we are not going to get distracted on to discussing the Liberal Democrats or the coalition. We are going to discuss the Bill, which is about discrimination against the armed forces.

[Thomas Docherty]

You are entirely right, Mr Deputy Speaker; we should discuss serious matters, rather than the Liberal Democrats. It is right that the issue we are discussing should be approached by grown-up parties in a grown-up manner, as is happening today.

There is a genuine need for us to recognise that we can do more to protect our armed forces. I pay tribute to our armed forces. As a member of the Defence Committee, I have had the opportunity to spend a little time with them. I shall not open up the debate about service allowances. I know that the Minister never takes any pleasure in the choices that he feels he has been forced to make, but I hope the Bill is a small measure that will symbolise our determination not to tolerate hate crimes against our armed forces, that will move the debate on and that will provide greater protection for men and women who, as Ministers have in the past so eloquently set out, operate under unique and special circumstances. I commend the Bill to the House.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for introducing it, because he is a Scottish Member and the Bill applies to England and Wales. I hope that colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are looking carefully to see how it progresses in this Parliament, so that the whole of the United Kingdom benefits. One of the curious problems of devolution is that some sensible things that should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom do not because of the nature of the devolution settlement.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting so much on to the Order Paper today, most of which appears to be devoted to his Bills. Perhaps he could talk to colleagues on the Procedure Committee to ask whether it is appropriate, despite his many talents, for so many Bills to be taken forward by one person in any one day. Apart from anything else, it is an enormous burden for the hon. Gentleman, who spoke for an hour and a half in the first debate, to make a significant contribution to the second debate as well.

I turn to the Bill’s substance. To be frank, I am unclear about what has changed over time. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not here in 2008, although given his experience and command of the House, it is easy to think that he was. The former Member for Grantham and Stamford, who is now in another place—I am not sure whether to describe him as a colleague from the Government or Opposition Benches—proposed a similar Bill, which was rejected by the then Labour Government.

I am trying to establish whether this Bill is fundamentally different, whether the circumstances have fundamentally changed and whether the hon. Gentleman is saying, in retrospect, that the last Labour Government were wrong not to take forward the Bill on the national recognition of the armed forces proposed by the former Member. In all candour, I do not know whether the former Member was Conservative or Labour in 2008, although I am not sure that that is relevant.

I applaud the motives behind this Bill, which concerns an incredibly important issue that has been raised outside the House. I should like to go into a bit more detail on Lord Ashcroft’s report of May 2012 on the perceptions of our armed forces in society generally. It said that nearly one in 20 of the 9,000 personnel surveyed had had experience of violence or attempted violence in the previous five years. We should put this into perspective by saying that the level of violence towards other uniformed organisations—our fire service, ambulance service and police service—is equally appalling. I understand that there are differing circumstances. I also recognise that other Members would have criticised the Bill if the hon. Gentleman had drafted it even more widely. I merely raise this as a background issue rather than encouraging him to widen the scope of the Bill. I assume that it covers all our armed forces, including the Territorial Army.

[Thomas Docherty]

indicated assent.

[James Duddridge]

That is good to know, and I apologise for not having picked it up in my reading of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the service chiefs. As the Bill progresses, I would be interested to find out a bit more about the representations made by service chiefs and other members of the armed forces and the degree to which they see this as a major problem in terms of the number of offences. Clearly, one offence is one too many. This is about sending a message of support to our troops in saying that we want them to be uniformed when off duty or going about their business, because that is a very positive thing, but the question is whether it is also about addressing the problem of a large number of offences.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for the services to make representations to Members of Parliament outside the ministerial channels. On the numbers involved, I am sure he agrees that even one would be one too many.

[James Duddridge]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right, and he paraphrases my point. I also accept what he says about the service chiefs. Perhaps that question would be better directed at the Minister, but I suspect that he will find time to mention representations from service chiefs and other members of the armed forces. The armed forces are in a peculiar position compared with an accountant or a banker in making representations to Members of Parliament, and rightly so.

Let me turn to the detail of the Ashcroft report. We should not overplay the scale of the problem. We have said that one is too many, but 80% of our armed forces have not experienced problems or discrimination. In fact, 56% had had strangers come up to them and offer support, 29% had had strangers come up to them and offer to buy them a drink to thank them for the very good work that they are doing, and 26% had had spontaneous offers of discounts in shops and businesses—something that I would fully encourage. There were some problems at the other end of the scale, but there were many more positive than negative responses.

It is important that we send out a message to the armed forces that we support them and that we do take this seriously, but that in all probability they will not experience problems when going out and about in their uniform, which is a very positive thing to do in order to create civic pride and ensure that there is no gap between citizens and servicemen. It allows people to start conversations about what the armed forces do, it encourages recruitment, and it helps to do away with stereotypes in any way, shape or form. Although it is right to have this debate, I would not want members of the armed services to get the message that this is a massive problem that should deter them from wearing their uniform in public. In fact, as the Ashcroft report demonstrates, they are much more likely to be offered thanks, support, drinks and discounts than to experience any problems.

In June 2012 the Defence Secretary wrote to the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), on concerns about discrimination:

“You suggest the need for anti-discrimination legislation to protect those serving in the Armed Forces, similar, I assume, to legislation we already have to protect other groups in society. My advice is that the Armed Forces do not want to be singled out in this way”.

That is interesting and I hope that the Minister will probe in more detail the feedback he has received from the service chiefs and the armed forces more generally. I am not sure what the logic behind the argument is, but if they are saying that they do not want to be singled out we should take that seriously.

[Thomas Docherty]

This has been a constructive debate. We need to be clear—I hope the Minister will address this point—that, even though the armed forces would not expect to be singled out to an extent, we would none the less, despite their modesty, want to provide them with support, as this morning’s Sun has done.

[James Duddridge]

I see where the hon. Gentleman is going and think it sends a message. This also relates to the other uniformed services. We could do something collectively—perhaps not by amending this Bill, but more widely—to create respect for people who serve us, whether they be in the ambulance service, the fire and police services or the armed forces. Indeed, in my constituency of Rochford and Southend East there seems to be a worrying number of people who feel that it is right to take a pot shot at national health service staff. There is now a police station in Southend hospital to deter that type of activity. That is of particular concern and perhaps presents the case for a slightly wider Bill than this narrow one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I must confess that in preparing for this debate I had not looked at that question. My instinctive answer is that they would not be, because the Bill relates mainly to UK service personnel.

[Thomas Docherty]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I hope I have that right.

Further on in section 343B, subsection (4) gives the meaning of the term “relevant family member”, but effectively allows the Secretary of State to interpret it as best fits the context. The Bill, however, replaces that discretion, for this purpose, by specifying that it should cover “any relative”. If I have understood the hon. Gentleman’s intentions correctly—I hope I have—he wishes the new provision to cover a large group of people, including all former members of the armed forces and all relatives of current or former service personnel. Offences against them would be treated more seriously, if motivated by hostility to service people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps I can assist the Minister. He will be aware, from the examples cited, that the types of occasions concerned are those such as remembrance services and funerals. That is why the Bill is so framed. He was right to highlight it, but there have been regrettable incidents at such occasions.

[Mr Francois]

Again, I can follow the hon. Gentleman’s thinking, but as I will explain it could present practical difficulties, if the Bill was passed, including for the courts. If he will allow me, I shall explain—clearly, I hope—why they might be.

We need to be clear about what the Bill will not do. Over the years, there have been reports of incidents in which hostility has been directed against service personnel because of their membership of the armed forces. Some of the actions of anti-war demonstrators, for example, fall into this category and have been widely and rightly condemned. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a protest at the homecoming parade of 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment. As that was my old regiment, I feel that particularly strongly, as he can imagine.

Those incidents should not be confused, however, with situations such as a refusal to admit members of the armed forces to a hotel or bar. These, too, have led to widespread public indignation, but it is important to recognise that the Bill does not address those situations, because they generally do not involve a criminal offence.

[Thomas Docherty]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman nods in assent.

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, and I have no difficulty in principle with the signal he wants Parliament to send—that offences motivated by hostility to the armed forces are serious offences—but I have considerable practical difficulty with how he proposes to send that signal. In effect, I believe that the law of unintended consequences would apply, and I will explain why in a moment.

As a general rule, before we go down the route of new legislation, we must consider whether there is a need for it. The answer in this case is, on balance, no. The courts already have a wide power in sentencing to take into account factors that make conduct more serious. Criminal acts based on an irrational hostility to a person because he or she is in the armed forces will, if anything, often lead to a higher sentence anyway.

[Mr Francois]

As I said, I can understand the signal that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is trying to send, but if we are talking about changing the law of the land, we need to look at the practical effect, including on the courts. I am trying to walk the House through what might be the practical effect in the courtroom. If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) will bear with me, I shall attempt to develop that point.

I am aware of no evidence of courts finding that they have insufficient powers to give an appropriate sentence to an offender in this regard. I am not aware that we have received representations from the courts asking us to amend the law in this way.

In contrast, converting the flexibility that the courts currently exercise into a mandatory requirement—which is what the Bill says—would present them with practical difficulties. For example, in demonstrating to a court that the aggravating factor was present and should apply, the prosecution would need to show that the hostility was present. Perhaps that would be relatively straightforward in the case of a soldier in uniform, but the Bill as drafted extends the same protection to those not in uniform, which might be more difficult to prove. As we have seen, this provision also includes the families of service personnel and our veteran community—all 4.6 million of them, or about one in 10 of the adult population of this country.

