Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very prudent and wise of the Secretary of State, I am sure.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

An article in The Times today on the welcome news of the ceasefire in Syria states:

“The US and Russia have agreed to work together to target Islamic State and the FSF”.

Will the Secretary of State provide more detail on how that would work in practice, how the UK will be involved and how we can ensure that such co-operation results in no civilian casualties?

[Michael Fallon]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the ceasefire, belated though it is, that we hope will come into force tonight. The situation in Syria is complex and we have continued to urge Russia to use all its influence on the Syrian regime to get humanitarian aid in and to stop the regime targeting particular opposition groups. As he knows, we do not have combat troops deployed in Syria, but the strikes we carry out on behalf of the coalition will, obviously, also now have to reflect the new reality on the ground.

Counter-Daesh Quarterly Update

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

We have had some success in populations returning, particularly in Tikrit, to which the vast majority of the population has now returned. That is more difficult in Ramadi, simply because so many improvised explosive devices have been seeded right across the city. There are different circumstances in each of the particular areas. In relation to the Yazidi women, about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned, we are working with NGOs to see what we can do to identify where they are being held and what more can be done to help them to return to Sinjar.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

To return to what the Secretary of State said in his statement about the number of foreign fighters joining Daesh being reduced to 200 a month from up to 2,000 a month, that is extremely welcome. It would build on that if we could work with our international partners to drive that down to zero and completely isolate this organisation.

[Michael Fallon]

I hope that we can do so. We are working very closely with our partners—over 40 countries are now reporting, through Interpol and other international organisations, on foreign fighters—so that we can share information about these fighters as they travel towards Iraq or Syria. Of course, we must play our part by ensuring that more people are not radicalised in this country and by keeping tabs on those who are likely to go out there.

Shipbuilding on the Clyde

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to spend a little more time in the yards on the Clyde to understand how components and systems are an integral part of the capability of building a complex warship. Fabrication is an important part, but much of the value and content comes from introducing weapons command and control systems, which are not built on the Clyde. Fabrication is done there, as is integration, and that will continue to be undertaken there.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

On 4 April 2013, the Prime Minister said that Scottish defence jobs were

“more secure as part of the United Kingdom.”

Does the Minister realise how ridiculous that now sounds?

[Mr Dunne]

I have to repeat to the hon. Gentleman that we have committed to build eight Type 26 complex warships on the Clyde. Had the people of Scotland voted for an independent future, we would not have made that commitment.

Iraq Historic Allegations Team

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) securing today’s debate. It is crucial that we not only support our service personnel but uphold human rights and have the UK show leadership in promoting international human rights.

Our armed forces carry out a vital role on our behalf, often in harsh and dangerous conditions. Their courage and professionalism are to their immense credit. As part of that professionalism, our armed forces should and must be able to justify their decisions and actions against clearly defined standards of conduct. When allegations are made that conduct has not met the high standards expected by both society and the armed forces, they must be taken seriously. When there is a case to answer, the case must be investigated fully and fairly.

Since the inception of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, a number of issues have arisen that require consideration, as many speakers have touched on today. They include the scope of the investigations, the considerable volume of the case load, the amount of time that has passed in some of the incidents involved and concerns about the credibility and veracity of the allegations. Each of those issues presents challenges to IHAT and to us, who oversee it, in the dispensing of justice.

The latest figures that I have seen indicate that 1,514 allegations have been reported to IHAT, making up 1,329 cases. Of those, 43 have been closed and 57 dropped, with 280 UK veterans under investigation. It is only fitting and fair that we are concerned about the number of allegations and the speed of the investigations, and it is no surprise that many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), have raised that issue.

I understand that IHAT has about 150 staff, so in my view, it is reasonable to question the speed at which cases are being dealt with. Indeed, if I were a member of a committee scrutinising the issue, I would have serious questions for witnesses and would be pressing them on the apparently slow rate of progress and for a comparison with other legal jurisdictions.

