---

Defence Policy

I will be swift in view of the time restrictions, but I would like to raise one point of a historic nature before I move on to Helmand and other contemporary issues. I have to express some disappointment that the Government did not do more to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the first world war armistice. In the short period that he has held his post, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who has responsibility for veterans, has gone to enormous lengths to remedy that omission, and there is to be a ceremony on 11 November at the Cenotaph. I welcome that, and I congratulate him. However, as I pointed out when I raised this matter a year and a quarter ago, it is not just about commemoration—other things flow from it. We can remind young people about the important and seminal nature of the world war one conflict: how we went to war with cavalry and emerged with weapons of mass destruction, and how the first, embryonic international courts of justice were established to deal with war crimes, such as the trials in Leipzig. We can remind them of women's suffrage and all the social change that took place. It has been a great missed opportunity. I want to acknowledge the Under-Secretary's initiative and applaud it, but I am disappointed that we did not seize the opportunity, particularly as we want to tell youngsters how important it was and what our armed forces were committed to. Although that war was prosecuted in a sloppy manner by some, the principle on which the UK went into that conflict, and the reason why Sir Edward Grey stood at the Dispatch Box, was a matter of international law. We tend to forget that. The UK got into world war one on a matter of important principle. Its prosecution by generals and others might not have been satisfactory—the carnage was appalling—but the principle was right and the United Kingdom should be proud. Events such as commemorations help recruitment. They encourage people to think about the armed forces as a career, and we need to do much more about that. I am told—perhaps the Minister will correct me—that 10 per cent. of our Army recruits are from overseas. All are welcome—many of those men and women are most dedicated—but there comes a point when it is neither comfortable nor healthy for a disproportionate number of recruits to come from overseas. A few years ago, I think that the figure was 3 per cent.—there is no sign of the trend abating or reducing. Things that encourage our best young people to join the armed forces should be fostered. I mentioned the loss of the opportunity of commemorating the 90th anniversary of the armistice, but many other events are important. In the United States, there is pride in uniform. I appreciate that we now encourage our armed forces to wear uniform whenever possible, and I understand why that did not happen in the past 20 years for reasons of combating terrorism, but we need to do far more. In a future debate, perhaps we could consider not merely using our reserve armed forces as ways of filling gaps or of simply bringing in special skills—although that is important—but moving them as units into conflict or peacekeeping situations. I am proud to have 400 Nepalese Gurkha families in my constituency and I am totally bewildered by the Government's continued stance towards them. Although the matter may be for a Home Office Minister, I believe that the Defence Secretary has an enduring pastoral role to play for those families. I therefore urge him to resolve the problem. The British Government have lost in the courts and public opinion is with the Gurkhas. It is a matter of justice and it is also popular, and I cannot understand why the Government cannot get their head round it. They would be applauded rather than criticised if they acknowledged those people's right to have citizenship here and so on. I ask the Secretary of State to take the matter up with the various relevant Ministers. Thurrock RAF Association has made representations to me that it is worried about some impediment to getting parcels to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister who responds to the debate can clarify the procedures and protocols, because I understand that they have received representations from RAFA criticising the arrangements and I would like to be able to reassure people that there are no such impediments.