---

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): I have the utmost respect for the professionalism of the British forces, as does every hon. Member. I include my son in that, who is serving in the Royal Marines and was in Basra for the invasion. Last week, however, a mother of a recruit at Catterick garrison came to see me with allegations of what he and his comrades had to endure. They were made to parade naked in front of their superiors while they made fun of their private parts. When they tried to cover their private parts, they were punched in the face if they did not uncover them. That needs to be investigated, but it shows that the problem is endemic in the British forces and needs to be rooted out at home.

Mr. Hoon: I do not for a moment accept that it is endemic. I know that my hon. Friend has raised the problem with the Minister for the armed forces and
 
10 May 2004 : Column 31
 
there will be a thorough and detailed investigation. Those allegations will be considered in the same detail and treated with the same concern as the investigations of those cases that I dealt with today.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): Whatever the truth or otherwise of the allegations against British forces in Iraq, the reputation of the UK's armed forces has been undermined by the constant drip of allegations. Does the Secretary of State accept that, to bring the matter to a head, we need a clear, independent investigation, rather than one conducted by the Royal Military Police? Only then can we be satisfied that justice has not only been done but been seen to be done.

Mr. Hoon: That is precisely what happens: there is an independent investigation conducted by those who are expert in and knowledgeable about military procedures. It is important that we give them our confidence in recognising the abilities that they bring to bear in looking at these cases. Moreover, if they judge that a case has proceeded sufficiently far, it is then handed over to an independent prosecuting authority to determine whether charges should be laid, so there is a significant degree of independence in the system that we already have.

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, having won the war, we are in acute danger of losing the peace, mainly because of the lack of a coherent peacekeeping policy by the United States? Does he accept that, in the context of any allegations against British soldiers, we need to be particularly visible in conducting our judicial processes? One thing that the people of Iraq know, and which we need to remember, is that far worse actions happened daily under Saddam Hussein, but those never got in the press or were raised in a court or anywhere else. The crucial difference in this situation is that we must be seen to be doing something about these allegations in a proper, judicial and public way.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right in his conclusion. I would not in any way want to condone any unlawful mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers simply because it was less bad than that perpetrated against the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. We cannot at any stage afford to depart from the high standards that we have set.

Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): The Government simply have to realise the devastating effect that the allegations are having on our policy, our reputation and our effectiveness in the middle east, and the only way of solving the problem is by ensuring complete openness.

I refer the Secretary of State again to an Amnesty press release from last Friday, which said:

"Last July Amnesty raised allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees"—

not just people whom they met on the street, but detainees—

"in a memorandum to the US Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq."

 
10 May 2004 : Column 32
 

When did the Secretary of State first see that? Is he saying that it was only very recently? It seems that he did not see it until allegations started to appear in the newspapers, whereas we would have expected him to have got a personal grip on the situation the first time that any such allegation was mentioned, to make sure that it did not happen again. It has happened, again and again. We want to know when the Secretary of State saw that information, and if he did not see it until about eight months after it was delivered to the CPA, why that was.

Mr. Hoon: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is confusing two different reports. I made it clear in my statement that, this time last year, there was a letter from Amnesty International making certain allegations about UK treatment of detainees. That was responded to and indications were given to Amnesty that there would be, as there was, a thorough investigation. Since then, Amnesty has raised a number of further cases; indeed, in a long memorandum submitted in April, repeated in a letter that arrived shortly before I left the Ministry of Defence this afternoon, it set out a considerable number of cases concerned not with detainees but with the interaction of British troops on the ground. Each of those cases has been thoroughly investigated.

Other cases brought forward by public interest lawyers have raised one or two matters that we were not aware of, but as I indicated to the House in my statement, a thorough search of all our files is under way to establish whether those are genuinely new cases or matters that have previously been investigated.

Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State understand the depth of feeling among civilians in Iraq and their affront at the humiliation and torture that has been going on in their country in the name of the coalition forces? What will he and the US coalition forces do, from now, to reassure the civilian population in Iraq? Does he accept that an independent organisation such as Amnesty International is needed to start to rebuild any confidence among that population about what we are there to do?

Mr. Hoon: I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right. I share the revulsion at the allegations and we need to investigate them thoroughly. However, may I give her an assurance? She says that we need to deal with matters now, but from the moment that any of the allegations were raised, the same process of thorough investigation has gone on—the same detailed co-operation with the appropriate independent organisation, which, incidentally, is not Amnesty International, but the International Committee of the Red Cross. We have co-operated consistently with the ICRC and we will go on co-operating with its staff—providing facilities, allowing them to enter facilities, receiving their recommendations, and acting on them, where appropriate. However, the fact is that, by the time the ICRC's interim report was received, in each of the cases affecting British soldiers and British civilians, action had already been taken months and months and months previously. That is what I expect the House to hear from Ministers, and that is what I am saying.
 
10 May 2004 : Column 33
 

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon) (LD): Do the events that have given rise to today's statement and the Secretary of State's experience in office lead him to the conclusion that there should be an immediate extension in the period of basic training given to Army recruits?

Mr. Hoon: A substantial review of training is under way. I recognise as a result of recent experience and of allegations of failures in the training system that we still have more work to do in that respect. If there is the slightest suggestion that British forces are not adequately trained to deal with the sometimes increasingly complex legal issues in international law, that must be addressed.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): The Secretary of State made it clear in his statement that the ICRC report was sent to Paul Bremer in February this year. Was that information shared with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was his deputy? To whom was it passed in the Ministry of Defence or the armed services here? What has happened to those who apparently concealed the information from the Secretary of State or other Ministers, which has led to the disgraceful impasse we are in today?

Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear that there was no concealment? The report to Ambassador Bremer was passed to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then to the military representative in Iraq, and from there to the Permanent Joint Headquarters.

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): Last Tuesday, I asked the Minister for the armed forces whether he had received any reports from the ICRC. He replied:

"I have received no such reports".—[Official Report, 4 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1216.]

He said "received", not "read", as the Secretary of State appears to be saying now. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Minister of State meant? For the report to have been given to Members today by journalists seems most extraordinary, given the Minister of State's previous comments.

---