With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the explosion yesterday morning at the oil depot near Hemel Hempstead.

I am sure that all Members will join me in thanking the emergency services, the voluntary services, local authority staff, Government officials and local people for the magnificent way in which they responded to the event—with speed, efficiency and dedication. I visited the site yesterday afternoon on my way down from Hull and spoke to the chief constable, Frank Whitely, and the chief fire officer, Roy Wilsher. I also met staff from the other agencies involved in the incident. I was impressed by how well organised they were, and how they were getting on with a very difficult job. I stressed that the Government would provide the support and assistance needed to tackle the fire, and I reported back to the Prime Minister last night.

The scale of the situation is obvious from the powerful images that we have seen on television. The emergency services and other agencies are working together to tackle the fire. The facts are these. At about five past six yesterday morning, there was a huge explosion at the Buncefield fuel depot, on the outskirts of Hemel Hempstead. The site is about 1 km from junction 8 of the M1. The cause of the explosion is not yet known. It is thought to have been an accident, but we shall need a full investigation by the Health and Safety Executive in due course.

The explosion and the fire have totally destroyed the north side of the oil storage terminal. Twenty oil tanks have been destroyed, but the remaining tanks on the southern part of the terminal have been protected from fire. There has been considerable structural damage to the buildings on the surrounding industrial estate, and some homes up to three miles away have been damaged. Casualties have fortunately been remarkably light, largely because the explosion happened early on a Sunday morning. Yesterday, 43 people were treated in hospital; only two of them were seriously injured and only one now remains in hospital, in a stable condition.

As in all major incidents, the police established a "gold" command to bring together the emergency services and other key agencies. It is in Welwyn Garden City. In addition, the Government's eastern regional resilience team has provided a direct link with central Government, local authorities and voluntary agencies.

The initial focus was to secure the area and stop the blaze from spreading. About 100 police officers and 100 firefighters were at the scene yesterday, and about 150 firefighters from 12 different fire and rescue services are tackling the blaze today. They are succeeding in putting out fires in 10 of the 20 fuel tanks. About 250,000 litres of foam were used this morning, and more supplies are on the way. The fire services believe that they have enough foam to smother the fire and prevent it from starting again.

The scale of the incident was such that local resources were not sufficient, so the House will be grateful to fire brigades across the country that responded so quickly to calls for help. I also want to thank the people who are co-ordinating the response across the country so effectively.

I am pleased to tell the House that the high-volume pumping equipment, which was used so effectively in the Carlisle floods in January, has again proved vital. Just one of those high-volume pumps does the work of 18 traditional fire engines and it can pump water over a distance of some three miles. The new equipment was provided by my Department under the New Dimension programme for precisely those kinds of major emergencies.

The fire has had a number of wider consequences—in particular, health issues, the impact on fuel supplies and the provision of other public services. It has generated a large plume of smoke, which has spread widely. The plume is largely made up of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. As the fire comes under control and as the heat reduces, there may be an increase in smoke locally. While I am advised that the plume is not toxic, the smoke is certainly unpleasant and may affect people with lung conditions.

The Department of Health is working closely with the Environment Agency, the Health Protection Agency and the Met Office so that we can give up-to-date information about the plume and any implications for public health. Anyone concerned about the impact of the incident on their health should contact NHS Direct. Residents in the affected areas should stay in, close their windows and watch the news. As a precaution, a number of schools in the area have been closed today and employees of companies in the cordon have been advised not to go to work today.

The movement of the plume was unpredictable, so officials have also been in contact with the European Union to keep other countries updated. Prior to the fire service's assault on the fire today, there were detailed discussions with the Environment Agency to ensure that the foam and water cannot reach the drinking water supply.

The oil industry and the Department of Trade and Industry are working to overcome any impact that the incident may have on supplies of aviation fuel to Heathrow and Gatwick. A number of local services have also been affected and some precautionary measures have been taken. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, some local people were evacuated from their homes to two rest centres provided by Dacorum district council, but only a few people took advantage of that.

The whole House will, I am sure, wish to pay tribute to the way in which the local council, voluntary agencies and the whole community responded to the emergency. I understand that a few people cannot return to their homes yet, but most are expected to do so within the next 24 hours.

Road transport was seriously disrupted yesterday as a result of the fire. The M1, M10 and local roads were all closed. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the M1 has now reopened, although entry and exit at junctions 7 and 8 will be restricted in order to allow easier access for the emergency services.

As I said at the start of my statement, the response to the Hemel Hempstead explosion is a great tribute to all the emergency and other services involved and it is also a testament to the benefit of effective emergency planning. In the world in which we now live—with increased risks of both terrorism and accidents—multi-agency, cross-government contingency planning is vital. Day in, day out, this type of preparation takes place behind the scenes and away from the glare of the media, yet it is for events such as yesterday's that we plan.

I can tell the House that, only three months ago, the emergency services in Hertfordshire conducted a successful exercise, covering just such an eventuality as occurred yesterday. The speed and efficiency of their response is testament to their foresight. Through the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, we put in place the legislative framework that set the foundation for that sort of multi-agency planning. The Government's investment in the New Dimension programme has also provided the equipment that worked so successfully in Carlisle and now in Hemel Hempstead.

It is through the bravery, commitment and professionalism of our emergency services that we can respond so effectively to events such as this. Last night, I witnessed a group of firefighters who were about to enter the inferno. We admire the courage and abilities of those firefighters, who work hard and willingly for the safety of the community. The House will want to record its admiration for their courage and dedication in working on behalf of the community. Not only the firefighters but the police and the ambulance workers deserve our great praise and admiration. I am sure that the House will join me in recording our thanks and gratitude for the courage and hard work of our emergency services.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement. My colleagues and I certainly join him in paying tribute to the emergency services' skill and courage in tackling what is possibly the largest industrial fire since world war two, and in paying tribute to all those who have mobilised around the community to help. Our thoughts and prayers are with the workers and families affected by the blast, particularly in the run-up to Christmas.

In November 2001, the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the British Pipeline Agency Ltd. for safety breaches at the Hemel Hempstead depot on account of inadequate containment around flammable aviation fuel tanks. Given that we have not heard from the Deputy Prime Minister what he thinks went wrong, could he tell the House when the HSE last inspected the oil depot? Does this latest incident prove that proper safety procedures were still not in place? Will he place in the Library of the House a copy of the compliance reports produced by the HSE in response to those earlier breaches? Is there any connection between the previous prosecution for inadequate containment around the aviation fuel tanks and eyewitnesses reporting fumes at the depot before the explosion?

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this incident raises concerns about possible lack of safety training at the depot? Can he state when—once it is safe to gain access to the site—he expects the HSE to publish its interim report? Do the HSE and the fire services ever expect to find out the true causes, given the intensity of the explosion and the heat? Does the Deputy Prime Minister's recognition of the need for a full investigation extend to a public inquiry, in order that the full implications of this incident for other depots can be considered? Does his undertaking to provide support and assistance mean that Hertfordshire's local authorities, including the police and the fire authority, will be eligible for emergency funding under the Bellwin scheme? Does he agree that the costs that will have to be faced—of temporary accommodation, repairs to highways and special overtime for emergency services' staff—clearly fall under eligible expenditure for Bellwin? Does he also agree that at a time of acute pressures on local authorities, including the threat of capping, it would be wrong to charge local taxpayers for this unexpected emergency, the implications of which go far beyond the locality?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has done an excellent job in articulating his constituents' concerns, and I hope that he may catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, not least because he has let the Deputy Prime Minister know of his concerns in advance. Given the worldwide reporting of this incident, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it has raised awareness—for good or ill—of the vulnerability of fuel depots? Will his Department now review security at oil depots throughout the country, and will that review include a risk assessment of any new house-building programmes near those sites? Does he agree that consideration should be given to reconstructing the Buncefield facility at a site further away from the residential community?

I compliment the Deputy Prime Minister on his prompt visit to the site, but as I know from preparing this response to his statement, this incident cuts across the work of several Departments—including his own, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and a plethora of other agencies, such as the Health Protection Agency, the Environment Agency and the Met Office. Can we assume from this statement that the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge, and what measures are in place to ensure maximum cross-departmental co-operation?

What are the longer-term environmental and health considerations of the pollution, which is being dispersed over a wide area? Will any guidance be produced by DEFRA on the possible implications for local livestock if the smoke cloud falls down to earth as contaminated rain? What is the risk of contamination to the water supply?

The United Kingdom is close to not having enough gas supplies for the winter, largely because of lack of storage capacity. What assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister give us that this incident has not further compromised energy security? What reassurance can be given to local people that panic buying is unnecessary?

The disaster has caused only limited human casualties, because—by the grace of God—it happened at 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning, but that miracle should not engender complacency in any agency. As so many departments and agencies are involved, I urge them all to face up to the reality that this could have been so much worse.

I thank the hon. Lady for her supportive remarks, which I think will be appreciated by all those who have been involved in this terrible incident. Of course there are many lessons to be learned, and many of the questions that she has asked today cannot be answered until later, but full inquiries will be made right across Government, in the bodies responsible for health and safety and for the environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and all other appropriate bodies.

The Environment Agency has been very much involved from the beginning. Indeed, tackling the fire was delayed for a while until we knew the full environmental consequences of the foam and the water passing into the water supply—and, of course, because of the heat of the fire. We have to make a judgment when we intervene, and that was a difficult judgment for the fire authorities. As they have said, the incident is probably unique in size and scale; that has caused them great concern, and our hearts are with them in their efforts to deal with this difficult problem.

It is proper to ask all those questions, and we will do all that we can to answer them. If the hon. Lady would like a meeting with me in a few days' time, when we have a little more information, I would be delighted to arrange one.