I fully understand that we are talking about a unique situation in many respects, given the challenges in investigating allegations. However, the rate of progress is an issue. The hon. Member for Newbury raised the issue of trails going cold on some of the investigations. We need to address that and face the reality that in some—indeed, many—cases, it might not be possible to get the evidence we need to establish whether an allegation is true. That might simply mean that the case cannot proceed, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

Turning to the credibility and motives of those bringing complaints, which many Members have raised, I have concerns that there may well be instances in which the current system is being abused, and that spurious allegations are being brought against military personnel and service veterans. The answer lies in ensuring that we have a system in place that allows the prompt dismissal of cases that are brought on flimsy evidence or are not evidence-based. In cases where evidence is found to have been falsified or deliberately distorted, I would want to see penalties imposed for what I consider to be akin to the criminal charges of perverting the course of justice or, at the very least, wasting police time, or its equivalent in Scottish law.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) said, our legal system in this area must uphold the values of the European convention on human rights, as well as other international human rights treaties. We have to work with other nations to set an example of our values on human rights. Some Members have expressed the desire to derogate from the convention, but that is not the right way forward. The European convention on human rights was born out of the horrific events of world war two, which rightly made the international community think very carefully.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, but the problem with regard to derogation is that it was specifically intended by the authors to allow for operations outside the territory. The danger of the argument he is making is that the Scottish National party is turning soldiers from cannon fodder into courtroom fodder.

[Steven Paterson]

I will resist getting into party politics. This is a serious case and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made his point very well there—[Interruption.]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Steven Paterson]

Time is now against me, but to address the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that we all accept the need to uphold standards of human rights. That should be the case across the world, wherever we send our armed forces. Our armed forces have our support and gratitude for the difficult work that they do on our behalf in defending not only us but our values. That means that our armed forces must always live by and espouse the same values that they defend with such distinction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the credit for establishing the UK Defence Solutions Centre, but I think it is only fair to the House, and indeed to my future career, if I place the credit where it is properly due: at the feet of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his former role. I enjoyed our visit to UKDSC last week. It is doing a great job in placing UK innovation at the heart of the defence industrial supply chain globally. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that the strategic defence and security review referred to investing in a unique British capability for advanced high-altitude surveillance, which I know will be of interest to him.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

How much do the Government currently estimate the replacement nuclear deterrent weapons system will cost, including the boats themselves, the missiles and the ongoing lifetime maintenance costs?

[Mr Dunne]

As we made crystal clear in the SDSR, we have recalculated the cost of manufacturing the four boats, which we now estimate will be £31 billion, and we have added a £10 billion contingency. We have no intention at this point of replacing the warheads; the decision on that will be taken later. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus on the £31 billion commitment for the submarines, plus the £10 billion contingency, as the cost that is relevant today.

Trident

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Yesterday’s national security strategy and SDSR indicated the future strategy for, and shape of, our security and defence arrangements. The continued reliance on nuclear weapons of mass destruction—or the deterrent, as the UK Government prefer to call it—remains at their heart. In my speech, I will contend that these nuclear weapons do not serve Scotland or the UK as an effective deterrent. On one recent estimate, the cost will be £167 billion over the programme’s lifetime. I would argue that these colossally expensive weapons are fundamentally a status symbol for the United Kingdom, as opposed to usable military weapons. As misguided as that sounds, successive Westminster Governments have been fixated on replenishing our cold war security system for another generation.

The Trident system comprises four nuclear-powered submarines equipped with multiple missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Each missile has the sole purpose of destroying an entire city and every living person within it, indiscriminately. Those cannot be legitimate weapons of war. We do not live in a time when our security is strengthened by those weapons. The ability to obliterate a major city is not something that defends us, if indeed it ever was.

In the past few weeks, we have seen the evil that extremist hate groups can bring to our doorstep. They are made up of splintered networks throughout our towns, cities and communities, which makes them formidable to take on. I would argue that that is where we should be taking action and employing our resources. I welcome the many aspects of yesterday’s SDSR announcement by the Prime Minister that will do exactly that. The investment in 1,900 additional security services and intelligence personnel to counter the threat of espionage is welcome. That is the kind of thing that we should be investing in. The commitment to take the threat of cyber-attack as seriously as any conventional attack is correct and I welcome it.

I want to see more investment in conventional capacity. Yesterday’s announcement on maritime patrol aircraft was welcome. The aircraft that were taken away in 2010 are being replaced. The new aircraft are being put in Lossiemouth, where they should be, to defend our north coast. That widely acknowledged gap is now being filled. It was stated yesterday that our defence and security strategy is closely aligned with the plans of our NATO partners. I would argue that the UK contributes nothing to that defensive alliance other than the retention of nuclear weapons. If our strategic aim is genuinely to work, it should complement what our partners bring to NATO. Supporting NATO conventionally is the way to achieve that.

