Armed Forces Bill

I recognise the concerns raised by Conservative Members. When the hon. Member for Aldershot raised the matter in Select Committee on 20 March, I sought to assuage his concerns by discussing the relationship between the director of service prosecutions and the commanding officer:"““We acknowledge that in such cases a commanding officer may have valuable information that could assist the director in the tests that he must apply before proceeding to charge individuals. A commanding officer will have to be made aware of such a case, because it will affect one of his people and the operating efficiency of his unit.””—[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 28 March 2006; c. 78.]" I went on to discuss the written guidance, which was pooh-poohed a moment ago. My point in Select Committee was that under the proposed guidance the service police would be obliged to act in a certain regard. I sought to assuage the concerns of Conservative Members by pointing out that there would be a positive and important link between the role of the commanding officer and the service police in any investigation. We cannot wipe out the role of the commanding officer in that respect.