My Lords, I do not think anybody can disagree with the intention of these amendments. Indeed, I agree entirely and am pleased to have heard about the progress made by the MoD in recent years when it comes to mental health—and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the differing approach that we have taken to mental health and physical health over many years. It begs the question as to whether there is anything about physical health in the Bill, if we are potentially about to put something in about mental health.
5.45 pm
Where I am slightly nervous—I have not made my mind up, but it is the first rule of politics—is on the question: what are the unintended consequences of putting this in the Bill? I have not had the opportunity to think that through. For example, are there any unintended consequences for operational commanders of having this in the Bill? I use the example of the duty holder we now have in defence. In my mind at least, at various levels of command, this has almost disincentivised certain people from doing things, because they are fearful of what the consequences would be. I sense that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, disagrees with me.
I am not saying that I do not agree with this or that it should not happen. I am just saying that I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about what the potential unintended consequences of putting this in the Bill might be. But the desire to do more for the mental health of our troops has to be a good thing.
The other area I am slightly nervous about is that in Amendment 48 we highlight Afghanistan, as opposed to other conflicts. I think that all conflicts should be treated equally and that in years to come we may regret highlighting solely Afghanistan.