The cost of the Trident upgrade cannot be ignored, even by those who simply accept the nuclear deterrence philosophy without question. I am speaking, respectfully, to many Members in the Chamber. I object to these weapons anyway on moral grounds, and on the basis that they do not serve a military use, but their cost surely cannot be justified any longer.

[Simon Hoare]

I want to make sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that no Government Member would press that button with any relish or delight, but while foes and potential enemies have such weapons, it is absolutely right and proper that we have an equal defence mechanism to ensure the security of the realm. There are lots of debates that can be reduced to pounds, shillings and pence, but the defence of the realm is not one of them.

[Steven Paterson]

I would make two points in response. First, I do not accept the deterrence argument; that is why I am making the argument that I am making. Secondly, I ask Members who are looking at this matter with an open mind: is this system necessary at any price, when we are taking resources away from conventional weapons? That is a genuine question that has to be answered if we are to renew this system.

In the time that I have left, I want to quote—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steven Paterson]

Yes, I will.

[Gavin Robinson]

I was conscious that you were looking for additional time. Can I get this right? You welcome yesterday’s commitments to additional investment in national security by this country, which the SNP wants to leave. You will take the investment, the security and the support, but you want to leave this country and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have heard that rebuke on numerous occasions and I am happy to follow all the other Members who have had to apologise to the Chair.

The hon. Gentleman knows the point that I am making. You want national security and investment from this national Parliament, but you want an à la carte—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Gentleman wants an à la carte approach. I am not prepared to play fast and loose with our national security, and neither should he be.

[Steven Paterson]

I think that I am grateful for that contribution. It will surprise no one in this room that, as an SNP Member, I stand for independence. I believe that that is the best future for Scotland. However, I will play a constructive part in the security arrangements of the UK for as long as Scotland remains a part of it. That is a reasonable thing to do.

I was about to quote Major General Patrick Cordingley, who stated in The Guardian on 28 September that the funding for the Trident nuclear weapon system should not be ring-fenced, and that the costs should be weighed up against those for new planes, tanks and infantry. That is the argument that I would make, alongside my moral objections. We need to look at our conventional forces to see what more we can do to combat the threats that we face.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman’s narrative stacks up if we are in a realm of debate in which we have to decide whether to have one or the other. At the moment, we are able to support our conventional services and have nuclear weapons. Are we not better off having two clubs in the bag, rather than just one?

[Steven Paterson]

My point is that we are not doing enough to strengthen conventional weapons; we could be doing more. For example, yesterday the number of frigates was cut from 13 to eight. I would like us to strengthen our conventional forces.

The replacement of Trident fails to address the threats outlined in the SDSR and the national security strategy. Instead, we should invest in conventional forces, equipment, intelligence, counter-espionage, and combating cyber-terrorism, as well as actual terrorism on our streets and the streets of our allies. I implore the House to consider what threats Trident actually combats, and to reject its replacement.

Reserve Forces

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing this debate. I am delighted to speak in it as the Member for Stirling, which has a long and proud tradition of association with the armed forces.

During the 1990s, when I was at university in Aberdeen, I was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve. The unit was part of the university and was designed to expand and increase understanding of the armed forces generally and the Navy in particular. I am pleased that I had that experience, which has carried me forward to today. It is probably fair to say that the word “humble” is relative in the light of some hon. Members’ contributions, but I mention it to show that I have a little experience of the Royal Naval Reserve which has stood me in good stead.

I will make a rather obvious statement: our armed forces reserve plays a crucial part in its contribution to the armed forces as a whole. The White Paper published by the Ministry of Defence in 2013 proposed significant changes, many of which have been discussed, but this is a good opportunity to consider one or two. Many of the proposals made sense in terms of modernising how the reserves operate—for example, updating and expanding the range of tasks the reserve can be called on to do, and reconfiguring the way reservists operate and complement regular forces. The strategic defence and security review will include a lot on that and I hope that the Minister will say a little about it today. I hope that more flexibility and broadened opportunities will help to increase the number of people in the reserve forces; many hon. Members have called for that this morning and I agree with them.

