---

Fatal Shootings (Iraq)

The whole House will join the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in expressing sympathy to Sergeant Steven Roberts’ wife, Mrs. Samantha Roberts, his mother and the rest of the family, and, indeed, to the family of Mr. Zaher. As we all know, it has taken the three years and a month that has passed since those tragic deaths—it is almost three years to the day since Sergeant Roberts’ funeral—to resolve this issue. However, I welcome the fact that a clear conclusion has now been reached. I agree with the Solicitor-General that it is the right one and that it should put an end to this terrible period of uncertainty. I, too, recognise that in investigating these events and the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings in the complicated and difficult circumstances that surrounded the outset of this conflict, it would have been very unfair to judge that these soldiers, in doing what they thought they were duty bound to do—to support their colleagues—should be prosecuted in the criminal courts. They will be hugely relieved, as will their colleagues serving in Iraq and elsewhere. We pay tribute to the work that they do, usually without fear for themselves, and their willingness to take risks. In the light of this experience, the Armed Forces Bill and other related matters, are the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General satisfied that such a delay—a year and a quarter was spent on the internal investigation and the rest on an external civilian investigation—will not happen again in any foreseeable circumstances? That must be the major lesson for all concerned to learn. Secondly, like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I was slightly concerned by the Attorney-General’s use of the phrase ““insufficient evidence to prosecute””. Were the same two tests that would normally be applied in any civilian case—whether there was a more than 50 per cent. chance of conviction, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed—applied in this case? I assume that they were, and that that is therefore the end of the matter. Thirdly, are we sure that the boundary between military investigation by the armed services’ legal authorities and civilian investigation is now clear, both at home and abroad? The Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram)—he is in his place—knows that the Deepcut investigation raised the same issues: who should investigate and who should decide on prosecution? Will there be a speedy process to decide who investigates, in order to give maximum confidence? My final point links to one mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. On the responsibilities of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, are they seized of issues relating to a duty on the British Army and its management to ensure that service personnel go into the front line properly equipped? Is there such a duty of care, and will it always be fulfilled by ensuring that personnel have the kit, equipment, clothing and other materiel to allow them to do their duty safely and properly?