Under the Bill as drafted, the court would presumably have to decide whether the offender was aware of that fact and whether it motivated the effect. The court might need to establish whether a victim was a relative—“any relative”—of a member of the armed forces. How are the courts to deal with a situation where an offence is motivated by excessive rivalry between different sections of the armed forces or, perhaps, a domestic dispute? A mandatory requirement for a higher sentence reduces the courts’ ability to take a sensible, common-sense approach to what is really going on in the circumstances they are examining.

[Thomas Docherty]

I regret that the Minister and I are slightly diverging in our perspectives. My concern is that some of these arguments could well have been used by civil servants who were sceptical about the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 dealing with relatives and how someone knows that someone else is gay. The Minister is a wise individual with a great deal of common sense. He knows what we are talking about, even if his civil servants do not necessarily know, and I am confident that if he was on a jury, he would know what he was looking at.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s vote of confidence in that respect. It is kind of him. The point I am making is that his Bill would mandate the courts. My argument is that the courts already have sufficient power to increase sentences if they believe that such sentiments are an aggravating factor, but can make that choice at their own discretion. It is not as though the courts could not do that without the Bill. They already can; it is just that the Bill would mandate them to do so, which might lead to some practical difficulties.

It is also worth pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between offences provoked by hostility to the work of the victim and offences motivated by prejudice against the inherent characteristics of the victim, such as homophobic crime. Section 146 of the 2003 Act is designed to help to change deep-rooted prejudices. It would be quite wrong to suggest that such provisions were necessary in relation to the armed forces, because I do not believe that such deep-seated prejudices necessarily apply.

I have not yet mentioned what I regard as the most telling argument against the Bill: the views of the intended beneficiaries. I am not aware of any general desire in the armed forces community for legislation of this type and it has certainly never been proposed to me by any of the chiefs of staff. The servicemen and women who wear their uniforms with pride want to be respected in their communities and to be considered part of those communities, and rightly so. We should not necessarily put them in a position where they are forced to explain why they require protection in law in a way that is not enjoyed by, for example, firemen or ambulance staff. It is a firm principle of the armed forces covenant that special provision for service people may be appropriate in some cases, but I am not necessarily convinced at this stage that the way the hon. Gentleman has drafted his Bill would achieve the desired effect.

Finally, we have to recognise that the criminal law is a devolved matter. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a difficult area—in fairness to him, the Bill clearly states that, as drafted, it extends to England and Wales only, so he is definitely cognisant of that—but the Bill opens the way to a situation where offences against members of the armed services could be handled differently across the UK. We have no interest in creating further anomalies of this kind. I have no doubt that the Scottish Parliament would be as firm as Westminster in its views on discrimination, but we also need to acknowledge and recognise that the question is perhaps not as straightforward when seen from the perspective of Belfast. The introduction of a provision similar to the one we are discussing today could, practically, be quite problematic in Northern Ireland under certain circumstances.

In pointing out the problems with the Bill, I would not wish the House to draw the conclusion that the Government are complacent or that we are doing nothing to counter discrimination against service personnel—quite the opposite. The armed forces covenant and the principles that we enshrined in statute in 2011 have a high profile across the whole of Whitehall and beyond. The first principle, that members of the armed forces community should not suffer disadvantage as a result of that membership, has given rise to many initiatives that are making a real, practical difference.

In the first statutory annual report on the armed forces covenant, published in December 2012, we described what we were doing to make those principles a reality. Let me give the House some examples. We are working to remove the disadvantage that the children of service personnel can face in the schools system as a result of their mobility, through the admissions code and through the service pupil premium. We have been consulting on the disadvantages faced by reservists in the workplace. We are ensuring that service personnel and leavers encounter a level playing field in access to social housing or Government-funded home ownership schemes.

At the same time, we are working to build the links between the armed forces community and the wider community, to improve the knowledge and understanding that must be at the centre of that relationship. From knowledge flows the esteem for our servicemen and women that is ultimately the most powerful way to counter discrimination. The community covenant has now been signed in over 230 local authority areas from Cornwall to the north of Scotland, signifying a real determination to strengthen ties with the armed forces. I am confident that, during the year, it will continue to gain further support. The grant scheme linked to the community covenant has allowed us to back a range of schemes that will help to put those declarations into practice. To that, we can now add the £35 million fund created as a result of the LIBOR fines, which will support charities with projects to help the armed forces and their families.

In giving the Bill careful consideration, I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife will not mind me pointing out that it is not an entirely new proposal. That fact was highlighted earlier by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). It is always good to see him in his place in the House of Commons. Something very similar was proposed by the then Member for Grantham and Stamford, now Lord Davies of Stamford, in his “Report of Inquiry into National Recognition of the Armed Forces” in 2008. The hon. Member for Wrexham said that he could not quite remember the details of the report, so I shall refresh his memory. On page 6, in the chapter on “Increasing Visibility”, the then Member for Grantham and Stamford said:

“We further recommend that the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service and Ministry of Justice consider issuing guidance respectively to the Police, Prosecutors and Judiciary to the effect that where victims of violence or threats of violence are persons in military uniform, those offences should be considered aggravated by that fact.”

