The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has been successful in securing this Adjournment Debate. I know that the hon. Member has shown considerable interest in the case that is the subject of the debate, although I find it surprising that he has chosen to raise the matter in this way.

As he has outlined, the details of the case are extremely delicate and sensitive and, considering some of the descriptions of the case that he has given, it seems extraordinary that he chose to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. He could quite easily have asked to meet me or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces—with whom he has been corresponding, as he said—at the Ministry of Defence, where we could have discussed the matter in a more suitable environment.

Notwithstanding, we are debating the matter on the Floor of the House and I shall have to go into some matters of delicacy in my response.

This is an emotive case, which has been subject to a full investigation by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police, and disciplinary action has been taken against the soldier in relation to the allegations. The charge was supported by the evidence collected by the Royal Military Police inquiries. As the hon. Gentleman has said, Mrs. X has indicated that she may be taking proceedings further, so it would be most improper for me to go into too much detail on this case. Having said that, I feel that there are significant aspects that should be brought out in order to put the matter in perspective.

As the hon. Gentleman has stated, Mrs. X, by her own admission, was very drunk. On more than one occasion she has admitted to being very intoxicated and I understand that she has stated that she had consumed about 24 single measures of dry Martini and lemonade, together with some white wine. It is perhaps not surprising that her recollections of that evening are vague. Indeed, the case against the soldier involved rests primarily on his evidence, not hers.

Once Mrs. X had made her allegations, there followed a full investigation by the special investigation branch, Royal Military Police, which included a full medical examination. I can confirm that, although the medical examination was clearly an unpleasant experience for Mrs. X, it was in accordance with the regulations and was conducted with kindness and sympathy throughout. Indeed, the examining doctor was a registered medical practitioner—a reservist called up in the course of the Gulf conflict. The examination was conducted in the presence of a female nurse and a female member of the Royal Military Police. As we know, the whole indignity that women have to go through for these examinations is, of necessity, I am afraid, an unpleasant experience. In this case, as in all cases, the examination was done with as much sympathy as can be shown.

When the case was presented to the commanding officer of the unit involved, he sought advice from the appropriate Army legal branch, which advised what charges, if any, were supported by the evidence. I should almost like to repeat that. It is important that we do not get away from the fact that, when any charge is laid, there must be evidence that will hold up for convicting somebody of that charge. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a similar role is undertaken by the Crown prosecution service in criminal proceedings, and I am sure that he will agree that it is right and proper that such an independent assessment of the facts should take place. This independent assessment results in a judgment being made about the likelihood, based on that evidence, of a court finding a case proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Clearly in this case, where both parties were, by their own admission, drunk and unable to remember fully the events that took place, the commanding officer was placed in a very difficult position. The forensic evidence did not support a charge of rape or any other assault. What evidence there was supported a relatively minor charge under military standing orders and the soldier concerned was charged, found guilty and punished under the powers accorded to the commanding officer. Mrs. X and the hon. Member are aware of the nature of this punishment. By the same token that we do not want to be able to identify Mrs. X, it would not be appropriate for me to reveal the exact nature of either the charge or the punishment received by the soldier.

This is a most regrettable incident, but I cannot accept a charge that the army did not take the allegations seriously and that the full and thorough investigation was not conducted in anything but a professional and sympathetic manner.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the soldier returned at one point when Mrs. X and her husband were still at the base. That was covered in the letter sent to the hon. Gentleman by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 28 August. The hon. Gentleman will see that the letter says: In the interests of all parties", the soldier was posted … following this incident. It was unfortunate that he returned for a short time but this was necessary in order for him to complete training prior to deploying on an operational tour. The reasoning behind that was explained to Mrs. X and her husband.

I am afraid that the circumstances of the case—two people who were extremely drunk and who have a very hazy understanding of what went on—make it difficult for any charge to have any validity. In those circumstances, I believe that the military pursued this with all the diligence that they could. I regret that they were unable to pursue the matter any further.

None of us knows what happened on that occasion, and it is sad that the participants cannot remember, either.