---

Armed Forces Bill

First, if the Minister is to provide us with details of successful appeals on sentence to the Court of Appeal, it would not give a fair picture unless we also saw the number of occasions on which the reviewing authority had altered a sentence. We need to look at that because it goes to the success of the system. I repeat that I do not allege that the system is a failure. I do not think that it is possible to prove that a civil court would have passed this sentence as opposed to that sentence. I am saying that it is appropriate that those who are tried before a court martial should feel that they are being dealt with by a professional and an expert, and that when, and if, they go to prison the person sentencing knows all the possible alternatives. I accept that the judge can advise the panel about those matters, but he can be overruled or outvoted. It is a confidence-building factor for a person appearing in a court martial that someone who is independent of the panel is there to ensure that he gets fair play on the questions of conviction and sentence, and, further, that his sentence is not disproportionate to that which he would receive in civilian life. Those are the confidence-building factors on which I would rely. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 165 to 168 agreed to. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clauses 169 to 173 agreed to. Clause 174 [Service compensation orders]: [Amendment No. 141 not moved.] Clause 174 agreed to. Clauses 175 to 180 agreed to. Schedule 5 agreed to. Clause 181 agreed to. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clauses 182 and 183 agreed to. Clause 184 [Conditional or absolute discharge]: