Armed Forces Bill

I am surprised by the way in which the debate has gone, because hon. Members have not read the introduction to the clause, which states:"““Duty of service policemen following investigation””." Clause 116 is all about the actions that occur after the service police or civilian police have carried out an investigation, and the list in schedule 2 covers everything from treason to murder to child abuse to child pornography. Are hon. Members really arguing that the commanding officer should be able to carry out such investigations? I would urge those Members who have not done so to read the report by the Surrey police into the events at Deepcut—not so much on the deaths of the four young people but the many examples that they gave of genuine complaints by members of our armed forces about abuse that they suffered, including serious sexual assaults, which were never investigated by the service police or by the civilian police. The Surrey police were extraordinarily critical of the chain of command that allowed such serious allegations to go unchallenged. I understand that when this was discussed in Committee, colleagues supported the view that the commanding officer should be informed about investigations into schedule 2 offences. I think that he has every right to be informed, but not for him then to be able to make a judgment on whether the case should be pursued. One would imagine that if a police officer, whether service or civilian, was investigating something as serious as a crime outlined in schedule 2, they would have sufficient evidence to be able to take the case further. There is clearly an obligation placed on the investigating officer that they must have substantial evidence to take the matter further.