I have been told anecdotally of reservists hiding their military service from their employers, and that some use their annual leave for exercises. If there is any truth in that, we have work more closely with employers and reservists to solve that problem, because that should not be happening. People are entitled to make a contribution and to enjoy their work with breaks and holidays. Reservists develop a range of skills through their military service and bring a huge benefit to employers, but we must recognise that their commitment may have a serious impact on businesses. I welcome the Minister’s comments about contributions to employers. Perhaps we should investigate that avenue further as a way of expanding the numbers and reaching the targets.

Hon. Members mentioned enabling additional payments and the necessity of the reserve being more flexible and adaptable, which in many respects they are compared with the regular forces. That is an advantage. The reserve is more affordable, which may be partly why we are moving in this direction. It is good if it allows our forces to become more flexible.

Stirling is home to an assault pioneer platoon, part of Delta company of 7 SCOTS, whose job includes a range of things, including the construction of tools for infantry soldiers to cross natural and man-made obstacles, breaching enemy fortifications, supervising the construction of field defensive works, such as bunkers, support weapon firing positions and so on. Those are important skills and they make an important contribution. I am pleased to have the platoon in my constituency. I take this opportunity to recognise each and every reservist in the Stirling area and thank them for their dedicated service and hard work. As we have discussed, those reservists, due to the Future Force 2020 plan that the Government have set out, are becoming vital to our armed forces.

Looking to the future, the Government have set out an ambitious target of 35,000 trained reservists, 30,000 of whom are in the Army, by 2018. However, the National Audit Office has warned that that target is unlikely to be met before 2025. The point has been made previously and I know that the Minister will address it.

The external security team annual report suggests that, although there has been a significant increase in recruiting reservists, there is likely to be a high outflow due to the age profile being heavily skewed towards older reservists. That is a real problem and one that we must tackle. Working closer with employers to generate flexibility may be a way of creating the opportunities we seek to solve the problem.

The problems of recruitment in my constituency have been mentioned. Stirling has a long association with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, which was, sadly, subsumed into the Royal Regiment of Scotland before being downgraded to a ceremonial battalion. That, combined with the closure of the Army recruitment office in Stirling, has caused problems for recruitment. Perhaps we should think again about how we approach that to ensure that people have the chance to benefit from the real opportunities and advantages in reserve service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The Ministry of Defence continues to make excellent progress in delivering equipment on time and to budget. That was recognised in the last National Audit Office major projects report, which reflected our best cost performance in 10 years and the best time performance in almost 15 years. I would like to pay tribute to the defence contractor in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Lockheed Martin, which has supported the Merlin helicopters outstandingly in recent years.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

T10. What steps have been taken to change section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 to allow Scotland to legislate for fatal accident inquiries involving service personnel?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

rose—

Armed Forces Bill

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Let me begin by expressing, on behalf of my party, sincere sympathies to the families of Flight Lieutenant Alan Scott and Flight Lieutenant Geraint Roberts, who gave their lives in Afghanistan.

I thank, with sincere appreciation, all who have contributed to the Bill’s progress so far, and who have introduced changes that have been in reserve until now. The issue that we are discussing is of the utmost importance to every Member. Those who are present have a specific interest in it, but many others who would like to be present are unable to attend. For the record, let me convey an apology from the Chair of the Defence Committee, and from other Committee members who cannot be here because they are dealing with other business, but who would have wished to participate if that had been possible.

A strong, effective and renowned armed forces has always been at the heart of our great nation—that united nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with all four of its regions together—and has always been a proud and important pillar of our national identity. Like others who are present, I am strongly committed to the armed forces covenant, which I want to see delivered in its entirety throughout all four regions in the United Kingdom. I also believe that it is important to look after veterans with mental and physical disabilities. Last night, we had the opportunity to listen to an excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who presented the case for those veterans. As we heard just now from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), the report of that debate is well worth reading, including the positive response from the Minister for Community and Social Care.

I am sure Members agree that when our armed forces are having a positive impact, whether delivering aid to the needy or toppling a tyrant, that instils in us a great sense of pride in being British—and no one is prouder than I am of being British. That said, however, when something is broken it needs to be fixed, and when something could be better, it needs reform. Unfortunately, not all our personnel are receiving the protection that they deserve in terms of their human rights. It is time for a review and time for change, and that is what the Bill proposes. The key focus of the Bill must be on ensuring that we protect and uphold the human rights of those who serve in our armed forces.