I shall indeed take the co-ordinating role across Government, to ensure that Departments work together to find the answers to deal with the problem. The fire certainly has not been defeated yet; people are still bravely fighting it, and it will continue for a time yet.

The hon. Lady asked about panic buying. The various authorities and the oil companies have made it clear that it is not necessary to get involved in panic buying, because the proportion of ordinary fuel used from this depot is much smaller than that used for aviation. There is a special problem with aviation fuel, which the DTI is looking into.

I do not think that we are complacent. The point that I made was that the New Dimension programme was bringing all the agencies together and providing the proper equipment. Nearly £2 million has been invested over the past two years to assemble the equipment and get the agencies to work together. It was quite comforting to hear from the police, the fire authorities and the agencies how the multi-agency approach had worked this time, because they are properly exercised and had the equipment to deal with the fire. As I said, if we had not provided the special pumps that can pump water from three miles away—indeed, water is now having to be provided from as much as a mile away—about 18 fire engines would have been needed. We are all grateful to see that the proper equipment is there to deal with this difficult problem.

As for the damages and the Bellwin scheme, to which the hon. Lady referred, she knows as well as I do that if the local authority spends more than £2 million, extra expenses under the Bellwin scheme can be considered. For the police authority, that figure is something like £319,000. As in all local authority budgets, a certain amount of money is made available for such contingencies. We shall consider all the circumstances.

Stringent conditions are laid down about siting such plants near housing, but the plant in question originated about 40 years ago and has been there ever since. Any lessons that we have to learn from that will certainly be taken into account.

The hon. Lady raised a number of very proper questions to which I cannot give adequate answers yet, because we must wait until the fire has been defeated for proper investigations to take place. As I have said, however, if she would like to come and talk to me about that in the next few days, I shall give her any further information that we have by then.

First, may I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the House to make his statement so promptly, and for giving me notice of what he intended to say. I echo his comments, and those of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) from the Conservative Front Bench, in commending the police and fire services and all the other agencies for the extraordinary way in which they have responded to this unprecedented emergency. I have spoken with colleagues on Hertfordshire county council, and they have nothing but praise for the exemplary way in which the local services have handled the disaster.

The Deputy Prime Minister is indeed correct to say that we have been lucky in terms of casualty figures and, obviously, a police investigation into the cause is ongoing. However, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that any lessons can be learned at this stage in terms of future planning policy about the siting of such depots close to residential and commercial areas? Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that any early information gained about the cause of the accident will be passed on to other depots, four of which are much larger than the one in Hemel Hempstead, and that safety checks will be carried out at other depots as a matter of urgency?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that Hertfordshire has had to deal with four major national incidents in the past 10 years, including the Hatfield rail crash, so will he be flexible about the arrangements for an application for extra funding under the Bellwin scheme? In terms of the environmental and health impacts of the incident, what assessment has been made of the consequences of burning large quantities of oil at a temperature different from that of a combustion engine? For example, has any assessment been made of the likely profile of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, produced as a result of incomplete combustion, and what would be the likely consequences of those in the food chain?

In terms of the particular soot solution and the impact on people with respiratory illness, what discussions have taken place with the primary care trust to ensure that adequate provision will be made should seasonal infections and air pollution co-exist to lead to an increase in acute episodes of illness? I also understand that the hospital episodes statistics unit has been badly damaged by the incident. What implications will that have?

The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed the statements from the police yesterday that there is no need to panic buy. What actions have the Government taken to ensure that public fears are allayed and that it does not become a reality?

I thank the hon. Lady for her words of support, which will also be much appreciated by those dealing with the fire.

On the issue of planning, we have tough rules about the siting of such plants, which is also covered by the common European rules. They are very different from the situation 40 years ago when the site was originally planned. Any lessons to be learned will not wait until the final result of our inquiries. If information of immediate use, interest or value arises with regard to improving safety, it will be made available so that changes can be made to other sites.

The Bellwin scheme judges individual incidents, not a collective number of incidents. For example, it provided resources for dealing with the Carlisle flooding, based on the criteria that I mentioned earlier.

The questions of chemical reaction and combustion are matters for the Health and Safety Executive and I shall draw them to its attention. The health authorities in the area acted quickly to provide the proper advice and make hospital services available. Thank goodness, they were not greatly used, but they were in place—they were stood down quickly after very few people turned up. As the hon. Lady said, we are grateful that the incident happened early on a Sunday morning. There would have been many people in attendance at the nearby industrial buildings on a Monday morning, and we have all seen the pictures of them. If it had happened at a different time, we could have been dealing with a very different situation.

I hope that the problem of panic buying will be helped by the statement in the House and by the statements made by the chief constable and the fire officers. They are to be congratulated on giving as much information as quickly as they could and on making it clear that panic buying was not necessary. All the signs are that people have taken that advice, but we will continue to make it clear that there is no need for any panic buying.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency is dominated by the Stanlow oil refinery and it will come as no surprise that constituents have expressed concern about whether such incidents could occur locally. May I join my right hon. Friend in praising the fantastic work done by the emergency services over the past 24 hours? It reflects the sort of co-ordinated action that I have seen in previous incidents in the petro-chemical industry. It is important that we learn lessons from this across the whole industry. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is too early to speculate about what went wrong and whether the location should be moved, but will he assure me that there will be a cross-industry study to determine whether changes are needed and that we ensure that best practice across the sector applies to the distribution terminals? By their nature, they are places where the risk is real, due to the transfer to vehicles. Can we be assured that every possible lesson is learned and put into place?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the emergency services, which will be well received by them. I am well aware of the Stanlow refinery as I went to school nearby in Ellesmere Port. I know of the concerns of people who live near such facilities, and of the requirement to ensure their safety. The industry has already made it clear that whatever lessons are to be learned will be passed on. The industry will conduct its own investigation, but the advice of its experts to the firefighting authorities has been valuable and was much appreciated by our firefighters.

We shall certainly ensure that the lessons that are learned become best practice. There is much consultation and negotiation between the Government and various bodies. I recall hearing the explosion at Flixborough on Humberside in the 1970s. Many lessons were learned from that and implemented in the industry with its active co-operation, and I have no reason to doubt that that would not be the same in this case.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber so quickly to make a statement. On behalf of my constituents in Hemel Hempstead, I also thank him for visiting us yesterday at a very difficult time for us. I apologise that I was not available in the area that he visited; I was actually with constituents on the other side of the fire.

I praise the professionalism of what is without the shadow of a doubt the best fire service in the world, which has been fighting the fire in Hemel Hempstead for about 30 hours. As a former fireman, I dreaded going to such fires and as the crews were going to the fire I know they were dreading what they might see when they arrived, especially as they knew that people were working at the site. The luckiest men alive are the maintenance workers who walked away with only cuts and bruises even though they were only a few feet away from the initial explosion. I have met those maintenance workers, and the shock has set in as to how lucky they are.

This is a national disaster and the costs of fighting the fire cannot be borne by the taxpayers and the fire authority in Hertfordshire. It is physically impossible. I welcome the extra appliances that were sent from all over the country and, in particular, the other fire authorities that have been working so closely with my crews throughout last night and today. The situation looks promising, as the fire is out in a lot of the tanks, but the costs will be unbearable for the local community. Not only are there firefighting costs but, as the House will be aware, the industrial estate, which is closed to cameras today, is devastated by the blast damage, as are the local residents, and the next part of my question relates to the long-term effects on them.

When the depot was built, there was hardly any residential property around it, but over the last 40 years it has been surrounded by residential accommodation. Forty years ago, the site was probably assumed to be safe; clearly, it is not today. May we have an urgent inquiry into the siting of such depots? Such an inquiry should cover not only the facility itself but the emergency facilities around it. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was informed yesterday that the acute accident and emergency centre where the injured persons were taken is due to close next April, under Government proposals. If the depot remains in the area, my constituents will be worried about the long-term effects of that closure for their community.

This is not about party politics; it is about what is right and wrong for our constituents. I am so proud of my constituency and the way that people pulled together as a community yesterday. I thank them for all the work they did and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for going there yesterday.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I was well aware that he was actively looking after his constituents' interests during my visit. I hope that he will accept that my intention was not to commit the chief constable or the chief fire officer simply to attend me, but to ask whether they wanted any assistance, so I was in and out quickly. I hope that he understands that that was the reason why I did not contact him when he was seeing to his constituents' needs.

As a former fireman, he will appreciate more than anyone the difficulties facing those firemen at present. I have referred to them waiting to go into the inferno, and we all admire the extraordinary courage of firefighters in those circumstances. Of course, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), is also a former fireman—so I have got them to the front of me and to the back of me. I felt that during the last dispute, but I will not go into that situation. Nevertheless, I have never doubted the courage of those people who, as workers, are willing to face danger in such a way. No other person is faced with that, and we are grateful to them for doing so on behalf of the community.

The hon. Gentleman referred to this as a national disaster. Again, the resources that we make available under the Bellwin scheme for such circumstances will be judged against the incident. Clearly, terrible and extensive damage was done to the industrial estate, and the insurers have already told those companies, as well as householders, that they are prepared to consider all those claimants. We will see what we can do in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the residential properties near to the site. Obviously, planning permission was given for them, but I will certainly look into that and see whether any lesson can be learned.

In regard to the emergency services at the hospital, that was certainly not expressed as a concern, but I readily take on board what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I give him the same offer as I gave to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman): if he desires to see me in a few days when the position is a little clearer, we can discuss exactly his fears and whether we can do any more to assist his constituents.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, and I associate myself with the remarks that he has made about the professionalism of the emergency services involved. Does he agree that this incident is almost unique in its significance and that the range of public services and organisations involved clearly demonstrates the importance of the recent legislation on civil contingencies and the changes in emergency planning? Will he undertake to assess the outcomes of the incident against the legislation and the changes that have taken place, with a view to finding out whether any further strengthening is needed because of the incident?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the emergency services. They expressed to me very strongly their gratitude for the new organisation, which brings together the various public agencies. They recently carried out an exercise in that respect. Indeed, one of the points made to me by the chief constable was that people from outside the area were already involved. People trained to do some of this work were sent in from other regions, although none was called in at that time. That also brings home to us the fact that the resources needed in this kind of incident are greater than those available, for example, to county organisations. Hence the importance of organising contingency funds and equipment on a regional basis, as in the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred. New equipment, new organisation and new ways to approach exercises to prepare for such events certainly played their part. We will take on board the lessons that we must learn and then discuss with the authorities how we may implement them.

As my constituency borders the Buncefield storage depot, may I endorse, and associate my constituents and myself with, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and the Deputy Prime Minister, in which they expressed gratitude and praise for the emergency services for their exemplary courage, dedication and commitment over the past 30 hours? I visited the burning oil fields in Kuwait and never expected to see an equally terrifying inferno so close to a built-up area on the doorstep of my constituency.

May I raise two points that my constituents have put to me that have not been mentioned so far? There is a fear that the partly burned fuel might generate carcinogenic chemicals, so will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that that is not the case? Constituents whose homes have been damaged need to know as soon as possible whether they will be able to claim for those damages from the owners of the depot, or their insurance policies. I end by expressing my gratitude to the Deputy Prime Minister for the action that he has taken in response to these events.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for indicating that our emergency forces acted with exemplary courage. They certainly played their part with tremendous dedication in what he rightly called an inferno. The chief fire officer told me yesterday that he had never seen anything on such a scale. We are dealing with a situation on a scale that is quite unique in Europe. Indeed, we are in uncharted waters with the problems that come from the chemicals produced by burning oil and petrol, and it is thus difficult for me to give proper answers to such questions. I am advised that the chemicals are not toxic, but let us wait and see. Discussions are going on at the moment and investigations are under way. When we have further information, we will report to the House as soon as possible.

The insurance companies have made it clear that any claims for damage to homes will be properly entertained. However, if we find that there are any difficulties, which is sometimes the case when such terrible and tragic incidents occur, the Government can play a part in encouraging parties to come together so that people are properly compensated. The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will do all that we can to ensure that that happens.

What are the implications for grazing animals in the areas in which the plume descends? Can I take it that milk production in those areas will cease?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I cannot give him an effective answer about whether milk production will cease. We will have to make proper assessments and judgments on what the damage due to the fall-out from the plume might be. Of course, people are worried that as we successfully begin to defeat the fire and put it out, the thermal draughts that send the plume so high will be removed and thus the effects of the plume will come much closer to home. We are carefully monitoring the situation to find out what is happening and we are making assessments. However, I cannot say what action will be taken until we properly know what the threat is.

I pass on my condolences and those of my constituents to the people of Hemel Hempstead, which is a constituency that borders my own. I know that they will be as pleased as I am that support from Bedfordshire's fire and rescue service, police services and local authorities was so readily forthcoming. However, my constituents have expressed concern about the delay in putting out the fire, at the request of the Environment Agency, although I am sure that we all understand the reasons for that because we would not want our water supplies to be contaminated. Will the Deputy Prime Minister examine that matter so that when such fires happen in the future, they can be put out as quickly as possible to minimise the damage to the environment?

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I think that more than 14 fire authorities sent fire vehicles and firefighters to assist. Indeed, I think that they do so automatically under the procedures that we have set up. When there is such an incident, there is no question about timing or assistance because people all act together, even if they are not called upon to appear at the site.

On the environmental costs, it is true that the Environment Agency was concerned—as, indeed, were the fire authorities—about the effect on the national water supply of applying foam and water on such a scale. It was not satisfied that there would not have been consequential damage, so there was a little delay. However, the delay certainly did not occur only because of the environmental advice. Given the heat, the chief fire officer had to make difficult decisions about when to apply foam and the mix of the water and the foam, which is concentrated. The combination of those two matters meant that the fire services did not immediately go into the fire. The other factor that would have delayed entry is that some tanks that had not exploded then exploded later. I heard one go up when I was there. It was one of the last two. It is difficult for firemen to deal with a fire when they do not know whether the tank that they are trying to keep cool will explode. All those factors may have added to the delay, but that delay was necessary for safety and for proper treatment in response to the situation.

I join my hon. Friends and the Deputy Prime Minister in their praise for the emergency services and for the work that they are doing in the neighbouring constituency to mine, Hemel Hempstead. I acknowledge my constituency water company, Three Valleys Water, which has been working with the Environment Agency and the emergency services to ensure that every effort is made to assist the fire service in limiting damage to the environment. However, I am very concerned about the longer-term impact on the environment, and especially the potential pollution of ground water supplies.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that Three Valleys Water loses about one water source a year due to pollution, and I would like his assurance that a comprehensive clean-up operation will continue to be a high priority for the Government in the longer term.

I can assure the hon. Lady that there is concern about undertaking a comprehensive review and a proper check of what is occurring. I am assured by the Environment Agency that it does not think that there will be an effect on the water supply. It undertook rigorous testing on that basis.

The hon. Lady may know that one of the requirements of many of these plants is to build a trench around them so that any spillages go into the trench areas. Those spillages can then be pumped out and put into reservoirs. The Environment Agency had to ensure that that provision was secure. We will continue to monitor the situation and I will be ready to pass on to the House any information that we receive.

May I also pay tribute to the emergency services, whose courage and professionalism have impressed us all? I pay tribute in particular to the Bovingdon fire crew from my constituency, which was one of the first crews on the scene on Sunday morning. Unfortunately, Bovingdon fire station is due to close next year because of cuts in fire services as a result of additional responsibilities that have been placed on the service in Hertfordshire, but without any additional funding. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that future reorganisations of the fire service will not mean cuts to front-line services, which unfortunately Hertfordshire faces over the next few months?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, particularly given the tone of his remarks, that such decisions are made by the local fire authority, which had to find a balance. Account is now taken of the regional implications of changes, and we are pleased that that brought in the necessary fire pumps. There are adjustments and changes, but no area will suffer from a lack of proper safety cover. That is the responsibility of the local authority area, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.

May I join with the Deputy Prime Minister and with hon. Friends in paying tribute to the emergency services, including, of course, the firefighters of the Hertfordshire fire service, which includes firefighters in Radlett in my constituency, who have been playing a full supporting role since early yesterday? They have demonstrated once again the vital role that they play.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the role that he has played so far. However, in the aftermath, I urge him, together with my colleagues, to do what he can to ensure that the burden of this event does not fall disproportionately upon Hertfordshire.

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

I join in paying tribute to the fire services and the other emergency services that are involved in the incident. Once the issues in this immediate incident have been resolved, I hope satisfactorily, will any of the lessons that will undoubtedly be learned from the incident be shared throughout the United Kingdom to prevent any recurring incident?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can assure him that, as in all these incidents, there are lessons to be learned, and they will be shared throughout the United Kingdom.

Last week, we heard about the crash of a C-130J aircraft in Afghanistan. One factor that contributed to the crash was the lack of a fuel tank inerting system. Does the Deputy Prime Minister know whether there was an inerting system in the fuel tanks at the depot, and is it something that will be included in the investigation to see whether the introduction of such systems would valuable?

To be honest, I do not know. I will try to find a proper answer for the right hon. Gentleman, and write to him.

I wish to be associated with the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks about the emergency services. In the past few years, the number of whole-time professional firefighters in the United Kingdom has fallen. As a result of the incident and the review, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to look at that and see whether we should reverse that trend by starting to increase the number of whole-time firefighters in the UK?

The House will know of the recent Bain report on manpower in the fire services and the demands that we make of them. Considerable changes are under way, but a combination of full-time and part-time firefighters is used, depending on the circumstances. I am quite satisfied at this stage that we have sufficient manpower to be able to deal with all the risks and assessments, and to meet the changes that are necessary.

May I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying great tribute to all the emergency services, whose members put themselves in harm's way when the rest of us cannot escape quickly enough? He will be aware of the emergency planning college at Hawkhills in Easingwold in the Vale of York, so will he ensure that the work that it does to prepare for such emergencies is well known? Will he ensure that any future scenarios for which it plans training sessions will encompass the incident and take on board any lessons from the inquiry?

The hon. Lady is well aware of the work of the emergency services, given the flooding in her constituency. We both have great admiration for them—whatever part of the country they are in, they always do an excellent job. I can assure her that all the lessons to be learned will be discussed in the various forums available.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government's ex gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners of war and civilian internees.

On 1 December, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration on the operation of the scheme. It was introduced on 7 November 2000 and the first payments were made in February 2001. The birth-link criterion was clarified internally in March 2001, and clarified publicly on 11 July 2001—each successful claimant would receive £10,000. I explained to the Committee that I had commissioned a review into whether consistent eligibility criteria had been used throughout for civilian internees, and I undertook to make a statement to the House before the recess.

The review now under way requires the Veterans Agency to look at a large number of claim files, and the House will understand that it is not yet complete. As I said to the Committee, there was a desire on all sides to introduce the scheme as quickly as possible because of the age of some of the former POWs and civilian detainees. It is clear that we did too much in haste when introducing the scheme and it is important that we now take sufficient time to get it right. None the less, many individuals who may be affected are elderly and I recognise the importance of resolving the issue as quickly as possible.

The scheme at present offers compensation to British internees born in the UK, or internees who had a parent or grandparent who was born here—the so-called birth-link criterion. The work under way confirms that claims decided before March 2001 were not decided on the basis of the birth-link criterion or on eligibility rules that were fully consistent with it. Of those early claims so far examined for which payments were made, there is clear evidence that the majority were decided by reference to an earlier scheme in the 1950s, which used liquidated Japanese assets to compensate far east prisoners of war and civilian internees. Those eligibility rules for the scheme were based on the question of whether the individual was a British national, was normally resident in the UK before internment, and had resumed residence after the war. Evidence so far examined strongly suggests that the birth-link criterion was introduced in part because it was found that eligibility based on the earlier Japanese asset scheme excluded many claimants with a close link to the United Kingdom.

