---

National Offender Management Service

10. Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op) What assessment he has made of the likely budgetary impact of the creation of the National Offender Management Service. [171325]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The National Offender Management Service will become operational on 1 June with an overall budget of £3.5 billion. As with all other areas of public expenditure, the current spending review will determine funding levels for 2005–06 to 2007–08.

Mr. Drew : As my hon. Friend will be aware, several hon. Members will address a mass lobby of probation officers tomorrow. Those officers are worried about the rush to introduce the National Offender Management Service and the apparent lack of local accountability and genuinely concerned that an element of back-door
 
10 May 2004 : Column 19
 
privatisation seems to be involved. Will my hon. Friend give me a message to pass on to those probation officers that will at least ease some of their fears?

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, in which he takes a keen interest. Today's probation service has been transformed from the service that existed when we took in office in 1997. There are 5,000 additional staff and a further 2,600 staff will be recruited in the next two years. My message to it is that we will continue to invest in the important work that it does and that we understand the pressure it is under. As the Minister with responsibility for such matters, I want to engage in a constructive dialogue with the probation service and the Prison Service to ensure that we introduce the National Offender Management Service effectively.

Identity Cards

11. Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): If he will make a statement on his plans to introduce identity cards. [171326]

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last November, we intend to build
 
10 May 2004 : Column 20
 
the base for a compulsory identity card scheme and on 26 April we published for consultation plans for identity card legislation. The Home Affairs Committee will undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill, which I welcome. If the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) can keep his eyes open without discomfort, he will doubtless make a significant contribution to such scrutiny.

Mr. Osborne : Since the abolition of ID cards in the 1950s, Home Office officials have tried to persuade successive Home Secretaries to reintroduce them. Why does the Minister think that this Home Secretary is the first one gullible enough to produce a White Paper on them?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advises me that a previous Home Secretary did produce such a document on that matter. However, the point of the hon. Gentleman's question is not who produced it, but gullibility. The hon. Gentleman should test the temperature of the hour and understand the view of the people of this country who need secure identity and security of their borders. The people are overwhelmingly in favour of developing this policy, but they want it done carefully and delivered appropriately. That is exactly what the Government will do.

 
10 May 2004 : Column 19
 

 
10 May 2004 : Column 21
 

Iraq: Security/Mistreatment Allegations

3.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to bring the House up to date in relation to the current security situation in Iraq. Recent weeks have seen British forces, our coalition allies and the Iraqi police facing violent attacks in southern Iraq. This weekend saw the most violence so far, with more than 100 engagements between violent insurgents and coalition forces. Eleven British soldiers and one Dane were injured in those clashes. Our forces have captured a very large quantity of arms and ammunition from the Muqtada militia. The insurgents are armed with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and a wealth of automatic weapons. We have captured 10 multi-launch rocket tubes, 300 mortar rounds and three wire-guided missiles just over this weekend.

The upsurge in violence appears to have followed calls at some Friday prayers for attacks against the coalition. Many of those who responded have a violent and criminal background that pre-dates the arrival of the coalition in Iraq last year. They are thugs, not freedom fighters. They do not enjoy the support of the majority of people in Iraq, who welcome the strong security action that we are taking. These attacks against Iraqis and Iraqi institutions are a challenge to the rule of law—an attempt to disrupt reconstruction efforts and deliberately to damage the transition to a democratic Iraq. No sensible person can condone these attacks: everyone should support our efforts to deal with them in the interests of the Iraqi people.

The situation in both Basra and al-Amarah remains tense, but the Iraqi police are patrolling and are engaged in other security tasks. Further violence cannot be ruled out in the coming days, and British and Iraqi forces will continue to confront such challenges. As ever, they will do so with the minimum necessary use of force and with great care to avoid unnecessary impact on the wider population.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces made a statement about allegations of abuse by UK forces in Iraq. I would like to deal with developments since that statement. There have been further details and images of abuse by US forces, and further claims against British soldiers, published mainly in the Daily Mirror. Last week my right hon. Friend made it clear that, if the allegations are found to be true, those responsible for damaging the otherwise excellent reputation of our armed forces will be rooted out and dealt with. The unauthorised actions of a very few must not be allowed to undermine the outstanding work of tens of thousands of British soldiers and civilians who have served with distinction, compassion and sensitivity in Iraq now for over a year. We regret the shadow that has been cast across the excellent work being undertaken, under very difficult circumstances, to establish security and to rebuild Iraq.

The United Kingdom requires its forces to act at all times within UK law, which means that they must comply with the Geneva convention and international humanitarian law. Allegations of improper behaviour will be thoroughly investigated. We are not in any way complacent about such allegations. The 33 cases of Iraqi
 
10 May 2004 : Column 22
 
civilian deaths, injuries and ill treatment, which my right hon. Friend mentioned last week, which have been or are under investigation testify to our determination. As he mentioned, 15 have already been resolved as having no case to answer and a further six are proceeding.

Those investigations were not begun in response to the International Committee of the Red Cross, to Amnesty International or, indeed, as the result of any pressure through the media. We investigate through the Royal Military Police special investigations branch immediately evidence is brought to hand. In those investigations, it is essential that the integrity of the criminal justice process be maintained. That can involve detailed and lengthy processes, but those are crucial to allow the necessary impartial evaluation of the evidence. I can confirm today that two cases have reached an advanced stage with decisions on prosecutions pending.