The Labour Government of the day responded to that report a few months later, in the name of the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). By then, of course, the author of the report had become a Defence Minister. Nevertheless, the Government’s response to the recommendation I have just referred to was very clear. It stated:

“We are confident…that Service personnel are properly protected against criminal offences by the criminal law as it stands.”

It went on to state that

“we do not think that a change in the law is necessary or appropriate.”

Given that robust response, I had expected the Opposition to take the same view of the Bill as we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Lord Davies might have changed parties, but I will leave it to others to decide whether he has changed his mind.

Across the country, attitudes to our armed forces are positive and healthy. That is not only a good thing in itself; it is also an important contributor to morale. We should not underestimate the strength that our servicemen and women draw in doing their very difficult job from the knowledge that they have the respect and backing of their fellow citizens. They deserve it, and they earn it; we do not need to enlist the help of the criminal courts in order to engender respect for our armed forces.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Mr Francois]

I am about to conclude, but I will give way briefly if the hon. Gentleman wants me to.

[Thomas Docherty]

Very briefly, is this an issue that the Minister will look at in the coming armed forces covenant report, and will he consider reporting back to the House on it?

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me. I was about to say that as a result of the Armed Forces Act 2011, we have a new vehicle at our disposal in the form of an annual report to Parliament—effectively a report on the state of the armed forces covenant. As I have already mentioned, we produced the first report in December last year. I acknowledge that it does not refer in detail to the issues we have been debating this afternoon. Given the concerns expressed, however, I can see the case for monitoring developments in this area, and for including any findings in the next report at the end of 2013. The focus of the annual report on the removal of disadvantage as one of the key covenant principles gives us sufficient latitude to do so. I sense no will in the House to object to our being able to achieve that.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my caution about the law of unintended consequences does not diminish in any way my respect for what he is trying to achieve. On the understanding that we will most definitely look at this issue in the context of the armed forces covenant report, I hope he will consider withdrawing his Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

This has been a very positive, consensual and useful debate. Briefly, I think there is a difference between the armed forces and other uniforms. The armed forces are unique in that they have no professional body; there is no equivalent of the Police Federation, the Fire Brigades Union or the GMB. That is an important point to note.

I am heartened by the fact that two Ministers have been prepared to give up their time to be here. I am heartened, too, by the pledge given by the Minister of State. I welcome that, and I look forward to working with him on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

Deployment to Mali

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This training support should be seen in the context of our ongoing and very good relations with the Anglophone countries of west Africa, where we already have in place excellent military-to-military relationships and provide some training to them. This is very much a continuation and a stepping up of an activity for which there is established precedent, and I hope that the House will support it on that basis.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will have seen the report in Friday’s Le Monde about atrocities that have allegedly been committed by Mali Government forces as they have seized back territory. Will he explain why we are not making it an absolute requirement on the Malian Government to investigate and co-operate fully with the International Criminal Court before we give them a single shilling?

[Mr Hammond]

We are making the point very clearly to the Malian Government that if they want to benefit from the support of the United Kingdom and other members of the international community, they must respond swiftly and effectively to the allegations that have been made. The French forces command in Mali is also very focused on the need to address this issue promptly.

Armed Forces Redundancies

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

The Opposition cannot will the reopening of the SDSR unless they are prepared to will the additional means to do so. My understanding of their current position is that they wish to will it in spirit but admit that they do not have the money.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

In 2012, did the TA hit or miss its recruitment target, and if it missed it, by how much?

[Mr Francois]

I have already accepted that there were some blockages in the recruitment pipeline. I was aware that there had been difficulties, but I can assure the House that I investigated the problem at close range, as some generals can testify. I believe that those blockages have now been cleared, and that our recruitment and retention—which is also critical—will now improve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

On the deployment of military equipment, we are using the C-17s to deploy French military equipment. On joint working, we are particularly looking at Watchkeeper—an unmanned aerial vehicle—and future combat air systems, which are looking at very complex issues. We are also, of course, working together on the A400M.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

In October 2010 the Prime Minister said that switching to the F-35C would increase operability with the French carrier. Given that the French do not have the right weapons, that their pilots would not be trained on the F-35, and that the F-35 could not land or take off on the Charles de Gaulle, what exactly did the Prime Minister mean?

[Mr Robathan]

Switching variant does not make any difference to whether or not the aircraft could land on the Charles de Gaulle. We are co-operating with the Charles de Gaulle and we do not see the two aircraft carriers as being interoperable; we see them as separate but linked assets, and we certainly support the French. Indeed, during Exercise Corsican Lion, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and I had lunch on the Charles de Gaulle, and very good it was too. I assure hon. Members that we discussed equipment, interoperability and other matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Our policy is that where there are changes in the order of battle, it is very important that history and traditions of noble regiments are properly acknowledged. In the first instance we look to the regimental councils to agree among themselves appropriate proposals to do this. I understand that the Mercian regimental council has come up with proposals that are going through an approvals process. Providing they are reasonable, which we think they are, we will be happy to endorse them.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

If the UK Government are to meet the costs of the C-17s for the Mali operation, will the Minister identify which Government Department will meet those costs?

[Mr Robathan]

I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Omniscient though I may be, I do not know the answer, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh—for the first time, I think—if only because you have given the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) a history lesson.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this important debate. She has brought to it the same level of expertise and knowledge that we are lucky enough to draw on in the Defence Committee, where she is also a voice of moderation and reason.

The history of warfare is one of innovation and, some would argue, progress, although I am not sure that the latter view is always valid. No one is clear about which of the city states was the first to deploy ballistic weapons, but it is fair to say that those were first used to great effect by the Romans in defeating the Greek hoplite phalanxes between 300 BC and 100 BC; it was the first time that stand-off weapons were used on a large scale. To pick up the point eloquently made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, at that point stand-off weapons were still limited by the kinetic capacity of the thrower or archer.

The first recorded use of gunpowder on the battlefield was in the 13th century. It was used in—I will try to pronounce this correctly, Mr Leigh; I am sure that you will correct me if I get it wrong—Ain Jalut in south-east Galilee by the Egyptian Mamluks against the Mongols; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was there at the time and will correct me if I am wrong. The Chinese are known to have invented gunpowder, although we do not have an earlier record of their use of it on the battlefield.

The Mamluks in Ain Jalut represent the first recorded use of hand cannons, and they were the first to cause the Mongol horsemen to turn back on their ride westwards. That is significant because it is the first recorded indication that the capacity for ballistic weapon use need not be limited by the human kinetic ability to pull or throw.

We then go forward to the 16th century and the decline in the use of pikes and halberds. Until the middle of the 17th century—probably the end of the civil wars in the British Isles and slightly later in continental Europe—the pike is still the weapon of choice for generals for turning the tide of battle. By the middle of the 17th century, pikes are in decline and there is the rise of the musketmen.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I think my hon. Friend has inadvertently forgotten the effectiveness of the archers. [Interruption.]

[Mr Gray]

It is not obscene at all.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will not come between blue-on-blue discussions. I think a similar gesture was offered to the Prime Minister at last night’s 1922 committee discussion on gay marriage.

My hon. Friend is right to mention archers; he is thinking particularly of 1415 and the battle of Agincourt. Archery was an extension of the ballistic weapons used in ancient times, but he is right to mention it. The archers were underpinned by the cavalry charge, at the end of the battle, by King Harry’s noble British troops—many were Scots and Welshmen who, as ever, came to his rescue—who defeated the French.

Let me talk a bit more about warfare between the French and the British.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Are we slowly arriving at the 21st century?

[Thomas Docherty]

We are, although I hope you will bear with me, Mr Leigh.

If we go forward to 1745, we find the Duke of Cumberland fighting in the battle of Fontenoy, during the war of the Austrian succession. Despite the use of ballistic weapons, he invited his French counterparts to fire first, although it is worth noting—this is the key point—that he had moved some distance back before inviting them to fire on his troops. As ever, the general was not in the firing line.

Moving forward to the 21st century, we see that UAVs are a logical extension of the use of such stand-off ordnance, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire so eloquently discussed. As he said, if we look at the history of warfare, it is difficult to see a coherent argument pointing to a significant difference between the use of armed UAVs—it is important to note that the debate is about UAVs, not armed UAVs, although it has inevitably turned into a debate about armed UAVs—and the archers of Agincourt, the artillery of Fontenoy, the Mamluk gunners of Ain Jalut or the Roman archers of the 2nd century BC. However, in the modern world, our values mean that our sense of moral repugnance at the death of any civilian or military personnel has come a long way since the Duke of Cumberland so graciously invited the French to fire first on his British forces.

It is worth talking about not only armed UAVs but the important role played by unarmed UAVs. In an answer given on 30 October, Lord Astor said that only one of the five types of UAV that we currently deploy in Afghanistan is armed. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, of the 5,000 sorties that have been carried out in the past 12 months, only a handful have been carried out by the Reaper; the vast majority have been reconnaissance missions, using the ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—UAV, which is there to support our troops.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who organised the all-party group on the armed forces welcome for our brave men and women returning from Afghanistan and Libya. It is worth placing on the record not only our thanks for the courageous work that our personnel do in Afghanistan, but the fact that we remain committed to giving them the best support we can in their operations. I challenge any Member of the House honestly to tell me that the support our armed forces have when they are under fire would be enhanced if we removed the UAV capability from the field of operations.

The Minister with responsibility for procurement is here, and I welcome him to his post; this is the first chance we have had to debate. I hope he will not mind my saying that his predecessor is sorely missed by the British defence industry and all of us who are interested in it; he had a real passion for, and a real knowledge of, the field. However, I look forward to working with the current Minister in the remaining two and a half years before the general election.

