---

Records of Detention (Review Conclusions)

May I, first, welcome some of the hon. Gentleman's early remarks, although I did not agree with some of the remarks towards the end of his questions? I think that with hindsight and the ability to reflect on them he might well want to say something different at some point in the future. I want to pay tribute to all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have championed the issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of UK armed forces and HM Government as a whole operating firmly within the framework of the rule of law. These are our values, and we seek to uphold them throughout the world. We have made every effort to do so in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me deal with some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is no truth whatsoever in any allegation that British officials were complicit in the abuse of these two individuals. There is no evidence of abuse in relation to these two individuals and I made that very clear in my statement. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggested that that was not the case. There were errors in relation to the records on the two individuals, which largely explains why the approval of the UK was not sought about their transfer in 2004. My understanding is that the records of the US authorities had those two individuals down as detained by US forces, not UK forces, and I think that largely explains the error, but it should not have happened. The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about errors in detainee records in Iraq. The best explanation that I can offer him, because it is the best one I have seen—that has come to me—is that there was significant double counting at the time in respect of records on detainees. We have put that right, and Permanent Joint Headquarters now maintains one central database, which is regularly updated, and we have dealt with that particular problem. The hon. Gentleman asked about the legal position of the two detainees. I have to say that it is far from clear. I do not want to opine on the subject of the legality or otherwise of the position of those detainees—I am not in a position to do so—but I strongly welcome the review that the President of the United States recently announced about detention policies across the range of operations in which US forces are engaged. I am sure the whole House will welcome the outcome of that review. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I began to part company when he ended his comments with allegations that Ben Griffin has made about abuse. The hon. Gentleman gave the very strong impression that he thought that those allegations were true and correct. There is no evidence to substantiate those allegations. They have been looked at by a very senior serving British Army general, who found no evidence to support them. It is important that the point is re-emphasised; I tried to deal with it in my statement, so I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised it in the way he did. The hon. Gentleman referred to the injunction against Ben Griffin as though it were some constitutional outrage. Every member of the special forces agrees a confidentiality deal when they sign up, and if the hon. Gentleman ever has the responsibility of standing at the Dispatch Box to deal with such matters he will find that that is for a very good reason: it preserves the safety and security of special forces operations, and it must not and should not be challenged in the way that the hon. Gentleman challenged it. That is a mistake and he will rue the day if that is the view he takes into government, should he be given that opportunity. I finalise my comments with this point: we are not sweeping anything under the carpet. The hon. Gentleman implied that today we were somehow sweeping things under the carpet—he used that expression. It is simply not true. We have extended an open hand and an open invitation to people to come forward and confirm those allegations. None has done so.