I commend the Defence Secretary for creating a service complaints ombudsman. That positive legislative change was necessary, and it is vitally important to ensuring that our armed forces receive the fair treatment that they have earned and deserve. I was delighted with the amendment to the Armed Forces (Services Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, which granted the new ombudsman power to investigate the nature of service complaints rather than merely processing claims of maladministration. That was clearly a positive step.

However, while those developments are most welcome, more could and needs to be done. Members have mentioned alcohol and drugs: the Secretary of State did so in setting the scene, and no doubt others will do so as well. We need armed forces that are accountable and responsible, we need a system of regulating and legislating, and we need testing for alcohol and drugs.

There is overwhelming evidence that sexual assault and rape are a pressing issue for many of our service personnel, especially our servicewomen. In its 2015 sexual harassment report, the Army recorded that 39% of servicewomen questioned had received unwelcome comments about their appearance, body or sexual activities, compared with just 22% of servicemen. Furthermore, 33% of servicewomen had been subject to unwelcome attempts to talk about sexual matters, compared with only 19% of servicemen; 12% of servicewomen had received unwanted attempts to talk about sexual matters, compared with just 6% of servicemen; 10% of servicewomen had received unwanted attempts to establish a sexual relationship, despite discouragement, compared with only 2% of servicemen; 4% of servicewomen had been told that they would be treated better in return for a sexual relationship; and 2% reported that they had been sexually assaulted.

Those statistics reveal something that is totally horrendous and totally unacceptable, and the need for significant change. The Bill gives us a chance to make that change, which is good news. Some of the figures may seem small, but that does not make them any less unacceptable. Would any other line of work tolerate such figures? The Departments concerned would certainly be asked to make legislative changes. Indeed, would such figures feature in any other line of work? The figures that I have given show that sexual assault and rape are a problem that needs to be tackled within our armed forces—not least for women, who fare far worse than men.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the existence of a representative body—a federation—would help or hinder a solution to the problem that he is rightly identifying?

[Jim Shannon]

We shall obviously have some idea of the Government’s thoughts on that when the Minister responds to the debate, but I think that the establishment of such a body would be very helpful, although its terms of reference would have to be discussed.

The nature of the Army prevents many women from speaking out, because they do not want to be perceived as weak in such an environment. The problem is that there is such a strong bond of camaraderie that the culture makes it important for servicemen and servicewomen to get along without creating a fuss. As we know, there have been stories in the press about service personnel who have been abused and subsequently traumatised, and who, unfortunately, may have succumbed to loss of life as a result. There needs to be a change in the culture of our armed forces in relation to this serious subject, but we, as legislators, can do our part by means of the Bill.

Data and evidence of such offences are scarce, because we lack a comprehensive and reliable collection of data. That, too, must change: we need to get a serious grip on the issue, and we need records so that we can monitor our progress. As well as monitoring, however, we should set a target for administrative change, and the Bill may make that possible. To fix any problem, it is necessary first to understand the extent of it, and the lack of data does not reassure those concerned that the issue is being taken seriously enough. This is just one of a number of areas that urgently need reform.

It is incredibly worrying that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not ensure that a commanding officer is required to notify the police of an allegation of a sexual assault. In fact, such an inherently serious offence ought to be subject to an automatic referral, and I should like that to be considered during debates on the Bill. Sexual assault is a gross violation of an individual’s physical integrity, and the repercussions for the victim can be endless. As I said earlier, we are well aware of high-profile cases in which people have taken their lives. The figures and statistics that have been cited today should shock each and every Member, and I hope they have made clear the need for urgent action.

I commend the changes relating to Ministry of Defence firefighters. It seems ludicrous that when firefighters need to break into a place, they should not be able to do so, and it also seems ludicrous that they cannot regulate traffic. Those are small changes, and it is only right that they should be made.

I hope and trust—indeed, I know—that Members will take seriously all the comments that have been made, and will continue to pay the utmost attention and respect to these incredibly important issues. I commend the Armed Forces Bill.

Sgt Alexander Blackman (Marine A)

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Pritchard, and I commend the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate and the passion with which he spoke about Sergeant Blackman.

The case raises issues of serious concern and it should be carefully considered by the Government, Parliament and parliamentarians. I want to consider some of those issues because I have great sympathy for many of the points being raised across the Chamber, although I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that it is not for parliamentarians to interfere in an individual court case. Therefore I will speak generally, if I can, about some matters that come out of this.

