---

Defence in the UK

Before I start my own speech, I would like to comment on what the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said earlier this afternoon, which I can describe only as barmy paranoia. His basic argument was that we should not trade with Russia or Iran because they will invest some of the proceeds in their defence. That is quite silly. Are we not to trade, then, to receive the pretty large portions of the world’s oil and gas that come from those parts of the world? Are our people supposed to go cold instead? In another part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he talked about selling arms without restriction because he wanted to boost our defence industries. That aspect of his speech was silly and incoherent. He should revisit the matter for the future. The debate is about defence in the UK, so it is quite restrictive. However, it is astonishing that we have not had a full debate on Iraq in the light of recent events and reports, which have included an escalation in the killing of civilians and troops. Iraqi citizens have less security and protection than ever, as was witnessed when the Parliament was bombed. More than 100,000 Iraqis participated in a demonstration in Najaf to call for the US and UK occupiers to go. The coalition Government are losing Ministers and there is more puppet government by the US than ever. We have also seen reports such as that by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which presented a scathing catalogue of the consequences of the occupation for soldiers and Iraqi civilians. In the United States, public opinion has moved overwhelmingly against the Iraq engagement. There is a joke in Washington: ““What’s the difference between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war?? The answer is, ““George W. Bush had an exit strategy for the Vietnam war.? George Bush is going to continue with the disaster until his term in office is up, whatever the fruitless cost in extra lives. His actions are taking the lives of British troops, yet that seems to be of little concern, other than for prayer. It is openly said in Washington that the Iraq war is a failed war. The US Congress knows it, the British public know it, and Ministers know it—and say so privately. It is wrong not to act on that knowledge so that the carnage and loss of life that the occupation is generating can be brought to an end. As the debate is about defence in the UK, I want to focus my speech on the UK defence institutions that have come under pressure from the war and occupation and to talk about the process in this country for dealing with death, torture and murder in British military custody. I will not mention a current case because aspects of it remain sub judice, but I can refer to more general matters. Such matters were raised in an article in Monday’s edition of The Guardian by the solicitor, Phil Shiner, who wrote:"““The evidence of British abuse and killing of Iraqi civilians is part of an iceberg of disgrace which demands a public inquiry?." He wrote that the nation should be ““shocked?, but that media outlets chose to ignore the matter. He stated:"““By comparison, when Canadian troops meted out similar treatment to a prisoner in Somalia in the 1990s, the result was a five-year public inquiry and spring-clean of the military justice system.?" The article pointed out that the torture by British troops"““included the use of four techniques banned by the government in 1972: hooding, stressing and sleep and food deprivation.?" It stated that the torture was carried out by"““not just one rogue battalion?," but others. Phil Shiner referred to"““senior brigade legal advice, which said it would not be breaching international humanitarian law to hood and stress civilian detainees.?" He wrote about a"““failure to train troops to observe the law and also, it seems, to teach them the basic principles to enable them to fulfil their role.?" In that context, he wrote that troops had ““precisely 1.25 hours training? in prisoner handling, although that was the main job of some of the troops. The article also cited ““military operations? with"““racist connotations from an earlier era?," and stated:"““Uncomfortable questions about our complicity in war crimes with the US also lurk beneath the surface.?" He talks about the need for a public inquiry. The Government need to respond to those issues; otherwise they will be discredited. That has implications for our defence institutions, such as the Royal Military Police. I have a lot of time for them and I pay tribute to them. They have an incredibly difficult job, but they are understaffed and undermined. They investigate thoroughly and deliver the evidence but are then undermined by the rest of the process. They really should be demoralised, and I suspect that they are, because they are given very little support, even by the Government. They are let down by the Army Prosecuting Authority. Their status is too low, and for troops who are prepared to use abusive tactics they are really little more now than a nuisance, when they should be a proper police authority. The Army Prosecuting Authority was the subject of a parliamentary question that I asked in January. It dropped a case of assault because it was more than six months old, saying that it was time-barred. I found that an incredible decision for any prosecuting authority to make. I cannot imagine that if somebody who commits an assault is not caught for six months they will not be prosecuted. The APA put out a press release referring to the incident in 2004 in al-Amarah, which was, of course, shown on television in February 2006. It involved British soldiers allegedly assaulting Iraqi civilians. The video commentary appeared to encourage what was being done and the footage showed an alleged kick to the body of a deceased Iraqi civilian. The APA said that following a thorough investigation by the Royal Military Police, nine servicemen, members of the Light Infantry, had been referred to it, but it had decided that they should not be tried by court martial. Its reasons involved tests of evidential sufficiency and what it called ““public interest?. It claimed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute, even though it had established the identity of two of the servicemen. It said:"““Charges of battery are, however, summary only offences in civilian law and are currently subject to a 6 month time-limit. This would also apply in proceedings in a civilian court.?" The charges were therefore time-barred. It went on to say:"““The military authorities were not aware of the incident until February 2006?," even though it took place in 2004. That is a ridiculous position. Is assault and battery a summary offence in the civilian world? It is not; it is a most serious offence, and it would be treated as such under criminal law. Is the APA really saying that in civilian society someone can beat up another person and it they are not caught for six months they are in the clear and cannot be prosecuted? I do not think so. By saying that the APA shows how biased it is and what a poor position it is in on this matter. It claims to be acting in the public interest, but it is really just what is wanted by the ill-informed press who see these military abusers as a special case. This is their definition of public interest; it is not what the armed forces need and it is not what the UK needs to uphold its reputation for justice and human rights. On the public interest, the APA got it wrong in this case and it repeatedly gets it wrong. Where is the analysis and the transparency in such cases, which are in the public interest? The APA claims to be independent, but that alleged independence is a chimera. That is what I believe, and that is what the world will believe. If it was independent of the armed forces, it could be safely abolished, and its role handed over to the Crown Prosecution Service. The court martial system is not working properly in the Iraq abusers context. It sets up all sorts of mechanisms for delay, and, as we know from the APA’s reinterpretation of the law as regards the six-month time limit, the guilty can get off simply because of the delay. The court martial system is not to be trusted; it is time for it to be abolished, and for the criminal court system to apply instead. I conclude by quoting from this week’s Tribune:"““A military court has thus far refused to convict on charges of manslaughter, discharging all but the one case involving a voluntary admission. It is misguided to see this result as ‘protecting our troops’. The reverse is true. Without an independent investigation there is a danger that the British military will attract a reputation for unpunished brutality within a system which protects the brutalisers…It is not about witch-hunting, nor about holding the military to higher standards than they should be subject to anywhere. It is about accountability, the universal defence of fundamental human rights and the pursuit of justice.?" The way in which people have been dealt with in UK military custody is a disgrace and a shame on Britain, in human rights terms.