---

Chris Bryant: Does the hon. Gentleman also believe that the Press Complaints Commission should act in this case?

Mr. Simpson: I hope that it will do so and that it will examine all the details and evidence brought forward. That is not to say that all of us in the House do not recognise the right of a free press to put pressure on Ministers and the Opposition and if necessary, to reveal anything that they think is seriously wrong with the armed forces. This incident proves, however, that in this case one newspaper has probably gone beyond what most people would recognise as the right line.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Following the revelations on prisoner treatment, my hon. Friend will be aware of the barbaric murder of the American civilian reconstruction worker in Iraq. Does he believe that the British Government should now consider the protection of any civilian reconstruction workers and aid deliverers in Iraq and of our service personnel?

Mr. Simpson: Clearly, that is a question of which the Minister will be only too well aware. I imagine that extra measures have been taken in respect of our service personnel. Clearly, volunteer contractors—I believe that some 5,000 UK citizens are working in Iraq—will accept advice from the British Government and the military forces out there, while recognising that they are taking an increasing risk. Of course, that is a matter that they must decide.

Mr. Garnier: I listened with care to what my hon. Friend said about the Daily Mirror. No matter how
 
13 May 2004 : Column 528
 
blameworthy it may be, and it appears to be that, it does not absolve the Government for strategic and policy failures. Was he satisfied that he received an answer to the apparent confusion that was left following the Minister of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 4 May and the statement made by the Secretary of State on Monday? It seems that there remains a hiatus and the Minister failed to fill it. Was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) similarly confused by the Minister's recent remarks?

Mr. Simpson: My hon. and learned Friend leads me nicely on to the second part of my comments about the Minister's mini statement.

The whole House agrees that the contemptible behaviour of a few British soldiers, who, it is alleged, might have carried out such treatment of civilians or prisoners of war, does not represent the professionalism and dedication of the majority of our servicemen and women in Iraq. That is not under question. We all agree that there are no circumstances under which the brutal and disgusting humiliation of disarmed and helpless prisoners can be excused, even when one is at war on operations. However, the crisis, which is a crisis for the coalition, strikes at the very heart of the coalition's moral case, which we need to consider.

The damage has already been done. It is not only the damage caused by the continuing revelations about atrocities carried out by certain elements of the United States armed forces. As the commander of 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was interviewed this morning, said, the damage has been done and has affected all of us. It will be incredibly difficult now to turn round opinion in Iraq and in the Arab world, as well as opinion in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Borrow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that had the Daily Mirror not published those photographs, it would be more likely that the Iraqi population would distinguish between the good conduct of our troops in southern Iraq as against the slightly different approach of the US troops in the Baghdad area?

Mr. Simpson: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but the problem now is that the coalition brand has been tainted across the board. Certainly, the actions of the Daily Mirror will not have helped. I do not think that many people in Iraq now make much distinction between ourselves and the Americans in relation to the question of who abused prisoners and, of course, the visual image has the biggest impact.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the allegations and photographs have not just made things difficult for our armed forces and the coalition in Iraq, but made it difficult for the voice of moderate Muslims in the region to be heard? Does he agree that that damage will take a long time to repair?

Mr. Simpson: I think that it will. It is now almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. As I have said, it is not just a question of the Daily Mirror but of what we see on our screens and of what is coming from Washington. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has said that
 
13 May 2004 : Column 529
 
we must prepare ourselves for even more and even worse. I think that that undermines the whole coalition effort.

Mr. Redwood: Ministers now tell us that policy on the treatment of prisoners was reviewed last September and a sensible decision was made about hooding. Would my hon. Friend expect Ministers to have been aware of that? Would he expect them to have called for papers and discussed issues? Would he expect them at that point to have reviewed the whole question of conduct towards prisoners to ensure that they were being dealt with in the right way everywhere?

Mr. Simpson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to his point immediately. I am about to list a series of questions for Ministers to answer.

Along with my colleagues and, I suspect, some Labour Members, I have been dismayed by the way in which the Government, and the Ministry of Defence in particular, have responded to what has, in effect, been a crisis. At times, as we have seen this week, they have given an impression of muddle and incompetence. Cursory reading of a newspaper or attendance in the Chamber would have revealed the contradictory statements of the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister. That can only encourage those who wish to see the coalition defeated and undermine the morale of our troops.

What I and others are criticising is not our armed forces, but the muddle and incompetence of Ministers. That is the point at issue. Notwithstanding the numerous questions asked and the two statements made in the House, a number of questions remain unanswered. They should be cleared up now, because we will face further crises like this over the next few weeks that will put our troops in even greater danger. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister of State if he wishes to answer any of the questions that I put to him.

There is a crucial question about the ICRC report. Until I read it, I did not realise that it put together allegations about both American forces and our own forces. The report was passed on and we understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that it eventually reached the permanent joint headquarters. I gather that it was decided there not to pass it on to the Ministry of Defence. Is that correct? It is not a rhetorical question. Does the Minister wish to answer it? Perhaps he does not know the answer. I believe, on the basis of my experience of working at the Ministry of Defence—some years ago, admittedly—that the political secretary at the permanent joint headquarters would certainly pass such a report to the policy-making centre at the Ministry. Either it stopped there, or Ministers were never informed. This is not some pedantic point. It is crucial in terms of policy and the Government's ability to respond to the kind of accusations that have been made.

Given the report's reference to the coalition forces, both the American forces and ours, did the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Cabinet Office make representations to their United States
 
13 May 2004 : Column 530
 
counterparts at any point since its publication? Was the Secretary of State for Defence, for instance, totally unaware of the allegations against the Americans? Might it not have been in the interests of the coalition for him to speak to Defence Secretary Rumsfeld to point out that these were serious allegations and to recognise the damage that they would do to the coalition?

According to The Observer on 9 May, the MOD confirmed that three British military personnel were stationed at Abu Ghraib prison. Who were they? To whom did they report? Were they aware of the mistreatment and abuses going on? Did those British servicemen at any point make complaints about maltreatment and irregularities at the prison to their superiors? Were Ministers made aware of that? I should be happy to take an intervention from the Minister on that—but no, he does not want to come back to me on it.

It is my understanding that Umm Qasr prison camp, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), was initially operated by the British armed forces. On 7 April 2003, its administration was handed over to the United States, only for it to be handed back to the British forces on 25 September. On 1 April, the ICRC orally informed the political adviser of the commander of the British armed forces at coalition forces Central Command in Doha about methods of ill treatment used by United States military personnel at the camp. Did the British Army continue to hand over Iraqi prisoners to the United States forces despite the warnings about that ill treatment or was that handing-over procedure stopped? If the answer is yes, who made the decision and were Ministers informed of it? I do not know whether the Minister wants to come back on that—no, he does not.

My final point concerns the letter, report or document—call it what we will—of Amnesty International that has got the Minister into so much trouble and produced what could best be described as the Clinton defence on a point of detail over the word "contract". Because the Minister is an honourable man, I sincerely hope that he will put into the public domain the Amnesty International document that he showed us at the Dispatch Box.

---