Perhaps the Minister can answer a few questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston raised in her opening remarks and which I will reiterate. As the Queen Elizabeth class carriers—the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales—come into service at the end of this decade and the start of the next one, what provisions will be made to supply them with UAV maritime capabilities? We also have the Type 26, which the Minister is currently developing with the support of BAE Systems and the Chief of Defence Matériel. What capabilities does he envisage it, or indeed the Type 45, having in the next decade or two decades?

How does the Ministry of Defence intend to support British industry on this issue? We have a long and inglorious tradition, as you will recall, Mr Leigh, of developing absolutely first-rate aviation capabilities and then allowing them to wither on the vine. The example I think of most often is the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which was first developed by Britain in the early 1960s as the successor to the Kestrel programme and which is now flown by the United States Marine Corps and the Spanish Navy. However, it is no longer used by the UK armed forces—that is probably a debate for another day—and the latter versions are not even developed by British companies; I think that Boeing developed the latter Marine Corps version.

How will the Ministry of Defence support British companies that are assisting in the development of the next generation of UAVs, so that we do not repeat the mistakes that we have made far too often in the past? What role does the Minister see for UAVs as a replacement for RAF pilots? Those of us on the Defence Committee regularly discuss the issue with Sir Stephen Dalton and other leading members of the RAF, and so does the all-party group. To what extent does the Ministry of Defence believe that, as we move through this century, the fast-jet pilot will become obsolete, in much the same way as we went from having bombers such as the Vulcan and the Victor, with crews of five or seven, to the modern Typhoon, with just one pilot?

As technology improves, to what extent will the UAV be an all-weather, all-year-round weapon? Current UAVs are severely limited in their ability to operate; when there is a severe gust, quite a lot of them struggle. Their payloads are also severely limited in terms of reconnaissance and ordnance. How does the Minister see the long-term future in that respect?

I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will be setting out the Opposition’s official position, so I will close by reminding Members that when we talk about drones or UAVs, we are not talking about some sci-fi technology, with the weapons thinking for themselves. These weapons are no different from a Paveway or a Brimstone; it is just that, rather than being dropped off a Typhoon or a Tornado on a stand-off by a fast-jet pilot, they are being flown under the command of a living, breathing, serving member of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

It will help the debate if we avoid wild flights of fancy—Members will pardon the dreadful pun—and remember that we are talking, I hope, about well-trained members of the British armed forces, who have, and will continue to have, overall control of these vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I shall refer to Pakistan later, but having been there, and having been a Defence Minister, I accept that there is a big gulf between those who are democratically elected in Pakistan, and the military. I do not accept that some of the actions being taken in northern Pakistan are being done without the knowledge of the Pakistan military. I accept that that creates tensions in Pakistan, but not the idea that some of those things are being done without any knowledge on the part of people in authority there. Having spoken to politicians on my last visit to Pakistan I know that they find that situation difficult; however, that is a debate within the context of the democratic accountability of the armed forces in Pakistan. I assure my hon. Friend that some intelligence and other targeting involve co-operation with the Pakistan military.

In the context that I have outlined, our judgment is that the UK’s current position on deployment of UAVs seems to meet the criteria I have specified. However, we should keep that issue under constant review. It has already been said that it is important to distinguish the deployment of the UK’s UAVs from the deployment of those of our allies. I understand that at present some 76 nations operate UAVs and, as has already been described, the UK deploys four types in Afghanistan. However, only one of those, the Reaper, has an armed capacity. The main focus for our UAV technology in Afghanistan is surveillance and support of our operations, and I have seen at first hand the tremendous job it does in protecting convoys and intelligence gathering, which is vital for the security of our and our allies’ armed forces personnel.

As a matter of technology, UAVs can be more cost-effective in carrying out surveillance and other forms of projecting power. If we did not use their surveillance capacity in relation to convoy protection we would have many more casualties in Afghanistan. I do not accept the argument that UAVs are more indiscriminate, when used in a kinetic role, than conventional aircraft. Their ability to loiter for a long period gives more information to those who are deciding the targeting than is available to a manned aircraft. It would be wrong to give the impression that UAVs are a magic solution to all our defence needs; but they are very important in the defence of the country. The Opposition’s policy is clear. We support unmanned technology as an important element of military capability that complements our manned aerial capability, but with a desire to ensure that it is used in the right context.

The UK does not work on operations in isolation; it works with allies—and not only on operations, but, as has been mentioned, in co-operation on development. It would be interesting to hear what stage of development has been reached after the new Anglo-French agreement on co-operating on the next generation of UAVs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and other hon. Members mentioned, the use of UAVs by our most important strategic partner, the United States, has caused public controversy. It is important to distinguish the UK’s use of UAVs from that of the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made the important point that most of our UAV deployment in Afghanistan is for surveillance and is not armed, and that deployment of UAVs is only within the borders of Afghanistan. However, we must all recognise the threat that we, the United States and our other allies face from concerted Islamic terrorism and groups who seek to undermine our way of life and destabilise Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

A lot has been written and said about civilian casualties, and all civilian casualties are a matter of great sadness and deep regret. It is difficult to get the true picture and figures. I do not want to talk in statistics, because one life lost means a family is mourning a loved one. Our major aim should be to do anything that can be done to minimise civilian casualties, whether from a strike by a UAV or by any other conventional weaponry. I know from my time in the Ministry of Defence that the military take that very seriously. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) mentioned artillery rounds and other things that are far more indiscriminate than some of the technology.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is setting out an eloquent and articulate argument. He mentioned minimising casualties, and the families left to mourn. Does he agree that without the use of UAVs in Afghanistan the number of families of British service personnel mourning a loved one would undoubtedly increase?

[Mr Jones]

With respect to the use of UAVs for intelligence gathering and protection of convoys I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire raised. To people who are against war, we must be honest and say that war is not a pleasant thing; people die in wars. There are individuals and groups active in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan who are bent on undermining not only the way of life of the United States but the one that we take for granted. It is important that any use of force should be a proportionate response.

There has been a lot of talk about the United States and whether the UAV strikes in northern Pakistan are legal. They were authorised post the 11 September authorisation of the use of military forces and have been reinforced by the Obama Administration. When I was at the Ministry of Defence there was a big debate about whether they would continue when President Obama took over, and clearly they have. Article 51 of the United Nations charter, on a nation’s right to self-defence, is also relevant. We must remember that the individuals in question are not sitting around discussing philosophy; they are planning terrorist strikes and atrocities across the world. In the debate about whether we use force to counter those individuals, I am comfortable about recognising the existence of a threat: that has led to disruption of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and it would not have happened without that type of action.

We support the move by the United States to codify the use of UAVs, which relates to the points made about new technology. It is partly because of the controversy that we need to do something. It is important that the UK examine whether we should have a code covering the contexts and limitations of usage, the process for internal Government oversight of deployments, command and control structures, and acceptable levels of automation. I accept that there is now someone at the end of a UAV, but the next generation of UAVs may be completely autonomous, and we must ensure that such a change is within a legal envelope.

One important point is that I am in no way criticising the Government by saying that no laws are in place. I am well aware of the legal constraints on the selection of targets, and that the same rules of engagement are used as for manned flights. We should however explain UAVs to the public. With the new technology, trying to codify their use and explaining to individuals exactly how targets are selected, for example, and how UAVs are used for both surveillance and military purposes would be a great step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

I was not intending to get into the wider deployment of RPAS, but it is the case that we are about to embark on a concept-of-use demonstration trial to see whether, for surveillance purposes, a maritime system could be deployed in the future, which relates to a question that was raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. It is not at present beyond the demonstration phase.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister shows his skill by guessing what I am going to press him to say. As part of the procurement work for the T-26 and the development of the QE class, is it the intention of the Ministry of Defence that it will in the future be using RPAS?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to jump some way ahead. The aircraft carrier will not be deployed in its full air strike capability until 2020. The main gate decision on the T-26 is not until the middle of the decade, so he is asking me to foresee military capability several years away. He may not be surprised that we are at least contemplating trialling some capability for future use at some stage. I will not be pressed further on that point, but I will address some of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. I want to continue setting the scene for a few more minutes.

The Reaper system, which is the UK’s only armed RPAS, is flown by professional pilots who remain in full control of the aircraft at all times; they follow the law of armed conflict and the UK rules of engagement in exactly the same way as pilots of manned aircraft. Reaper, as with other forms of RPAS, is primarily used for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, but through technological advance it has been enabled to be armed with precision-guided weapons, thereby meeting a secondary military requirement.

The decision-making process leading to the identification and engagement of a target by one of the two weapons systems available to UK Reapers is identical to that of conventionally manned aircraft, but the greater access to information through a combination of the aircraft’s onboard sensors, ability to access off-board information and duration of missions enables them to be deployed before engagement. Reaper pilots are, arguably, the best informed and connected of all air crew in this operating environment. They are well placed to provide battle-winning surveillance and engagement capability to meet UK ground forces’ needs.

The Reaper was fielded in 2007 and as of 1 December, despite more than 42,000 hours flown over Afghanistan, it has fired only 360 weapons—52 laser-guided bombs and 308 laser-guided Hellfire missiles. Of those precision-guided weapons on Reaper, the type employed is carefully selected in every engagement, which ensures that the most appropriate munition is used to deliver the required effect, in a proportional manner, thus minimising the risk to civilians and their property. The sophistication of the weapons also provides the ability remotely to change the course of the weapon post release, which is another example of the many steps taken by RPAS to avoid civilian casualties as collateral damage.

I am aware of only one incident where civilians have been killed by weapons deployed from a UK Reaper. As I mentioned last month, on 25 March 2011, there was a strike on two pick-up trucks in Afghanistan carrying a significant quantity of explosives, which resulted in the death of two insurgents and four Afghan civilians. That incident was highly regrettable. The subsequent report did, however, confirm that the actions of the Reaper crew had been in accordance with extant procedures and UK rules of engagement. Every weapon released by the UK’s RPAS is under the command of a professional pilot bound by the UK rules of engagement.

Touching on a point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the psychological considerations of operating the Reaper, the experience thus far suggests that far from being detached from the reality of the situation, Reaper air crew are just as connected to the situation on the ground as operators of other aircraft types. They have increased information available to them, a longer time to study the information and the ability to abort the mission even after they have fired the weapon. The increasing specialisation of the role of flying RPAS is being considered by the RAF for recognition as a distinct skill within the flying service.

Of course Reaper is not the only RPAS operated in Afghanistan. To correct the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), there are in fact five types—not four—of unmanned aircraft systems in operation. As I have already mentioned, Reaper is the only armed version, but we have also deployed the Hermes 450, which has already flown 65,000 hours for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance purposes. It will be replaced by the more modern Watchkeeper, which again is for surveillance purposes and is not armed. In response to the question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston about Watchkeeper, training is already under way and we expect the system to replace Hermes during 2013. These and other smaller deployed tactical systems being operated by Army units in Afghanistan form part of a mix of airborne ISR capabilities, of which they are but one, albeit increasingly important, component. They complement the more traditional manned surveillance capabilities provided by our other aircraft types. Looking further ahead, technological advances are likely to increase the level of automation in some systems, just as in other non-military equipment, but I stress the point that the Government have no intention of developing systems that operate without human intervention in the weapon command and control chain.

Let me turn to the other specific points mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. On the main thrust of her remarks on the moral and ethical considerations, it would be instructive for her to look at the joint doctrine note 2/11, if she has not done so already, to which the hon. Member for North Durham referred. It was published in March 2011 by the Government, and was the first Government sponsored document to go into the UK’s approach to unmanned aircraft systems. It has a specific section on moral and ethical considerations, which inform the rules of engagement and the operations in which we are engaged at present.

[Mr Dunne]

As is standard procedure, I am here to answer for the UK Government use of unmanned air vehicles. Other countries that use such systems have their own rules of engagement, as is the case for the UK. We do not publish rules of engagement for the sensible reason that to do so would risk prejudicing the capability, effectiveness or operational security of our armed forces, and that is also the doctrine applied by other countries.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston asked about the military chain of command and whether it would be retained. We have no plans in the Ministry of Defence to operate any of our facilities outside the military chain of command. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife referred to potential civil uses in the future for airborne surveillance equipment; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to offshore fishing. It is conceivable that in due course other Departments might find other uses for the technology, but I am not aware that it is something that the MOD is engaged in at present.

[Thomas Docherty]

On Government thinking and working across Departments, can I press the Minister to say a bit more about what role he sees for UK companies in developing RPAS, and how the UK Government, through their various Departments, are supporting that procurement process?

[Mr Dunne]

Indeed, a number of Opposition Members asked about that issue. The extent to which the Government are supporting UK industrial investment in this technology is demonstrated by the commitments that we have made, in particular for Watchkeeper, where a very substantial investment has been made for a British-designed, British-built capability.

We have also undertaken some collaborative work with other nations. The issue of our collaboration with the French was raised earlier. We have committed, through a memorandum of understanding signed in July, to two specific strands of that work. One is investing in the concept phase for a future combat air system; that is at the very early stages of the work stream, but work is beginning. The second was in relation to potential French interest in procuring the Watchkeeper system. If British industry is able to export that system to the French in due course, that would be a further success for it. We recognise that British aerospace industry will take an increasing interest in this capability, and through our procurement we are seeking to support that interest.

Army 2020

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That final comment is the point: the Army gets things done. When it has to deal with a situation, it makes it work. He is right that key to the strategy is the effective integration of the reserves. There will be a new deal for reservists. There is ring-fenced money for kit and training in a way that there has not been in the past. That kit has already started to arrive. This year, reserve formations will train overseas. The number of units training overseas this year will be 26 and that will increase over time. Vital to this process are the integration of the reserves, the deal for employers and the deal for reservists, which involves a greater commitment on our behalf, but also expects a clearer commitment from them about their liability to deployment. I have published a written statement today that sets out further details on how we intend to take the process forward.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that this announcement would have no impact on the basing review, which started last July. May I press him to say whether the proposal for a multi-role brigade to come to Scotland will still go ahead? Specifically, what will happen to Caledonia and Leuchars? Will the Minister meet me and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) to discuss those two bases?

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has often reminded me of the concerns about Leuchars. I can only repeat that there will be no impact whatever on the basing review, and our intentions on basing remain as set out. We are doing the work to enable us to deliver them, and we have set out a time scale for doing so.