---

Court Martial Judgment

My Lords, noble Lords made a number of assertions and asked a number of questions which I will collate together to answer. There are some broad themes here that I should address. The Opposition tabled a Question for the Secretary of State for Defence which is why I am repeating the Statement in this House this afternoon. We recognise the importance to morale for our Armed Forces to feel that they are getting proper support both on operations and in the way in which trials such as these are conducted. We do everything that we can in the support that we give. For example, each of the accused was provided with a QC at public expense and was supported by his regiment. But, as the noble Lord said, we need to understand why there is a perception that the accused were hung out to dry. That is not how we see it. When I was in Iraq that was not the impression I gained, but there have been statements saying that this is affecting morale. I shall look into the matter and ask questions to get further information. It is not my understanding that it affects matters today, but I will look into it further and report to the House in due course. The review by the Ministry of Defence is being undertaken with all speed. I commit to give an update to the House on the outcome of the interim findings of the review within a month. It is very important, for the reasons the noble Lord stated, that we report as soon as we can. It will take considerable time as a number of issues need to be reviewed. But it is important for us to keep the House informed. As the noble Lord said, there was no criticism by the Judge Advocate General that the case was brought by the prosecution. His criticisms related to failures—as he saw it—in some aspects of the investigation. We must take into account the fact that these investigations took place shortly after main combat operations ended in March 2003. The alleged offence took place in May 2003. The situation was very difficult at that time. It is important to recognise the very difficult job the Royal Military Police undertake within the Special Investigations Branch. Nine members of the RMP have lost their lives serving their country in Iraq. The job they do is extremely challenging. In this case it was made worse because members of the Parachute Regiment returned to the United Kingdom shortly after the alleged offence took place and therefore the investigation had to take place in both Iraq and the UK. Noble Lords have questioned the cost of the trial and the decision to bring the prosecution. The decision to prosecute, as I have said, was made by the Army Prosecuting Authority. The judge made no criticism of it. On the cost of the trial, we do not accept the numbers that have been bandied about in the press. However, it is very important that all efforts are taken for the defendants to be properly supported, which is why it was right for them to have had a QC and for the public purse to support those costs. So we make no apology for the costs of the trial. The effect that these things have on the future morale of the Armed Forces means that they must be done properly. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned regarding investigations. The noble Lord questioned why a number of these cases have arisen in this way, compared with other operations, such as the first Gulf War. We need to recognise the circumstances in which Iraq has evolved from major combat operations to our being there in a peace-keeping mode of operation in support of the rebuilding of Iraq over a period of time. The nature of such operations, as they move from combat into support mode, provides a number of challenges for the Armed Forces in terms of the evolution of the rules of engagement. We need to take into account the challenges that presents, both in terms of how investigations are undertaken and the support and clarity that needs to be given to our Armed Forces in the field. We need to learn any lessons that emerge from this; but we recognise that this is an evolving situation where we need to adapt and learn from our experiences. However, I say as clearly as I can that there has been no aspect of political correctness or political interference in this case. Ministers are not involved in any of this. The process of prosecution is taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority, which is under the control of the Attorney-General. It is independent of the Armed Forces; and it is very important that it is independent and seen to be so. It is important that we are able to say within the Ministry of Defence that any accusations against any of our people are properly investigated by an independent authority and that there is no question of interference by the military. That is absolutely clear. In conclusion, I commit to the House to make sure that we give a report on the lessons that we are learning as we learn them. As I said, I will do that within a month.