Armed Forces Bill

The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on that survey. I have not seen it and, if it was leaked, we do not comment on leaked documents. However, I will try to review the press article after the debate and if I can learn something from it I will contact him. The hon. Member for Aldershot made several points about the role of the prosecuting authority and the commanding officer. I know that he has expressed concern that if a serious offence were alleged, it would be investigated by the service police and the case passed to the service prosecuting authority without an opportunity for the commanding officer to explain the service context to the prosecuting authority. In fact, the Bill will not substantially change the present position, which hon. Members seek to preserve. I do not underestimate the seriousness with which hon. Members have made the point, but the service police will of course be able to consult the CO. I shall explain why the concerns expressed, especially by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), are not founded. He said that the Bill would strip away a statutory obligation. To take the Army as an example, nothing in the Army Act 1955 provides a right for COs or higher authority to submit a report to the Army Prosecuting Authority setting out the military circumstances that prevailed. That right is covered by regulation.