---

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing an advance copy earlier today. Nothing should detract from the fact that we on the Conservative Benches have the highest confidence in, and admiration for, the professionalism, courage and skill of the men and women of the British armed forces serving in Iraq and elsewhere.

Will the Secretary of State agree that, as the coalition seeks to bring democracy, stability and freedom to the broken country of Iraq, the promotion of the rule of law in the chaotic and disastrously ill-planned post-conflict environment must come first? Will he further agree that the military do not see themselves as being above the law and that the hard lessons of earlier counter-insurgency operations have been well learned by the British Army?

The House will be aware that Britain ratified the additional 1977 protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions and that article 75 of the first protocol specifically prohibits

"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment . . . and any form of indecent assault".

As I said in the House last week, if the recent allegations against British soldiers are found to be true, they must be proceeded against with the full rigour of military law.

I understand that Amnesty International has reported to the MOD on several occasions since May of last year, alleging that abuses by British soldiers were
 
10 May 2004 : Column 25
 
taking place in Iraq. When did the Secretary of State first see those reports? What steps did he then take and what actions were taken by the chain of command to deal with them? If he did not see those reports, who in his Department did and what did they do about them?

In respect of the ICRC, is the Secretary of State really being serious in telling the House that neither he nor any other Minister in the MOD was made aware of the ICRC report until very recently because it was given to the British Government in confidence? For goodness sake, who on earth is running the MOD? Who is authorised to see important and confidential documents from the ICRC?

The Government's failures in that regard must lend further credence to the view that they have lost their grip on their policy in Iraq. If the Secretary of State did not know about the document, he most emphatically should have done and he is unacceptably complacent and negligent in not having done so. Even if he did not see it himself, when exactly was the ICRC report received by the MOD and who dealt with it? When were investigations commenced into the assertions that it made?

When precisely did the Secretary of State himself see the report and did he ensure that a copy was passed to the Prime Minister? And if not, why not? As the document has been published today, will the Secretary of State officially publish the ICRC report in full on this side of the Atlantic? Surely, there can now be no reason for him not to do so.

How can the Secretary of State account for the reply of the Minister of State for the armed forces, given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) in the House last Tuesday, that:

"To date, I have received no such reports, but some may be in the process of being compiled"? —[Official Report, 4 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1216.]

Does that not show that at the very least the Minister was in dereliction of his duty, or had the Secretary of State or his officials simply forgotten to tell him? Was it just the Government's continual, serial complacency?

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the ICRC brought its concerns to the attention of the coalition forces on several occasions, orally and in writing, throughout 2003? When were British commanders in MND—multinational division—south-east first made aware of the alleged abuse of prisoners by British forces?

In the light of these allegations, how many members of the British armed forces have been investigated and how many are currently being investigated? How many Iraqis are currently in British detention and how have they been graded? Given the seriousness of the cuts by the Government in the military training programme, is the Secretary of State himself entirely satisfied that British troops deployed to Iraq, including members of the Territorial Army, were given a full and detailed training package on handling prisoners and on their obligations under the Geneva conventions? Did the British servicemen who took part in investigations at Abu Ghraib make complaints at any time about maltreatment and irregularities at the prison?

The Government are causing a great deal of unwanted and unnecessary uncertainty by their persistent and wilful failure to give substantial answers to clear questions on those matters. At one moment, the
 
10 May 2004 : Column 26
 
Prime Minister claims that he is in discussion with the Americans over further troop deployments; yet within hours his spokesman denies it. At one moment, the Minister for the armed forces comes to the House to claim that he has not received the ICRC report, only for it to be announced yesterday that the MOD received that report in February this year. The Government's handling of these events is part and parcel of their fundamental and tragic incompetence and failure in the post-conflict planning for Iraq.

The Government must now set to and set out with clarity their plans for the remaining 51 days—only 51 days—leading to the transfer of power, and deal in detail with the many questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been asking, but which remain as yet unacceptably, and for the Government embarrassingly, unanswered. Today, the Secretary of State has a chance to come clean.

Finally, there are no circumstances under which the brutal and disgusting humiliation of disarmed and helpless prisoners can be excused. The replaying of those images day after day throughout the middle east and indeed the wider world has the potential to undermine the significant gains that have been made towards the goals of peace, stability and freedom in Iraq. Furthermore, the apparent ignoring of the Geneva conventions invites our enemies to do the same and increases the existing dangers to our servicemen and women.

The Government's greatest and most immediate task is to restore the confidence of the British people and the people of Iraq both in what we are seeking to do in that country and, most especially, in the reputation and good name of the British Army.

Mr. Hoon: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman uncharacteristically failed to listen to my statement; otherwise he would have noticed that I had answered all the questions—[Hon. Members: "No."]—that he set out in his bluster, but I will repeat them. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow anyone to shout down the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hoon: I will repeat the answers so that the hon. Gentleman can hear them, yet again, having had the benefit of reading the statement. Unfortunately, he obviously prepared his bluster before he came into the Chamber.

Amnesty International has written a number of letters to the Ministry of Defence about allegations concerning British troops, but, as I set out in my statement, most of those allegations—indeed, all but one letter—concerned the general interaction between British troops on the ground and Iraqi citizens, as British soldiers have gone about their security tasks in Iraq. That is obviously important. I am in no way condoning any manner of illegality by British troops, but that is quite different from the nature of the allegations made in relation to detainees. As far as I am aware, Amnesty International wrote one letter to the Department specifically about the concerns that it had last May, a year ago. That was replied to, and investigations were undertaken by the Ministry of Defence into those allegations. I have not received any further letter from Amnesty International
 
10 May 2004 : Column 27
 
about those allegations. Indeed, a letter was received today and I saw a letter from two weeks ago—neither of which mentioned those early, year-old allegations, which, as I say, have been thoroughly investigated.

As for the ICRC, again, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces said that he had not read that report. Again, I set out very carefully the reasons for that. That was an interim report in February, and by the time that it had been considered in the Ministry of Defence, each and every allegation—the three allegations specifically dealing with the role of British troops—had already been dealt with. That was the judgment of officials in the permanent joint headquarters, having dealt with those matters already, as a result of action by Ministers. I make no apology for saying that. Ministers instructed that those investigations should take place. Those investigations were continuing and continue today because, obviously, it is not a matter for Ministers to decide whether soldiers should be prosecuted. It is however a matter for Ministers to decide whether investigations should be properly pursued. That is precisely what happened.

The further point that I made in my statement was that this was an interim report, pending a further specific report from the ICRC in relation to the United Kingdom's responsibilities to detainees. As I set out in that statement, it clearly indicates that, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the ICRC is generally happy with the steps that we have taken at our facilities. The material that has been put before the ICRC and the consultation that we have had on regular basis with it has satisfied it that we are imposing proper standards and proper procedures in those areas for which we are responsible.

I mentioned as well that 33 cases had been the subject of investigation—going back to the more general matters, not matters concerned with detainees. I indicated to the House that 15 of those had been resolved without there being any case to answer and that a further six were still being pursued through the system.

---