The introduction of the birth-link criterion in March 2001 allowed large numbers of additional civilian internees to be paid. The overall effect was to widen the number of people who met the qualifying criteria. However, this change of criteria had two other specific effects. First, we have identified some 240 claims that were paid in the first period which, on the evidence available when the claim was decided, could not be identified as meeting the birth-link criterion. Though these claims were not decided on the birth-link criterion, it is probable that a number of them would have satisfied it, had we sought further evidence on whether any of the claimants' grandparents were born in the UK. I emphasise that we do not intend to ask for any repayment in these cases.

Secondly, there may be some claimants who would have qualified before the birth-link criterion was introduced because they had benefited under the Japanese asset scheme, but who were rejected because they applied after March 2001 when they were assessed against the birth-link criterion. We do not know the numbers of this latter group, but we think they are small.

We still have some way to go in examining claim files and I cannot at this stage say that there are no other issues concerning the application of eligibility criteria. What I can say is that we are determined to undertake a thorough review to ensure that we expose any difficulties that there may have been with the eligibility rules. It is also too early to say what effect our findings might have on the scheme's eligibility criteria. I can, however, again confirm that there is no question of seeking to recover payments already made to claimants who would not have met the birth-link criterion. I can also assure the House that no claimant will be disadvantaged if he or she would have qualified under the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme but failed because the claim was considered under the birth-link criterion.

There is a separate question about how the use of inconsistent criteria before and after March 2001 was not exposed earlier, in spite of the fact that there have been a number of court cases, ministerial statements and an inquiry by the parliamentary ombudsman. I have decided that this should be the subject of a separate investigation, and I have asked the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to identify a retired senior official or comparable person from outside the Departments involved who could appropriately lead the investigation. The work will be put in hand as a matter of priority and I will report its findings to the House when it is complete.

The House will be aware that there have been two claims for judicial review of the scheme which have focused on the eligibility criteria applied to former civilian internees. It is too early to say what effects the review that we have been undertaking may have on these, but I can assure the House that we will disclose to claimants in those cases and to the courts the results of our review when these are known. I will also share this information with the parliamentary ombudsman.

In addition, Members on both sides will want me to tell them that a number of claimants for whom strong support has been expressed in the House and more widely will become eligible for payment. I know that the case of Professor Hayward is a particular concern for a number of hon. Members who raised it with me. I understand their wish to see the position resolved for those individuals, but I have to make it clear that, until our review is complete, I cannot give any assurances about how the criteria might need to be changed or what the effect might be on individual cases. At this stage I can say only that we fully appreciate the difficulties that we have brought on these individuals as a result of uncertainties about the scheme criteria, and that we will be seeking to resolve them as quickly as we possibly can.

I have said a number of times that we recognise that mistakes were made as a result of the speed of the introduction of the scheme. All those involved wished to see the payments made as quickly as possible, given the age of many of the former civilian internees and prisoners of war. It is now clear that the scheme's eligibility criteria were not applied consistently through the scheme's life and that we did not identify that that was the case over an extended period. That resulted in inaccurate statements, including by Ministers to Parliament and to the parliamentary ombudsman, for which I apologise unreservedly, Mr. Speaker. I also express my apologies and deep regret to those individual claimants who have been adversely affected.

We will complete our review of the application of eligibility rules as quickly as possible, but with the overriding requirement that we must ensure that we have bottomed out any problems that there may have been with those rules. At that point, we will also consider what changes are required to our current criteria to ensure that no claimant was disadvantaged if they would have qualified under the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme, but failed in their claim because it was considered under the birth-link criterion. Our objective will be to remedy any shortcomings in the decisions on claims as quickly as possible, and I hope that we will complete that work by early February, at which point I will make a further statement to the House.

I fear that this statement will come as a severe disappointment to members of the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region. Today's statement was anticipated by the Minister's testimony to the Public Administration Committee on 1 December, and it was hoped that something substantive would be announced. Instead, we have had a typically gracious apology, which is only the latest in a line of apologies—there was an apology in a written ministerial statement on 13 July, and there was another apology, and the offer of £500 compensation for the mistakes made, in a further written ministerial statement on 11 October.

In reality, the veterans and civilian internees are not looking for more apologies; they are looking for the Government to honour the pledge that they gave on 7 November 2000. Does the Minister recall what Lord Moonie, as he now is, said when he held his post? He said:

"I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity."—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 159.]

Does the Minister recognise that there has been a humiliating confrontation with the courts and a humiliating confrontation with the ombudsman? An adjustment was made to the criteria that narrowed them to exclude some people who had been in the camps, but that also widened them to include some people who had not been in the camps. Does the Minister accept that some people who were never in a Japanese camp, such as those who were evacuated in 1942 or those who sheltered in Red Cross and Church homes, have been paid, which has inflated the number of claims and is delaying the process even further?

In discussing the need to act with haste, does the Minister accept that the announcement on 7 November 2000 was the culmination of cross-party efforts in support of the campaign for compensation to be paid, which was waged by veterans and civilian detainees for many a long year? What is it about the issue that makes it such a poisoned chalice for Ministers who are compassionate and considerate in all their other actions? Why is it such a struggle to get the compensation for people who were in the camps?

Does the Minister accept that what has happened has been a dishonouring of the people who, in this 60th anniversary year of the ending of the war, most deserve our consideration and respect? Has he ever read, as I did as a youngster, the tales of what happened to those people? Many of us read the accounts in "The Naked Island" by Russell Braddon and "The Knights of the Bushido" by Lord Russell of Liverpool when we were, frankly, far too young to read of such horrors.

Does the Minister accept that this process, this ordeal, this revisiting time and again of issues that should be settled on an ex gratia payment, has gone on far too long, and will he now use his best efforts to bring it to an end once and for all?

I would have liked nothing better than to come here today and say that the whole matter is resolved and that we have found a solution that everybody will cheer to the rafters, but that is not the position. We have to get it right. We have not succeeded in getting it right in the past. That was not because of any bad intention. When the scheme was announced, Members on both sides of the House welcomed it as a positive and proper recognition of the suffering that these people had gone through.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the stories that he read. I did not read them, but I have friends who went through that time and have told me, difficult as it was for them, about the horrors that they endured.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, would be doing anything different in my position. We have to ensure that we get it right this time. In the past, too many people were led to believe that they qualify under the scheme although they do not. The scheme was intended for those British civilian internees who had a close link to the United Kingdom at the time and for whom the UK might therefore be regarded as being responsible. At the time of world war two, all those born in the British empire were British nationals. Most far east prisoners of war and civilian internees who did not have a close link to the UK are now citizens of countries that have been given their independence. It is right that those countries, which have also benefited from the defeat of Japan, should have responsibility for the enduring problems that people have had to suffer as a result of being interned in the war.

I have issued an apology and we have offered a £500 payment to those people who thought that they qualified under the scheme but do not. To give the hon. Gentleman and the House the facts, three quarters of the letters that I have signed—I am signing personal letters—are to people who do not live and have never lived in the United Kingdom. I fully understand that that in no way diminishes the suffering that they went through at the time. Nevertheless, it is my clear understanding that, when we agreed the scheme, it was intended to benefit those who had the closest possible links with the United Kingdom.

I cannot say at this stage whether there will be a need to review the scheme, but we will do so if necessary. I cannot say, in answer to the questions that I am sure will come both sides of the House, whether we can widen the criteria. We have to get it right first. If there is a need for change, we will make it. We are not shutting our eyes to that. We recognise that we have a duty and a responsibility to our people and we will certainly respond in the best possible way.

I thank the Minister for advance notice of his statement and for his gracious apology. I commend the Government for introducing the scheme five years ago, but does he accept that the wait that many people have had since then is longer than the period for which they were prisoners of war in the captivity of the imperial Japanese army?

Is the Minister aware of any occasion on which the imperial Japanese army inquired into the status of those whom they were incarcerating? Can he confirm that the imperial Japanese army regarded those who served under the British flag or who looked to the British flag for protection as being British? Where has it all gone wrong in the past five years? Does he agree that the simple test is that, if the Japanese believed that those people were British, and if they felt that they were British at the time and feel that they are British now, why cannot they have the compensation?

I appreciate that it has taken a long time to bring the scheme to fruition, but that does not detract from the fact that 25,000 claimants out of 29,000 applicants have already been paid, and have received £10,000 each. That is right and proper. There has been progress.

I understand the problem of delay. Colleagues may know that I have been involved in another matter that was delayed—miners' compensation. The problem went on for much longer than that with the scheme that we are considering. We all know about the pain and suffering of those who had to endure difficult working conditions and difficult conditions through being prisoners of war. In all the cases with which I have dealt, whether miners' compensation cases or applications for the scheme that we are discussing, the people involved do not talk about the money but about recognition of the suffering that they endured at a difficult time. We are trying to tackle that.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about those who were interned by the Japanese because they were considered British or served the British interest. That is generally accepted. However, I hope that he acknowledges that I cannot act on my own. I need the support and help of hon. Members of all parties if we are to get the matter right. I do not want another Minister to come back here in a year or so and say, "Sorry we got it wrong again", or that there is some problem with the scheme because we did it too quickly. All parties desired the introduction of the payment. We did that with the best intentions and as speedily as we could. It is already clear from the review that the criteria were not properly defined and refined and that people were led to believe that they would be compensated. Many thousands of members of the Indian army applied under the scheme because they believed at that time that they were British citizens and they served the British empire.