At the heart of the matter for me is the question of culpability. We train our servicemen and women to an extremely high standard, including on how to operate with integrity on the battlefield. Yesterday, in preparing for this debate, I spoke to a friend of mine who used to teach that course to recruits in the Royal Marines. Based on that conversation, my question is: can that training ever be foolproof? Can it ever see every contingency, given the conditions that we expect these troops to operate in and the action they get into with enemy combatants? If not, where does the appropriate level of culpability lie?

When soldiers are ordered to go out on patrol in highly dangerous areas or to risk their lives defending positions, the stress and psychological toll must be draining. Over a sustained period, those factors must surely affect performance and judgement. The psychological toll must be ever greater on those with responsibility for others—those in command on the ground.

To what extent did the pressures on the sergeant have an adverse effect on his mental state when he made the mistake that he made? I am no expert, and I am not privy to every detail of the case—I have not seen the full coverage, as the hon. Gentleman has—but I would like to know that that was taken fully into account by the court martial; there are questions about whether it was.

I hope that the Minister can indicate how we monitor the psychological toll being taken on our servicemen when they are put in these positions. His comments would be welcome; if we are to have confidence in military justice and that our servicemen are treated fairly, it is important that that is taken into account. As has been said by a number of hon. Members, there are questions about the issue.

How do we determine that a serviceman or woman is psychologically fit to be on the battlefield in the first place, and where does responsibility lie when things go wrong? I also have concerns over the accountability of command for incidents such as the one involving the sergeant, particularly in light of the comments, alluded to by others, of Colonel Oliver Lee, which have been widely reported. Although a couple of hon. Members have mentioned them, I will repeat Colonel Lee’s comments because they are important:

“Sgt Blackman was therefore sentenced by an authority blind to facts that offered serious mitigation on his behalf. The cause of this is a failure of moral courage by the chain of command, the burden of which is carried by the man under command.”

For me, that is extremely concerning. I would like to hear a bit more about that, and it needs to be looked into.

I have a further concern about transparency. It seems to me that transparency is essential in any legal framework but that it does not seem to exist here. Without transparency, how can parliamentarians or the public have confidence that the system of military justice is effective and fair? Given the age in which we live, where information is exchanged and shared like at no other time in human history, we must have a transparent military legal system that we can all have confidence in. What are the facts of this case? Do we know them all—if not, why not? What matters did the court martial consider? Crucially, which ones did they not consider in this case and others?

It has been widely reported that the evidence about the context in which our soldiers were serving was not presented at the trial—the lack of equipment, troop numbers and the job being asked of them, for example. We really need to make sure that that is taken into account. It is also my understanding—this point was mentioned earlier by the hon. Gentleman—that this case is being reviewed, but that there is a reluctance to release the report to the public. In the interests of transparency, I hope that that can be done. I hope that there are no redactions so that we can judge for ourselves on the basis of full information. It is not for me to say whether such evidence would have changed the verdict in the particular case; that is a matter for others. However, I think clarification should be provided on what was considered by the court martial and what was not.

As I said at the beginning, I think there is a case for reviewing the law as regards the prosecution of such crimes. We have to look into that, and I think we have an opportunity to next year. In particular, there is the degree to which culpability rests with individual servicemen and women who are expected to act under orders in extremely difficult and dangerous theatres and under restrictions through rules of engagement.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, but I think the law is clear. Servicemen and women have a duty and a right to kill the enemy, until that enemy comes under their control—de facto, a prisoner. Once the enemy is under control, they have a responsibility to care for that person. In this case, clearly, Marine A did wrong by killing, or assuming he was killing, someone. That is against the law of armed conflict and the Geneva convention. It is quite clear.

What seems to be wrong, having listened very carefully to my hon. Friends and colleagues explain, is that the defence did not defend properly and the judge advocate general in a court martial did not give options to the board. They gave one option: murder—sorry, Mr Pritchard, I do not mean to be making a speech. Murder was one option; manslaughter was another, and at the very least should be considered by the military authorities to sort this out. That should be done with a new legal team, which has a responsibility to go straight back to the military authorities and say, “This is wrong. Sort it, please.”

[Steven Paterson]

I do not necessarily disagree with that, but I did say at the beginning that I was going to try to speak generally, rather than on an individual case, if and when I could, to make my points.

In conclusion, very important points come out of this case. I have a great deal of sympathy with regard to the individual case, but I think Parliament should be considering how we deal with incidents such as this when we put our troops in harm’s way.