| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 13 agreed to.
13 May 2004 : Column 512
Armed Forces Personnel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
2.55 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): This debate is about armed forces personnel issues. When we talk about personnel, we should always remember that it is not an abstract: we are considering the remarkable men and women who make up our armed forces. They are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers; they are the people who are prepared to put their lives on the line in defence of this country and to give other nations the freedom to enjoy the human rights that have been denied them by repressive regimes—regimes which have been tolerated for too long because there are those who argue that it is always better to talk and never to act; to prevaricate while millions perish. It is into such cauldrons that we place our armed forces.
As we have seen in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and now Iraq, our armed forces consistently deliver as a force for good. It is against that backcloth and in that context that I want to open today's debate.
I suggest that there is a vast difference between what we do in this place and what our armed forces are doing in troubled parts of the world in the most difficult circumstances. Our armed forces are not automatons—unthinking and uncaring. They have the same standards and values upon which this nation built its reputation. Some of them make mistakes, just like the rest of us. A very few of them do things that might not make us proud: after all, the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces are human. At all times we must ask them to achieve the very highest of standards, knowing that they can never be perfect.
It is deeply disturbing that there are those who are prepared casually to vilify our armed forces without first establishing the facts. It is one thing to have a go at Ministers; we know the business we are about. We have been asked by the Prime Minister to perform our public duties, and we try to do that to the best of our abilities. We are judged in the public spotlight. Ministers at least have the chance to answer back. Our servicemen and women do not.
The childhood adage has it that words will never hurt. But I think we must reconsider that, because the words that some have been using about our armed forces hurt them. The public debate has been unbalanced by some individuals who lay claim to sole ownership of human rights; who convert any allegation, true or otherwise, into fact; and who judge and condemn our armed forces without giving them the benefit of explaining events.
We have laws. Our armed forces are subject to the rule of law, and it is within that system that their behaviour should, and will, be dealt with. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, two cases are at an advanced stage. In those cases and in any others that may follow, justice will be done and will be seen to be done, because one fundamental principle of human rights is that people are innocent until proven guilty.
13 May 2004 : Column 513
Whatever demands we place upon our personnel, above and beyond those of civilian life, we do not deprive them of that right.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will know that the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross referred not just to the treatment of detainees; it also talked about the brutality of some arrests and about a defective administration system that did not allow for proper notification of the families of those who had "disappeared". Can my right hon. Friend give us some comfort as to whether those matters have been rectified, in the interests both of the human rights of Iraqi citizens and of the safety and security of our armed forces?
Mr. Ingram: As my hon. Friend will be aware, I cannot talk about the detail of the ICRC report and I shall come to the reasons for that later on. However, she raises a matter of general concern, which I shall also touch on later in my speech. It goes without saying that wherever alleged wrongdoing is identified, appropriate action will be taken, whether that involves the need for renewed instructions or specific instructions, or for criminal prosecution. I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. The ICRC is currently carrying out a subsequent investigation, and we are awaiting a report on that subsequent examination of all that we do. I will mention more about that report in passing further on in my speech, but we await the outcome of the ICRC inquiry.
But I will not discuss that report in detail. I want to talk about the background to it, and I will come to that. I suggest to hon. Members who may want to intervene on the subject of the ICRC report that they let me explain the position on that, and perhaps they can then intervene. I want to make a bit of progress.
Before I turn to the main elements of the way in which we seek within the Ministry of Defence to honour our responsibilities to our armed forces personnel, I should like to deal with the issues that have been raised concerning what I said, and what I meant by what I said, when I gave my statement to the House on 4 May.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No, not at present.
Much has been made of my statement that I had not, at the time of speaking to the House, received a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross in which it expressed concerns about coalition treatment of detainees. Some have construed that to be a denial that I had seen any communication whatsoever about alleged wrongdoings by British troops.
The word "report" has a specific meaning to me. A report is something that is properly researched, properly constructed and properly presented. The interim ICRC report of 10 February satisfied those criteria, and when
13 May 2004 : Column 514
I said I had not received it, that was a correct and honest answer. That does not mean to say that I was unaware of the issues and the actions being taken.
Let me make it clear that we co-operate fully with the ICRC. It is offered full access to the detention facilities that we operate and each concern that it brings to the attention of the Government is treated very seriously and investigated fully.
A second report from the ICRC, a working paper—this is what I was referring to earlier—specific to UK detention facilities has also now been received. It, too, will be examined very closely, and where it makes recommendations, we will deal with them. However, I should tell the House that the report describes UK detention facilities as "fairly good" and notes that we have responded to the earlier concerns. I hope that that deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). That, I suggest, contrasts with some of the lurid statements of recent days.
I should also comment on the suggestions that we should publish ICRC reports. We will not do so without the express permission of the ICRC. I would have hoped that right hon. and hon. Members appreciated that the valuable work of the ICRC depends upon the confidentiality of its work. It is more than a matter of bad reports or good reports. Without the principle of confidentiality, the ICRC might lose access to detainees in countries where they are most at risk—and not only that: it could put ICRC personnel in danger.
Mr. Ingram: I may be dealing with the point about which hon. Members are concerned.
The deaths mentioned by Amnesty International in letters to me fall into a different category. Amnesty does not have access to UK detention facilities, but it has commented on a number of issues. I understand from press and media reports that Amnesty has said that it submitted a dossier to me in October last year. Some may call them reports. I received only one document from Amnesty last October. It is hardly a dossier. [Interruption.] It is a letter just over a page in length, dealing with one incident. In my reply of 11 November, I set out the details of the investigation that was already under way into the death in custody of Baha Mousa, also known as Baha al-Maliki. I do not know whether the House would like to me read out that letter, but let me say that it is not a dossier, as some have alleged, nor is it a report.
Mr. Redwood: When, last September, the Government rightly decided to ban the hooding of prisoners, what else did they consider by way of maltreatment of prisoners, and what evidence did they have before them at that point on the basis of which to make that very sensible decision?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |