Armed Forces Bill

I shall come to that issue later, when it is appropriate for me to do so. Perhaps the most graphic example of the situation was described in an article in The Sunday Times on 6 November, which reported a senior Royal Army Medical Corps doctor saying that in Basra he and his colleagues had been counselling young soldiers who"““feared a military investigation as much they did the insurgents””." Even more alarming is the assertion that"““There doesn’t appear to be any overt consideration or understanding of the pressures that our soldiers are under. The unpopularity of the war at home and a belief that firing their rifles in virtually any circumstances is likely to see them end up in court are sapping morale.””" The reality of that would undoubtedly be contested but the perception exists, and perception affects behaviour. We must take that into account in our debate. One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted with warnings from the Royal Military Police that every incident would be investigated and that, if they shot someone, they would face an inquiry that could take up to a year. Hon. Members of all parties accept that to achieve the goal of maximum operational effectiveness, discipline must be maintained and that, therefore, an effective system of military justice must be in place. The system must support commanding officers and the rights of those serving at every level. That is a difficult balance, but it must be struck. No hon. Member believes that members of the armed forces should be above the law. Indeed, according to the manual of military law, those in our armed forces are not only subject to the law of the land, but the disciplinary environment is maintained by supplementing the ordinary criminal law and judicial system with a special code of discipline and a special system for enforcing it. For all our servicemen and women, it is essential that justice is done and seen to be done. That is important not only for the standing of our armed forces at home and abroad, but for their morale. Discipline must be clear, coherent, transparent, efficient and fair. Perhaps above all, there must be a clear link between discipline and command, as several of my hon. Friends have said. If the link is broken, it means that those who have to make life or death decisions on the spur of the moment may worry as much about the legal consequence of their actions as about the actions. That is potentially catastrophic for our operational capabilities. What a tragedy if our serving men and women were to become as afraid of lawyers as of insurgents. We must always remember that the armed forces are different and need to be different. They are asked, in the name of our national security, to take lives and, at times, to give lives in a way that ordinary civilians are never required to do. The system of discipline that is applied to them and the considerations around it need to take fully into account that those involved are in potentially lethal situations. The position is unique and must be tackled as such. Ministers have often stated that servicemen and women should reflect or be representative of British society. Although I agree that our forces should reflect the make-up of society at large, I put it to the House that the outstanding success of our armed forces derives from their adherence to a set of values which is, all too often, in short supply in society. Furthermore, when soldiers undertake operations, they operate under a different set of circumstances, which must be acknowledged by the law, and for which the wholesale adoption of civilian legal procedures is not appropriate. The Secretary of State made that point in his opening speech.