There is a host of questions to ask if the scheme is to be extended. I acknowledge that hopes will be raised and I do not want to raise them unduly. Let us complete the review. If there is a need to change the criteria, we will examine that.

The only disappointment in my hon. Friend's statement is that Ministers often do not apologise, yet he has come to the House and apologised when he should not have done so. He should stick his chest out and be proud that the Government introduced the scheme. Even if it is not absolutely correct, it came 60 years late and was not introduced by previous Labour or Tory Governments. He should not apologise but be proud of the scheme of which he has stewardship. I am proud, as a Labour Member, of voting for it.

I want to ask about those people who live in what is now the Irish Republic. Many would have been born before 1922, while others might not have been but served in the British Army—not the Canadian, Australian or Indian but the United Kingdom armed forces—and every single one was a volunteer. My hon. Friend's predecessor overlooked that but rectified the matter for the heroes return scheme. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to discuss with the United Kingdom ambassador in Dublin how we can reach those in the Irish Republic who are eligible?

I cannot say that I will discuss the matter with the ambassador, although I see him from time to time. However, let us complete the review into how we did not apply consistent criteria throughout. When that is done, I hope that we will be in a position to ascertain whether there is ground to change the scheme. At that time, I shall ensure that Hansard is at hand and that the question that my hon. Friend raised—I am sure that I will get questions and letters from him in the meantime—is part of our consideration.

The House bears a burden of shame for the fact that successive Governments for so long short-changed people who should have been compensated. That is not a party political statement because it was true under successive Governments. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House, offering an apology and offering to try to resolve the problems once and for all.

The Minister said that the number was diminishing. Any settlement will be too late for my constituent, Maurice Ezekiel, who died in Israel earlier this year. He has many friends who also live in Israel who feel strongly that they were British enough to hold a British passport, British enough to serve their country overseas and British enough to be detained, interned and tortured by the Japanese and are bitter that they—and now Maurice Ezekiel's widow—were not British enough to be compensated. I know that the Minister wants to resolve the problem honourably and amicably and I hope that he will take to those who are considering the matter that message from somebody for whom compensation is too late.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not alone in knowing examples of people who are no longer here to receive the recognition that they believed they deserved, and that the country believes that they deserved, whichever way the scheme is finally resolved. I will certainly take on board his point. This is a difficult and emotive issue. It is a cross-party matter, although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about the Government's decision to take this action, and I am proud that we have done so.

We made it clear from the beginning that, as a country, we believe that there is a responsibility on us all to respond to the suffering that people went through at that difficult time. We have sought to introduce criteria that we believe underpin the closeness of their links to the United Kingdom. That is under challenge as a result of court cases, but we hope that the matter will be resolved early in the new year. If there are grounds to review the scheme, we will review the scheme. We are not closing our eyes or shutting the door to the idea of reviewing it, but I do not want to raise any false hopes that I will not come back and tell the House that there are no grounds for a review. If there are no such grounds, I shall come to the House and tell hon. Members that, but I ask for time and patience to get this right.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the people who were interned in such difficult circumstances were distressed when the rules were changed and that the £500 that was offered as a solution to that distress was itself a cause of further distress? When he considers the possibility of a review, will he seek not to over-involve himself in the minutiae of the differences between one scheme and another? I hope that he will try to arrive at a generous and equitable scheme that will provide people such as my constituent, Peter Hall, with a sense that the debt of honour that they feel has been owed to them for a long time is at last going to be satisfied.

We received a critical report from the ombudsman into the way in which we had operated the scheme. The ombudsman said that the Government should offer an apology to the people who believed that they would be compensated under the scheme but were not, and that we should make that a tangible apology. I have issued written and verbal apologies, and we are introducing a scheme whereby those who did not qualify for compensation will receive the sum of £500. We believe that that was an appropriate amount in the circumstances that prevailed. I want that payment to continue, because, as I said in my statement, it might bring closure for some people, although I have no doubt that it will not do so for others. These people are getting older and it is important that they see some recognition at the earliest opportunity, so I intend to continue with the apologies and with the payments of £500, because I think that that is appropriate. When we have completed the review into how we got into the situation whereby we used different criteria throughout the scheme, we can decide whether there are grounds to change it. At that stage, I will review the whole matter of further compensation.

Is the Minister aware that many thousands of Royal Norfolks were captured in Singapore when the garrison there capitulated? Many were imprisoned in the most appalling circumstances, and many worked and died on the River Kwai railway crossing. There is a large Far East Prisoners of War—FEPOW—group in Norfolk, and its members feel very strongly about these issues. Obviously, the scheme was a start, but does the Minister agree that, until the Japanese Government start to contribute to the financial arrangements, there will never be enough money available? Why should not the Japanese Government honour their moral obligations? What discussions have Ministers had with them?

The House and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that such prisoners of war have generally been covered by the compensation of this scheme, and their cases are not, in the main, in dispute. There is an issue in relation to civilian internees, however, which we have yet to resolve. On the decision of the Japanese not to contribute, the issue has been exhausted over a number of years by all Governments who have sought to obtain compensation from the Japanese. In the 1950s, the asset scheme was introduced, under which, as a result of the defeat of Japan, we acquired a number of its assets, which we disposed of to fund a small scheme of compensation. In truth, I do not believe that the Japanese will be persuaded to do anything more at this time. As things stand, we believe that it is our responsibility as a Government to deal with this matter and that is why we introduced the scheme in the first place.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend and thank him for his statement. I do not doubt his good faith in this matter, but he has inherited a situation not of his making that is a mess and that is unacceptable to many hon. Members and particularly to members of the Public Administration Committee, to which I belong, and which questioned him a short time ago. There is a defined group of people who feel outraged that they were to be described as somehow second-class British citizens and were not to be treated the same as those who suffered exactly as they did who were British citizens at the time. When I saw his statement listed today, my hopes rose that we would get a final resolution of the problem. Obviously, that has not happened. I urge him to come forward with the positive answer that we want, as urged strongly at the Public Administration Committee meeting only a few days ago.

Over Christmas, my constituent, Dr. Mark Erooga, will be waiting for the Minister's statement. He was a doctor in a military hospital in Hong Kong before the war, treating British servicemen and was interned. He was then let out and came to Britain, where he spent the whole of his working life in the national health service. He is now retired and lives in my constituency, and he resents not so much the £10,000 but that, in some way, his citizenship is being said to be not quite as sound as others'. That is the point that my hon. Friend should address. I hope that he will come forward with the positive answer that we want in the new year.

I hope that my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House will accept that there has been no suggestion by the Government that anyone who does not qualify under the scheme is somehow not truly British or a second-class British citizen. We have never said that and have never sought to imply that. I fully understand, as I talked to Professor Hayward after I appeared before the PAC, that that is the feeling that he has got from the way in which this issue has unfolded.

I will take on board my hon. Friend's remarks and I am still trying to urge the House not to think that I can come out with a scheme that everybody will be happy with or cheer at the end of the day. In truth, we might decide that there are no grounds to change the scheme—I have to be honest about that—but I must consider the issue when the report is completed on how we got into the difficulty of having two sets of criteria when we thought that we only had one. When the impact of that report on the operation of the scheme is resolved, I can judge whether any changes are needed in the scheme. I will then return to the House to make a further statement.

Will the Minister tell the House what the administrative costs of the scheme have been since its implementation and how much these extra complications are likely to add to its overall budget?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures. Such schemes, of course, never come without a cost. I note his question and will write to him.

The scheme was inspired by a sense of justice and magnanimity to put right this ancient wrong. It has been carried out by the Ministry of Defence with mulish obstinacy and pettifogging bureaucracy. Why on earth did it not fully accept the ombudsman's report? It is only the third time in 30 years that the ombudsman has published such a report under section 10(3) of the rules. Instead of accepting it in full, the MOD tried to restrict the powers of the ombudsman and challenge those.

Why has the Minister not mentioned the statement made by Mr. Burnham, the acting chief executive of the War Pensions Agency, who said:

"we are . . . firmly of the belief that the evidence of individual cases suggests that the present stance will be impossible to defend on grounds of fairness and logic. It does not seem that rejection of these cases will be in keeping with the original intent and spirit of the scheme"?

That timely warning was made not in 2005 but on 10 April 2001.

When I have the answer to that last question, I will share it with my hon. Friend, but I do not have it now. He may think that the MOD has been mulish, but, on the contrary, it is because of a desire to get the compensation scheme up and running as quickly as possible that we introduced it without clearly defining the criteria according to which people would be eligible. There was a wish to compensate people in the speediest possible way.

We did not accept the ombudsman's report at the time because—as my hon. Friend knows, because I gave evidence to his Committee—we did not believe that the ombudsman's assertions in the report were correct. Since then, my doubts about the operation of the scheme have been confirmed. That is why I am instituting an investigation and asking the permanent secretary to recommend an appropriate person to conduct it. I talked to the ombudsman after the hearing of the Committee of which my hon. Friend is a member, and I talked to her this morning, so she is fully apprised of what I am doing, and I hope that she will be fully supportive. She, I and everyone else want to get to the bottom of the matter and ensure that the scheme is resolved, and that is what I am determined to do.

Of the outstanding claims, about 700 are for civilians who were in the camps. I do not think that the Minister dealt adequately with the question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who asked whether those specific claims would be a priority for the MOD.

If there are grounds for the scheme to be changed, obviously priorities will enter into the process. On the basis of my experience in dealing with the miners' compensation scheme, I think that priority should be given to the oldest, the most infirm and so on, so that they can gain some recognition.

I shall consider the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and if we review the scheme we may decide that it should be taken on board. I shall want to get the priorities right, and it may well form part of my considerations.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill results from a comprehensive review of service law, the first comprehensive review since, I believe, the 1950s—about half a century.