Obviously, it is important that the legal processes should be completed independently, but I want to say on behalf of the British Government that we unreservedly apologise to any Iraqis where the evidence shows that they have been mistreated, whether that is, as Amnesty International has set out in recent correspondence, during the general interaction between British troops and Iraqi citizens on the ground, or in the more specific issues raised by the ICRC about Iraqis detained in British-controlled facilities.

The confidential report from the ICRC to Ambassador Bremer in February dealt with detention issues. We have always maintained a close and constructive relationship with the Red Cross in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces had a meeting with Dr. Jacob Kellenburger, the ICRC president, in May last year, and officials from the Ministry of Defence met the ICRC in April. It has been the practice of the ICRC to keep such reports confidential, not only to maintain a positive working relationship between Governments and the ICRC, but to protect those mentioned in them. It is important that that confidentiality is respected. Roland Hugenin-Benjamin of the ICRC said at the weekend:

"We usually do this in direct confidential contact with the detaining power. We do not believe very much that there is a lot of interest for the prisoners themselves of having those kind of issues exposed in the public domain."

The interim report in February dealt with ICRC visits to coalition facilities between March and November last year. It raised three specific concerns in respect of British forces' treatment of prisoners and internees. Since those issues are already in the public domain, it is appropriate for me to comment further.

The first issue is in respect of the death in custody of Baha Mousa, also known as Baha Maliki, last September. A Royal Military Police investigation was launched at the time. The case has featured frequently in the media since then and was raised by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) during an Adjournment debate in January. It was the subject of an Amnesty International letter-writing campaign. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces wrote to Amnesty about the case on 11 November 2003 and again on 27 January. It follows, therefore, that by the time the ICRC referred to the case in its interim report in February, a thorough investigation was well under way and the Government had made frequent public comment on it.
 
10 May 2004 : Column 23
 

The second concern raised by the ICRC in relation to the United Kingdom was in respect of the routine hooding of prisoners. That practice had already ceased in UK facilities from last September, and that change had been confirmed publicly.

In the third case, a detainee had claimed that his car was confiscated. We were not able to shed light on that case. The individual was briefed on our claims procedure and provided with a claim form. Nothing more has been heard from him.

The interim ICRC report was not seen by Ministers until very recently. That is because it was an interim report to Ambassador Bremer, passed to the United Kingdom in strict confidence. A follow-on, UK-specific report was, in any event, anticipated, and in the cases relevant to the UK armed forces, the action necessary to address the ICRC's concerns had been taken some five months before the report was actually issued. In February, therefore, officials at the permanent joint headquarters judged that there was no action that Ministers needed to take, at least until any further reports were received. Essentially, all the material the report contained dealing with issues relevant to the United Kingdom had already been dealt with.

Since the programme of ICRC visits last year, we have opened a new divisional temporary detention facility in southern Iraq. The ICRC visited the site before it opened and has visited it twice since, in February and April. It is due to visit again next week. We remain committed to consultation with the ICRC and to complying fully with ICRC requests for access. The ICRC has yet to submit a formal report to the Government in respect of the two visits carried out, but it has provided working reports to our forces in theatre. It is fair to say that the ICRC is generally satisfied with our approach and describes conditions of internment as "fairly good".

We will obviously continue to work closely with the ICRC to ensure that prisoners' concerns are addressed. In the light of recent publications, we judge that if the ICRC were willing to publish its report, the United Kingdom Government would have absolutely no objection.

In addition, recent representations have been made by a number of other groups, including Amnesty International, making allegations about incidents, including some of which the Ministry of Defence was not previously aware. Those incidents do not involve allegations about detainees. We will always take such credible allegations seriously. As a consequence, at the beginning of March, we began a thorough trawl of the    records of units produced in Iraq since the commencement of operations last year. That is a considerable task, and we expect it to last a few more weeks. I assure the House that if it reveals further examples of incidents that merit formal investigation, investigations will follow. In turn, if British forces are found to have acted unlawfully, the appropriate legal action will be taken. That has happened in every single case so far.

Those thorough and detailed investigations have also been necessary in relation to the photographs published by the Daily Mirror some days ago. Those photographs
 
10 May 2004 : Column 24
 
are central to accusations concerning the behaviour of British troops, in particular, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. I can tell the House that as a result of those further investigations the SIB has informed me that there are strong indications that the vehicle in which the photographs were taken was not in Iraq during the relevant period. Additional lines of inquiry are being pursued to corroborate that fact.

The SIB has interviewed at length the soldier described by the Daily Mirror as "Soldier C". We are grateful to "Soldier C" for coming forward. However, I can assure the House that the allegation at the centre of his evidence, which is once again the case of Baha Mousa, has already been investigated and the case is currently with the Army legal services for consideration. When interviewed by the RMP, "Soldier C" did not have any new evidence to add to what was already known as a result of our investigations. Indeed, as I have already mentioned, those allegations were widely covered in other newspapers many months ago. I leave it to the House to judge why they have been recycled in that way.

In conclusion, we are determined to see through the task in Iraq according to standards of behaviour set out in the Geneva convention and international humanitarian law. We will not hesitate to act where those high standards are not followed, and we will investigate when serious allegations are brought to our attention. But we should not lose sight of the fact that thousands of our service personnel continue to serve their country with great distinction in Iraq and around the world. We are appalled by the allegations made against an unrepresentative small number, but that will not diminish our admiration of, respect for and pride in those who continue to serve their country with such distinction.

---