---

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, my concern is the breakdown of the reasonable relationships that were building up between British service personnel and the Iraqi people. In view of the damage done by the horrendous photographs and videos that have been displayed continuously throughout the Muslim world, what steps are the British authorities taking to make it clear to the Iraqi people that no effort is being spared in investigating the allegations and that, if the allegations are well founded, those concerned will be dealt with through the rule of law?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: one of the effects of the allegations, whether or not they are true in every case—something that newspapers might want to consider—is that the relationship that has been established over the previous months between British troops and Iraqis, particularly those in the south of the country, is put in danger. Even more obviously put in danger, perhaps, are the lives of British troops.

We are making every effort to get across to the Iraqi people our disgust at any case of this kind that is proved and our view that such behaviour is completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister has spoken on the matter twice, I think, in the past two or three days. The very reason that we went into Iraq was to stop not this sort of treatment but any treatment of this kind taking place. We wanted to stop it for good. In answer to the noble Baroness's question, I say that those who are found to be responsible will be punished. We are using all the methods that we can to get that across to the Iraqi people, but the noble Baroness and the House will know that there are people in Iraq who will do their best to pervert the message that we are sending.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we are not dealing with a nicety? We are dealing with the criminal law, which is on trial. Does not the burden of proof in all cases fall on the prosecuting authorities, however grave the allegations? Will my noble friend also underline the fact that the proposed defendants are entitled by our law to be treated as innocent, until the jury finds them guilty? Is it not right
 
10 May 2004 : Column 54
 
that, as is customary, the burden of proof should fall on the prosecution? All I ask is that there should be a fair trial. Does my noble friend agree?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with huge experience of such issues. He knows that I agree with him. It is essential that the interests of all parties in criminal matters are considered fairly and evenly. That includes the interests of potential defendants, which is why the system that we adopt in the Armed Forces is designed to make sure that independent bodies—the Army Legal Services and the Army Prosecution Authority, which are not part of the chain of command in the normal way—are obliged to examine the result of investigations to see whether it is appropriate for a charge to be made. If a charge is made, it is essential that a fair trial should follow.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I refer the Minister to the earlier part of his Statement, which dealt with the security situation. Understandably, he dealt only with the part of Iraq that is under the direct control of British troops, but does he not agree that experience tells us that the security of that part of Iraq—Basra and the surrounding towns—depends crucially on decisions taken and words spoken elsewhere? I refer, for example, to Imam al-Sadr's remarks on Friday, which the Minister mentioned, but also to American decisions made in Baghdad. They affect our troops crucially. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficient influence, day by day, on those decisions?

It is now 10 May. On 30 June, there will be a transfer of power to a sovereign Iraqi government. In the Minister's particular sphere, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that if the powers to be transferred are to be at all credible to other Iraqis and the region, they need to include Iraqi command of Iraqi security forces and some at least effective Iraqi day-by-day say in the major military decisions of the coalition?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I disagree with nothing that the noble Lord has said. Of course, what happens in the south is affected to an extent by what happens elsewhere in Iraq. In discussions with our coalition partners—in particular, the Americans—we are satisfied that they are doing their jobs elsewhere in Iraq, which, it must be remembered, is sometimes extremely difficult in certain parts of the remainder of Iraq.

Of course, 30 June is now less than two months away. From a recent, if very short, visit that I made to Iraq about two weeks ago, I know that our minds are set very much indeed on what will happen on 30 June and on the days afterwards. Of course, it is intended that security should be handed over to the Iraqis on that day. But the vast majority of them would say that they want and need a coalition presence in the following weeks and months to ensure that security is satisfactory.

There is a huge amount of effort being made by the Americans, who can speak for themselves, and us in order to ensure that the various parts of the Iraqi
 
10 May 2004 : Column 55
 
security forces are being trained and made up as best we can. It is a hard job, but we are very conscious that if 30 June is to mean anything it must involve some transfer of security influence to the Iraqis.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Red Cross report was potentially extremely embarrassing for this country? Who took the decision that the report should not be disclosed to Ministers? Who took the decision that it should not be disclosed to the Prime Minister? Potentially, the report was a time bomb. It is not a question of a prosecution being brought or anything like that. It is exactly the same as a newspaper potentially reporting a possible crime, but not the prosecution of the crime. Therefore, there was a time bomb under the Government. Yet, there was a procedure whereby this report and its implications do not seem to have been disclosed to the Cabinet.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I have no idea whose decision it was not to let Ministers know.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not have any idea. I shall repeat myself. The three issues to which that interim report referred in relation to British troops had all been investigated—not because we were asked to investigate them but because we chose to do so many months before the interim report arrived—and were being investigated at the time the report reached the Government. So all three issues have been dealt with, each of which was set out clearly in the Statement that I have just read.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that no one in this House or in the country would expect the Government to do other than they are doing in taking these allegations extremely seriously. We would expect no less. There is a high level of trust that the Government are doing no less than they should. That support will come from people irrespective of what they thought about the original decision to engage in the coalition's campaign.

However, those who opposed the campaign are bound to feel that allegations and divisions of this kind in our country and the evidence—if such there be—of particular, however small, numbers of soldiers crossing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are a consequence that too often follows from contentious and divisive decisions. Were the Government aware that that might happen and that this type of military activity had a particular propensity to cause that kind of thing to occur? If the Government were aware, do they understand that there are many people in the country who will feel that what so far as we can tell currently has happened—I absolutely agree with the need for a fair trial in individual cases—is some indication of the fragile support that there was for this event?

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, I cannot agree with him on this occasion. Of course, there were
 
10 May 2004 : Column 56
 
divisions in this country about whether we should have gone to war with Iraq, which were expressed as legitimately as they can be in a democracy. But I do not think that that has any connection with the allegations that are currently circling around and, if those allegations are true, any of the acts that took place.

We must be realistic about this. I doubt that there has been a war, a conflict or a post-conflict situation in history, whether it involved disagreement or agreement about whether it was sensible to enter into, in which there has not been some examples of bad behaviour by armed forces. There always has been. As I think that I have made absolutely clear to the House today, none of it is acceptable. But I really do not see that that is in any way connected to the fact that this particular conflict divided the British people.

---