I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in both 1991 and 1996, so long ago that there was a Conservative Government—[Interruption.] At that time, they were the future. We identified the need for a comprehensive review of the Service Discipline Acts, but nothing happened. In the 1998 strategic defence review, over which I had the pleasure of presiding under the tutelage of the then Secretary of State, George Robertson—now Lord Robertson—the Government recognised that a single system of service law would better serve today's armed forces, which increasingly train and operate together on both the practical and the theoretical sides of combat and warfare, and in many other tasks. I believe that the Bill will deliver just that. It represents four years' work, at the centre of which have been the armed forces themselves. I commend the work that has been done since his appointment by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has had to master the detail of a four-year summary of half a century of consideration of laws, some of which date back to centuries ago. It is a Bill that has at its centre the armed forces themselves. In that sense, it is a Bill for the armed forces and it has their full support, primarily because it meets their needs in a way that has been absent for decades.

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, a statement was made on Friday about the decision not to prosecute the soldiers involved in the fake pictures that appeared in the Daily Mirror, which put at risk the lives of all armed forces personnel serving around the world. How does that fit with the changes in the Bill? The Crown Prosecution Service said that there was no case to answer, although we know that people abused their positions and used Army equipment to stage faked photographs that put so many lives at risk? Lives will continue to be at risk, as no one is going to have to face a court for what they did.

Order. That sounds suspiciously like a failed urgent question to me. The hon. Gentleman should make briefer interventions.

I shall have to give a briefer answer than is merited by the seriousness of the question. Prosecutions taken under military law by the armed forces prosecution services or investigations conducted by the special investigations branch are independent of Defence Ministers and the chain of command. That applies even more, if it were possible, to the Crown Prosecution Service. Decisions on whether to prosecute a case or not to proceed with it are quite properly taken independently of any responsibility, authority or power of Defence Ministers. It is therefore not possible for me to comment in practical terms on the reasoning behind the decision that my hon. Friend mentions and it would be quite improper for me to comment on it in judicial terms. I hope that my reluctance to answer does not in any way suggest to my hon. Friend that I underestimate the seriousness of the issue that he raises.

Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Secretary of State was saying that the armed forces support the Bill. Whatever the service boards may say, does he not recognise the dismay of many in the chain of command, particularly in the middle ranks, at the fact that for serious non-summary offences, commanding officers are to be taken out of the loop? They are the very people who most understand the pressures that their men face, yet they are to be taken completely out of the decision on whether to prosecute.

I shall return to the specific point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I ask him to accept that—however gallant, committed and sympathetic to the armed forces either he or, indeed, the officers with whom he may have discourse from time to time may be—the chain of command has to be preserved. Incidentally, that is one of the main purposes of the Bill—to protect the military service system.

The chain of command is represented by the chiefs of staff and those immediately under them, and when I say that the armed forces support the Bill, I mean it. They do: they operate their support through the chain of command, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to impute that the case was anything other than as I described it. I am sure that he did not mean to question the truth of my statement about the representations that were made to me by the chiefs of staff and those who work with them or that the armed forces do not fully support what they said. I will turn my attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, as I acknowledge that it is an important one and I agree with him about its seriousness and import.

Conservative Members are concerned about the challenge to the absolute authority of commanding officers. That is what affects discipline and morale and there is real concern that such authority is being challenged.

I will attempt to explain as I go through my opening speech that the measures that have been taken are intended specifically to protect the system of military justice, which is self-sufficient and separate from civilian justice. In a democracy, there is sometimes the mistaken belief that military justice has to be exactly the same as that in civilian society. That is not the case, but wherever possible it is right—and, indeed, self-protecting—to ensure that the military system of justice approximates to the norms of civilian society, so far as is commensurate with operational effectiveness. The more that it does so, the more that we will protect the existence of the separate military system on which all of us in this House place importance.

I hope that, as I go through my speech, the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will see exactly why we are proffering these suggestions and proposals. Among other things, we want to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that led to the Trooper Williams case being dismissed before the trial finished and it being tried outside, in a civilian court. The intention is to prevent a recurrence of that situation, as I hope the hon. Gentlemen will see as I go through the argument.

Given the comments that have already been made, I should point out that, like every person participating in this debate, I am immensely proud of the British armed forces. I am second to none in my admiration of them, and the whole House will share such admiration. We owe them our respect and gratitude, but we also owe them an effective system of military justice because they deserve it. I will shortly set out some of the Bill's key provisions, but given the issues raised and the suggestions made in interventions—indeed, some of them have also been made in the press—let me deal directly and head-on with what the Bill is not about and lay some myths to rest.

This Bill is not about political correctness—one of the few offences, gladly, with which I have never been charged up to this point. It is not about creating a civilian system and, fundamentally, it is not about undermining the role of the commanding officer. It is about protecting and modernising our justice system and its relationship with the chain of command.

No one, least of all those in the services, thinks that service personnel should be above the law; indeed, it is central to the degree of respect with which our forces are regarded throughout the world that they operate within the law. But plenty of nonsense has been written and spoken about police investigations and the risk of prosecutions in respect of operations. There seems to be the almost muddle-headed notion in some quarters that service personnel are reluctant to open fire because they fear that they will be prosecuted if they kill or seriously injure someone. That notion is utterly wrong and potentially dangerous.

We train our forces to operate effectively and within the law that we lay down.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way in a second.

We have robust rules of engagement and if our people use lethal force in conflict, of course it will not automatically result in a police investigation, still less a criminal prosecution. Equally, where there is a credible allegation or suspicion of a serious offence, there will be an investigation, almost certainly by the service police—not civilian police but service police—but an investigation does not mean that a prosecution will follow. Therefore, the maintenance of standards and the investigation of credible allegations—carried out by independent investigation and independent prosecuting authorities, both of which exist within the military system—are a necessary part of maintaining the standards for which we are so proud of our armed forces.

This is not a case of one side arguing that no standards should be maintained and no allegations, however serious, investigated, and the other side saying that every allegation should be investigated—or even that every credible allegation should be investigated, leading to a prosecution. If someone wants evidence of that fact they need only look at the example of our latest theatre of operations, in Iraq. From memory, I think that some 80,000 soldiers and other servicemen and women have gone through Iraq in the various deployments, and among those some 183 cases have been investigated as involving allegations above the threshold of credibility. Of those cases, 20-odd have been pursued, and some five, I think, have come to trial. That is a commendation not only of the probity with which we conduct such matters, but of the high standards maintained by the British armed forces, even in the most difficult circumstances.

I understand how much more difficult that is now, in what we call an asymmetrical battlefield. Those standards were difficult enough to maintain when the enemy whom we were fighting had some respect for international conventions such as the Geneva convention, for the norms of warfare that civilised countries have adopted, and for the moral conventions and constraints on action, especially action against innocent civilians. How much more difficult it is for our servicemen and women to maintain them when the enemy does not respect those conventions, or feel constrained by any degree of morality. I understand that, and I hope that everyone in the House, and all those who write commentaries outside, do too—but it is not a reason for abandoning the standards, the probity and the discipline of British forces, which have made them famous. Even in such circumstances, we will maintain those standards as well as we have always done.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), because he indicated that he wanted to intervene some time ago, but was courteous enough to let me finish my point.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am sure that everybody appreciates the assurances with which he is trying to soothe our concerns. However, he has been visiting our forces all around the world, and I have visited a number of them, both in my own constituency and elsewhere. Surely troops have mentioned to him that there is now a real fear that there is a possibility of men being second-guessed in the most difficult circumstances that they can face—or has he come away with the impression that there are no genuine concerns out there?

Those issues have been raised with me, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman honestly that they have been raised mainly by soldiers asking me about press reports in which commentators, many of whom have never been near a battlefield, or even gone two rounds with a revolving door, far less been involved in combat, have pompously sounded off on that subject—although I am not, of course, saying that the Opposition Members here today are in that position. Such commentators accuse chiefs of staff with impeccable courageous credentials of being other than courageous. Of course those reports are read by soldiers and other servicemen and women, and of course I regret that.

Incidentally, I have also seen that when the picture is painted here of the battlefield in places such as Iraq, and of the consequences and the outcomes of what our servicemen and women are struggling for, it is an unbalanced picture. This morning the BBC said that the fact that 69 per cent. of people in Iraq were looking forward to a better future appeared to suggest that some of the reporting and descriptions of what was going on there had been wide of the mark. I notice that the BBC did not add to the words "reporting and descriptions" the words "by the BBC".

Of course I regret the comments that have been mentioned, and of course they are important; I do not blame hon. Gentlemen for raising them. However, the intention of the Bill is to strengthen and protect our military justice system by modernising and rendering it more effective in difficult circumstances, in relation to the chain of command. The intention is not to hand it over to civilian judgment. Indeed, the case of Trooper Williams, which I cited and which has caused concern in both Houses of Parliament and outside, would be far less likely to occur after these changes.

With regard to certain serious offences committed within the United Kingdom—for instance, manslaughter—the civilian authorities have primacy in investigation and exclusive jurisdiction over prosecution and trial in civilian courts. Will the Bill change that?

No, it will make no difference. It is possible at the moment for manslaughter to be laid as a charge under military law, and that will not change.

Legitimate concern is different from some of the over-dramatised reports that we read about the very few trials arising from operations in Iraq. We have not had wholesale investigations leading to wholesale prosecutions. As I said earlier, Defence Ministers have no power over, authority in, responsibility for or even oversight of the laying of charges or the prosecution of cases. Those are matters for the independent service prosecuting authorities, which decide whether a prosecution is warranted in any case referred to them. Hon. Members can form their own opinions about whether we share some of the same frustrations that people who are not in government feel as we regard certain developments, but it is proper—in a civilised, democratic society—for there be a separation between the ministerial code for running the armed forces, in conjunction with the chain of command, and the investigatory and prosecution authorities, which are naturally and properly independent. That is one of the factors that separate a democracy from a dictatorship.

