---

Armed Forces Bill

I am most grateful. It has been a useful short debate on an important and developing subject. I am not sure that I totally follow the Minister’s lead on the question of ““orders or advice”” from a senior officer. I understand that in practice advice should come from the medical side. However, we are talking about an offence of unfitness or misconduct through alcohol or drugs. If a serviceman is strongly advised by a superior officer to take a drug which causes him to be unfit or to be guilty of misconduct, that should be a defence. It is irrelevant that the practice ought to be through a medical adviser. I hope the Minister will take that away and look at it again, so that we have that sorted by Report stage. The debate on performance-enhancing drugs is the more important point. I totally take the thoughts of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that you can have a performance-enhancing drug that may keep you going on the ground, but which may cause you not to be able to fly as accurately as you otherwise might when in the air. It is a difficult judgment, and there is also the ethical question that has just been raised. This is an opportunity to lay down some ground rules about the use of such drugs: who is responsible and what happens if the operational decision is made to give a performance-enhancing drug which leads to a problem, such as the American pilots had with their friendly fire incident. Does that become a defence against unfitness or misconduct through alcohol or drugs—or, indeed, other offences such as careless or dangerous flying, or whatever? I am most grateful that the Minister has offered to look at this paragraph. I am sure we will all be content to work together to try to get something on Report. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 43 not moved.] Clause 20 agreed to. Clause 21 [Fighting or threatening behaviour etc]: