Armed Forces Bill

This major new Bill will have far-reaching consequences for all members of Her Majesty’s armed forces. Conservative Members will judge it against the essential criterion that it must reinforce operational effectiveness and reinforce, not undermine, military ethos. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Ministry of Defence has been working on the Bill for some five years. It is therefore a little regrettable that we received the explanatory notes only last Wednesday. However, as we will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in some considerable detail in a special Select Committee, taking evidence from witnesses, we shall not oppose its Second Reading, although we reserve our position as regards Third Reading. There are grounds for supporting the Bill’s objectives, if not all of its detail—not least where it brings disciplinary procedures into line with operational procedures. As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is a much-valued tradition in the House that at the outset of each defence debate, whatever the specific topic, we pay sincere and deserved tribute to the courage and professionalism of all the men and women of our armed services, in whom this country can and does take pride. I have long had an interest in defence matters. Indeed, one of the reasons why I was drawn into politics was the campaign against the unilateralists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—a battle that I look forward to rejoining in the coming months. I had the pleasure of serving for five years as a medical officer, albeit as a civilian, in the Royal Army Educational Corps tri-service centre at Beaconsfield. That gave me a useful insight into the Army medical services as well as issues relating to welfare provision for service families. The pride in our armed forces that has already been expressed in this debate rests in part upon how officers and servicemen and women deliver military power with self-restraint and discipline. It is greatly to be regretted that there are increasing misgivings among the armed forces about the rules of engagement and the extent to which soldiers, in particular, are being held to account for their actions in extremely difficult circumstances. While we deliberate in this air-conditioned House of Commons, several thousand miles away in Iraq soldiers have to make life and death decisions—a situation made even more challenging, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, by the phenomenon of the suicide bomber. If they hesitate, they may be killed; if they are too hasty, they know that they may face a court martial.