My right hon. Friend mentions the proper independence of the armed forces investigatory authorities. Will he re-examine the recommendation from the Defence Committee to introduce a system of independent oversight of investigations by the armed forces, because many families—and not only the Deepcut families, but those from other barracks—are concerned about the way in which the investigations were undertaken?

In the case of Deepcut, we have appointed an independent inquiry and investigation, headed by the well known and well qualified QC, Nicholas Blake. In general, we have given serious consideration to the idea of an external, independent—by which, I take it, my hon. Friend means mostly civilian—complaints tribunal. I do not believe that that is appropriate, but I will have something to say about an independent element for the complaints procedure, which will go some way towards meeting the requests of the Defence Committee.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make some headway.

My question relates directly to Deepcut. The Bill is the perfect opportunity to try to ensure that the legion errors made in investigating the still mysterious deaths of four young recruits at Deepcut barracks between 1995 and 2002 cannot happen again. I would have expected the Government to ensure that the concerns of parents and relatives and concern for the truth had been considered in phrasing the Bill. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been enormous resistance to sharing information about the deaths at Deepcut army barracks, and will he outline how the Bill might help to ensure that parents such as Des and Doreen James will never have to face a decade of uncertainty about what happened to their children while they were being trained for Army service?

Yes, of course I understand the deep trauma and the tragedy and difficulties faced by parents and loved ones in this case. During the passage of the Bill we will try to introduce a degree of independent element to the complaints procedure. In respect of the insistence on an independent inquiry, without prejudicing anything that may come from the Blake inquiry into Deepcut, it is as well to remember that in the case of Deepcut, with all the difficulties we faced, the investigations were not carried out only by the armed forces. There was an independent element, from first one police force and then a second police force, and now there is a further independent element—a QC. Whatever systems and structures we set up, they cannot inevitably guarantee that such tragedies will have an explanation that is readily identifiable and readily acceptable to everyone. I know that not only from Deepcut, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, from long experience in Northern Ireland. I fully and genuinely understand the deep feelings of the families involved and the terrible frustration and trauma, added to the tragedy of the loss of life, of searching for the unknown. I am aware of how difficult that is, but we have to await the outcome of the inquiry.

rose—

I will take one more question, but then I shall go for a long time without interventions.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again on this important issue. Will he describe in a little more detail what he means by independence in relation to the complaints commission? There is an expectation among not only the families but the general public that there should be the fullest possible public scrutiny of public bodies, so does the Secretary of State accept that the best way to resolve the issue would be through an independent military ombudsman? The public would then be satisfied that the complaints are dealt with properly.

If the hon. Gentleman can indulge me by letting me get beyond page two of my speech I might reach some of the points that are being raised.

I return to the point about the independent service prosecuting authorities who decide whether a prosecution is warranted in any case referred to them. They use the standard evidential test, based on a realistic prospect of a conviction, and the public interest test before they proceed. Another misconception is that military cases may arbitrarily be handed to civilian jurisdiction. That is not true, and I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Canterbury, who raised that issue earlier, is no longer in the Chamber, as it sounded as though he believed it.

In relation to offences committed in the United Kingdom over which both our civilian and service courts have jurisdiction, protocols between the service and civilian police forces apply at the start of investigations. There are also a few offences for which our civilian courts have jurisdiction when the offence is committed by UK citizens abroad—a point to which reference was made earlier. The Attorney-General made it clear in another place that in exceptional cases he has a role in deciding between prosecuting authorities with overlapping jurisdictions, but in no case—no case—has he exercised that role without the agreement of the relevant service prosecuting authority. Therefore, the apparently widespread myth that the Attorney-General or anyone else would intervene contrary to the views of the service authorities, or without consultation or agreement with them, to allocate a case to the civilian authorities is just not true.

Let us be perfectly clear that the Government are committed to retaining a separate system of service law. In our view, and in my view, that is essential to underpin operational effectiveness. The integrity of the system is essential if we are to retain the confidence of those who are subject to it, as well as those who are not. That involves professional and independent investigations into alleged serious offences and decisions on whether to prosecute being taken by an independent prosecutor with an understanding of the service context—the one that I was speaking about earlier—but, moreover, there must be proper safeguards and support for those who face investigation and prosecution in the military system.

Against that background on the major questions, let me turn now to the Bill itself, which is primarily about service discipline. It establishes for the very first time a modern, single system of service law. It defines offences, provides for the investigation of alleged offences and the arrest, holding in custody and charging of individuals accused of committing an offence. It makes provision for service personnel to be dealt with summarily by their commanding officer or tried by courts martial. It will retain the right of service personnel to elect trial by court martial and to appeal to the summary appeal court or the courts-martial appeal court as appropriate. That is all familiar. It is not revolution; it is, if anything, evolution.

The most significant change in the Bill is that there will be one system, not three. In future, under the Bill, armed forces personnel of whatever service will be subject to the same system wherever in the world they are serving and in whatever unit or formation. That will enable the proper alignment of discipline and command, and it will do so across all three services, instead of relying on ad hoc arrangements for joint operations, as we must do at present. Moreover, all service personnel will be subject to the same rights, powers and duties when they are charged with an offence. That is not only clearer but fairer to all those who serve in the armed forces.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Let me make a little progress, and then I will allow some more colleagues to intervene.

I want to say a word or two about the offences under part 1. All offences under the Bill are service offences. They are divided into two types. First, as now, service personnel will remain subject to the ordinary criminal law of England and Wales wherever they are serving. Secondly, the disciplinary offences that are unique to service law—many of which will be familiar, such as going absent without leave or looting—have been reviewed and brought up to date. We have removed certain offences because they are no longer appropriate or no one is ever charged with them, or because they are more properly charged under other provisions or dealt with administratively. It is not just the offence of scandalous conduct of officers that has gone. Other examples include

"allowing sequestration of aircraft or ship by a neutral state in time of war"

and billeting and requisitioning offences.

I want to say something now about the role of the commanding officer, which has featured in many interventions, before giving way to hon. Members. In our armed forces, commanding officers are responsible for the discipline of those under their command. A large part of the exercise of that discipline is done by example and leadership. Their authority is critical to the delivery of unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. As I said, that authority is primarily exhibited through their qualities of leadership and by inspiring the confidence, loyalty and trust of those who serve under them. Those qualities have long distinguished the British armed forces from many others throughout the world.

Ultimately, commanding officers must have the power to enforce discipline throughout the military criminal justice system. The Bill provides commanding officers for the first time with harmonised powers to deal with all people under the command of whatever service. To create such harmonised powers, we are reducing the theoretical extensive summary jurisdiction of commanding officers in the Royal Navy. I use the word "theoretical" because in reality those commanding officers do not exercise their powers over very serious matters, not least because their powers of punishment are far too limited. That might address points that hon. Members raised earlier. We are, however, increasing the powers of Army and Air Force commanding officers to deal with the small number of additional criminal offences that are set out in part 2 of schedule 1 with which, in straightforward cases, Navy commanding officers already deal summarily. There is thus some diminution of powers for the Navy, but a big increase within the armed forces.

The summary powers of commanding officers recognise the importance of not only giving authority to COs but being able to deal with such matters expeditiously. As part of that recognition, we are also harmonising the powers of commanding officers to deal summarily with officers up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and equivalent, subject to certain conditions.

Part 5 of the Bill sets out the duties of commanding officers in respect of allegations that a serious offence has been committed. Clause 113 provides that a commanding officer will be required to inform the service police as soon as practicable in the event of an allegation of a specified inherently serious offence, or an offence for which certain prescribed circumstances apply. The service police, who may already be investigating the matter, are in turn required to refer the case to the independent director of service prosecutions if they think there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with one of the inherently serious offences. It is the director of service prosecutions who will decide whether to bring charges on the basis of proper tests and a real understanding of the military context. That is the kernel of the relationship among the commanding officer, the investigating officers and the director of service prosecutions.

I stress that the offences that we are talking about are those that are inherently serious; they are ones of which there cannot be a minor example. They include civilian criminal offences such as murder and rape, other serious sexual offences, robbery, terrorism offences and so on. They also include some disciplinary offences that I am sure the whole House would agree are inherently serious, such as assisting the enemy and mutiny. The maximum sentence for those disciplinary offences is life imprisonment.

I want to explain why we are making the changes, so that hon. Members can perhaps understand the way in which they are meant to protect the integrity and independence of the military system. At present, if a person is charged, the commanding officer has the power to dismiss a charge—whether the offence is serious, such as those that I have mentioned, or not—without any form of hearing or evidence. Under existing law the result of such action means that even in extremely serious matters, such as those that I have just mentioned, dismissal excludes any further proceedings in the military system. Thus, the evidence is never heard and no decision in the case is ever taken by any independent service prosecuting authority. The case is dismissed by a commanding officer, no matter how serious, without any hearing, as I have said. That is theoretically possible. It has happened in practice. The case cannot then be tried at any other stage, whatever the misgivings, whatever the feelings thereafter or whatever the decision in the military system.

That, however, is not necessarily the end of the matter. Where civilian courts also have jurisdiction, civilian authorities may take action. The jurisdiction of the civilian courts may come into play as a result of the services being prevented from taking any further action on the matter even if there is afterthought through just such a technicality. That is what I wanted to address and we wanted to address. It is the problem that gave rise to so much dissatisfaction over one particular case.

The Bill will ensure that the director of service prosecutions will decide on serious cases, and that on serious cases a commanding officer's action cannot prevent further action by the services themselves. Some people have attacked the proposal as interfering with hallowed historical powers of commanding officers. It is simply wrong, however, that commanding officers alone must be able to decide whether to charge those under their command with serious offences such as rape or murder, and to do so without any hearing, or to dismiss a charge that has been brought without any form of hearing.

