Thank you for that question, sir.
There is sometimes a perception, particularly with long periods of peace, that the health system constitutes more of a sustainment arm, because we do have the dual role of maintaining the domestic, static health system, the whole Ministry of Health function, with elements of the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour, etc—everything related to health. But all of that is now recognized, particularly after a decade of operations in Afghanistan. Virtually all military commanders who have deployed to those kinds of operations dearly recognize the force protection role and the impact on morale.
There have been some who have approached me arguing that we should be considered a combat support arm, at the very least, rather than a combat service support, because of the critical importance. Our clinicians, particularly our medical technicians, but even our physicians, are out forward with the infantry at the pointy end, either on patrol or in a forward operating base and that kind of thing. The commander of the army has told me several times that the morale of the troops, their willingness to fight, and their willingness to sacrifice are very much related to their confidence that they will be well looked after and will be given every chance of survival by the medical system should they be injured.
Equally, I'll just mention incidentally that the support of politicians and the general public also plays a great role in their motivation and their willingness to make sacrifices.
I'm confident, particularly after 10 years of operations, that the visibility in some operations—for example humanitarian assistance operations in Haiti—the medical service is the supported arm rather than the supporting arm of the service. There's widespread global recognition, not just at the senior leadership level but across the armed forces, that the health system is critical, and many elements of it are considered to be at the pointy end.