---

Records of Detention (Review Conclusions)

May I fully associate the Conservative party with the Secretary of State's comments about the deaths of the four soldiers yesterday? It was a black day for the armed forces, and it was particularly sobering for me as my old regiment is shortly to go to Afghanistan. I entirely associate the Conservative party with the comments made by the Secretary of State at the end of his statement, when he made clear the challenge faced by the armed forces on operations overseas in very difficult circumstances. I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the statement and I note that it follows the undertaking in his letter of 17 November to the Chairman of the Defence Committee to answer the questions put to him by the Chairman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in the sitting he had three weeks earlier with the joint committees. It is a serious concern that there is an underlying charge of complicity with serious abuse of people detained by British forces on operations overseas. Properly, I presume that it is to address that charge that the Secretary of State has decided to come to the Chamber to make an oral statement, and we thank him for treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. Much of the Secretary of State's statement dealt with the transfer of two members of Lashkar-e-Taiba to Afghanistan in 2004 following their capture by British forces and their being handed over to the American forces. I am grateful for his candour on the details uncovered by the review. It is clear—I know that he has had a conversation with the shadow Secretary of State, who is abroad, about this—that this is a specific rather than systemic failure. I also accept that there appears to be no legal or practical alternative to their continued detention, where they have access to the International Committee of the Red Cross and appear to be detained in proper circumstances. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his account contradicts the specific assurances given by the then Foreign Secretary to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary on 6 February 2006? It is at the very least unfortunate that both officials and Ministers overlooked the significance of the cases, not least since the issue of rendition was already highly controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) had already formed his all-party group on the issue. The Secretary of State says that in retrospect it is clear to him that the transfer to Afghanistan of the two individuals should have been questioned at the time. What is his explanation for that not being done at any level and not being rediscovered until 1 December 2008? I acknowledge the Secretary of State's unreserved apology for overstating by about 1,000 the number of British detainees since 2004. Again, will he provide the House with an explanation for that? I visited the prison facilities in our area of operations with the Defence Committee in early 2004 and I acknowledge that they had been much improved since serious concerns surfaced about operations there in 2003, but in those circumstances I am astonished at the inaccuracy arising from conditions in 2004 and afterwards. Equally, my experience would lead me to accept that the figures for 2003 could only be an estimate. Let me turn to our current operations in Afghanistan. What confidence does the Secretary of State have that some of the 254 detainees handed over to the Afghan authorities have not been mistreated or tortured? On what basis does he claim in his letter to the Chairman of the Defence Committee of 17 November 2008 that there is no legal obligation to detainees once they are transferred to another state? Does he acknowledge that a moral obligation exists? Was that not implicit in the memorandum of understanding between the USA, Australia and the UK of March 2003? Why would not that wider obligation also apply between the UK, Iraq and Afghanistan? The statement avoids the principal public issue, which is the charge about complicity by UK forces operating in Iraq outside the Multi-national Division (South-East). That is a glaring hole and it must be addressed. I suspect that as Secretary of State he might not be inclined to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester for his dogged persistence on the issue. However, I rather suspect that, as a parliamentarian, the Secretary of State will admire my hon. Friend's achievement in ensuring that the issue remains at the front of parliamentary concern. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that for all the difficulty that the statement brings the Government and the embarrassment at procedures that apparently undermine and sometimes disgrace our values, my hon. Friend has done Parliament and our wider values proud by holding the Government to account. This is about more than thoroughly indifferent administration. The statement has partly been prompted by the work of my hon. Friend and, not least, by the evidence produced by the former SAS trooper Ben Griffin before he was injuncted by the Government almost exactly a year ago. Let me remind the House of the gravity of the charge. Ben Griffin said:"““Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured. During my time as member of the US/UK Task Force, three soldiers recounted to me an incident in which ""they had witnessed the brutal interrogation of two detainees. Partial drowning and an electric cattle prod were used during this interrogation and this amounted to torture. It was the widely held assumption that this would be the fate of any individuals handed over to our America colleagues. My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming 'the secret police of Baghdad'.””" How is the public interest served by the injunction when Ben Griffin had left the Army over two years earlier and had made numerous public statements on the nature of those operations in 2006, when he left, and on the role of UK forces in detaining Iraqis and other suspects? The injunction did not come until two years later. Surely, given the serious nature of his allegations and the time elapsed since his operational experience, his account should be publicly scrutinised. The Secretary of State must be prepared to answer those charges. Exquisite detail about official and ministerial oversight about two men is all very well and it is appreciated, but it sits ill with simply sweeping under the carpet the apparent evidence of direct British service involvement with delivery to gross mistreatment amounting to torture involving hundreds if not thousands of people. The evidence available is that the conduct of American forces has significantly improved since Ben Griffin served in Iraq, but the country is owed an account of what happened. Nothing does more to undermine our fight against terrorism and violence than departing from the rule of law and the values that we seek to defend. That does the terrorists' work for them. Is that not further cause for the Government finally to set up the comprehensive inquiry into Iraq without any further delay?