Even if that were not wrong, which I believe it is, it gives rise to allocation afterwards to the civilian courts as the matter is prevented from any further consideration under the military system. I do not think that commanding officers should be placed in that position and have that responsibility placed on them for such offences—and nor do they. As long as they have such responsibility, the services will be open to recourse to civilian law as in the Trooper Williams case, which gave rise to so much antagonism and unease throughout the House, the other place and outside.

I have explained to the House that we have taken these steps to prevent something of the sort from happening again.

The Secretary of State has explained well why he has brought the Bill to this point, and I accept his reason. However, does he recognise, as the Constitutional Affairs Committee report indicates, that a problem has arisen? It is that a soldier could be tried for a murder that is alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and convicted by three votes to two. That would not have happened to him if he had gone to the civilian court.

I have not given that serious consideration. I understand that that issue has only recently arisen in the light of the report. The matter will certainly be given serious consideration in the course of our deliberations. One of the great strengths of the manner of investigating as well as debating the Bill is the hybrid nature of the Committee, which compensates for the length of time that is often taken. I am sure that that question will be considered during the course of our deliberations.

It is worth pointing out that a court martial already has the ability to deal with charges such as murder on a 5:2 verdict if they occur overseas, so the position is not entirely inconsistent. Now that there is to be concomitant civil and military jurisdictions, and following further discussions between the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General, where exactly will the priority lie, when there is a choice, in deciding whether a case should be heard by a court martial or a Crown court?

That is not a new problem. Joint jurisdiction already operates in such cases. In response to my inquiries, I can tell the House that cases that could be tried under military law have not be allocated to the civilian law courts without the agreement of the service authorities.

I appreciate the Secretary of State's intention in introducing the Bill, but is there not a danger in complicated cases such as those following incidents in Northern Ireland? In retrospect, Her Majesty's armed forces who were engaged in ambushes on terrorists fleeing the scene could be prosecuted more easily for murder, although they were following the rules of engagement laid down by their commanding officer.

I do not think that the situation has changed. Indeed, we want to try to make sure that there is not a blockage with summary dismissal in the military system that prevents it from being considered at any other stage and therefore compels such cases to go to the civilian system. We want to remove that blockage to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, the person who looks at the evidence with a view to prosecution—the director of service prosecutions—not only considers the evidential test and the public interest but has experience of a military or combat situation. That is more important than ever, given, as I mentioned earlier, the asymmetric nature of warfare. Things that were regarded as unreasonable 20 or 30 years ago may, given the advent of suicide bombers who pretend to be prisoners and given other developments, now be considered reasonable. Actions that were considered beyond the bounds some time ago may now be considered reasonable, because of changed circumstances, not because of changes in the actions themselves. The person who is best placed to weigh the evidence of offence against mitigating circumstances is the director of service prosecutions, which is why I am trying to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, they make those decisions, independent of the chain of command, the Secretary of State and the civilian system.

rose—

May I make some progress before giving way?

As long as we fail to tackle the problem, cases such as the Trooper Williams case could reoccur. I want to try to avoid that, and it is my strong belief that it can be avoided. All offences can be dealt with properly under service law. The court martial is, and will remain, a court that complies with the European convention on human rights. It is right that even the most serious cases should be resolved within the service system once proceedings have begun. As we told the Defence Committee more than a year ago in a proposal that it described as "sensible", the Bill will remove the power of commanding officers to dismiss such serious offences in the manner described, thus protecting the whole military system from gradual encroachment by the civilian system.

Can soldiers who are charged with a serious offence such as murder opt for civilian jurisdiction rather than for court martial?

No. They can apply for a court martial on a range of offences, but they cannot opt out in favour of the civilian system. They are members of the armed forces, and are subject to military discipline. We are trying to make sure that that military discipline and the military system itself can, as far as possible, deal with the most serious offences.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to keep matters within the military family, so to speak. He said that as a result of the dismissal of the case of Trooper Williams by the commanding officer no further military action could be taken and the case could therefore be handled only by the civilian courts. The Secretary of State wants to interpose the military court instead of the civilian court, but that does not justify taking away from the commanding officer the power, particularly in the heat of battle and in the circumstances that we face in Iraq, to dismiss a case there and then. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of eliding the two issues, but they are separate. Will he address that?

In the heat of battle, the commanding officer would wish to reflect. That, I take it, is accepted. He would wish, presumably, to take advice, to consult, to have a hearing on an offence committed in the heat of battle such as murder or rape or another sexual offence. The problem is that summarily dismissing an offence of such seriousness without a hearing, which is what happens under the present system, creates a situation where, no matter who else in the military may feel that that decision was wrong, it cannot be dealt with further in the military. That is precisely the situation that arose in the case of Trooper Williams, which was the route whereby the matter was referred to the civilian court.

If we contain such serious offences within the military, so that they have to be decided by the director of public prosecutions—[Interruption.] Yes, I beg the House's pardon. If we ensure that the director of service prosecutions is the responsible body, we prevent another Trooper Williams case. Incidentally, although this was not the primary reason, the commanding officer is then freed up for the responsibility of giving succour, support, assistance and advice to his man or woman who is accused of the crime. There is no conflict of interest then between the commanding officer's duty of care to the individual concerned and the director of service prosecutions bringing a prosecution. By taking away the summary right to dismiss cases as serious as those described, without even a hearing, we are protecting the system from the course of events that caused the civilian system to intervene.

rose—

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, but that is the last time, or there will be complaints that I have taken too long.

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. If, in the heat of battle, the commanding officer dismisses a case—he knows the man, he knows the circumstances and he can see that there is no case to answer—and if subsequently it is perceived that that was a wrong decision which was entirely without foundation, in the present circumstances the case would have to be dealt with by the civilian courts. Why not leave it to the director of service prosecutions, on the basis of information laid by authority, to deal with the matter within the service, still leaving the commanding officer with the latitude to deal summarily with a difficult case?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to square a circle, which cannot be done. One cannot give absolute authority to the commanding officer summarily to dismiss a case and then say that the director of service prosecutions may overrule that authority—one cannot have both things. The ultimate arbiter on serious offences must be either within the armed forces or the commanding officer. If one chooses the commanding officer, problems arise in circumstances such as the Trooper Williams case, because there is no other place in the military where such a case can be tried by virtue of the fact that the absolute powers on summary dismissal lie with the commanding officer.

When the Trooper Williams case was referred to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General had no recourse other than the civilian courts, and I am protecting us against that occurring again. I accept that in the real world there is no ideal solution that would give the absolute power of decision both to the director of service prosecutions and to the commanding officer. I understand that any decision will have a downside, but I contend that for the armed forces as a whole, including the chain of command, which will be free to give succour and support to an individual accused by the director of service prosecutions under the commanding officer's care of duty, the upside far outweighs the downside. In the Trooper Williams case, the downside was the furore caused by its referral outside the services.

I hope that I have spent sufficient time trying to answer that question.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter, but then he was not present—no doubt for very important reasons—during 20 minutes of my explanation. It is not fair to other hon. Members for him to return and ignore everything that I have said—if he had sat here, he would still have ignored me, but it would at least have given me a degree of generosity towards him, which I do not feel compelled to extend tonight.

I have made it clear that prosecutions will be independent from the chain of command and from Ministers. The investigators in the special investigation branch and the service prosecutors do a professional job, sometimes in the most demanding, difficult and dangerous circumstances—they conduct investigations in conditions in which civilian police would not operate, and they have my admiration and support. The Bill reinforces their relationship with the director of service prosecutions in a similar way to the relationship between their civilian counterparts and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Where the commanding officer is considering what action to take on offences over which he has powers—the hon. Member for Aldershot has raised this point—legal advice will, as now, be available. Under the Bill, he may choose to deal with an offence summarily, or he may decide to refer the matter to the prosecuting authorities, because he does not want to exercise his summary powers and believes that a court martial would be more appropriate. He may discontinue proceedings, but that would not prevent further action by the services at a later stage, if it were justified.

If the commanding officer deals with the matter summarily and finds it proved, he will go on to award a punishment. Where he refers the matter to the director of service prosecutions, the director will decide whether to bring a prosecution and what the charge shall be. In all cases tried by court martial, the director of service prosecutions will determine the charge, but the commanding officer will bring it formally by notifying the individual concerned, which, as I have said, will free up and reinforce his role in implementing the CO's duty of care in ensuring that someone under his command who is subject to proceedings under service law is properly supported and advised.

I have spent so much time on that aspect of the Bill because it is central to the military criminal justice system. I want briefly to turn to other matters in the Bill that involve further changes to the current system.

rose—

I shall give way one last time, and that is it.

I do not want to start a major debate about Deepcut, but the Secretary of State will be aware that one of the findings in that case involved the question of mindset—the police had a questionable mindset in that they were willing to accept an explanation of suicide on relatively superficial evidence. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he intends the Bill to address the question of mindset? Will he ensure that an objective analysis is made of any accusations with regard to impropriety within, in particular, the training element of the armed forces?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concentrating on Deepcut and its importance. He will understand, however, that the essence of an independent review, which people constantly demand in such circumstances, is that I do not decide what I am going to do before it reports. Let us wait for that report. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will pay attention in the course of the debate to the general matters that the hon. Gentleman raises.

The Bill creates two military courts—the court martial and the summary appeal court—to replace existing courts provided for under the Service Discipline Acts. The court martial will be a standing court and replace courts martial convened on an ad-hoc basis to deal with individual trials. Like the Crown court, this standing court will be able to sit in more than one place at a time and to deal with different cases. It is not a single court in permanent session. The main advantages of a standing court are that it will be more efficient by reducing some administrative arrangements and making it easier to arrange for preliminary matters to be dealt with.

In addition, the Bill creates a service civilian court to replace the standing civilian court that was established in 1976. Like its predecessor, this court may only sit overseas. It has powers equivalent to those of a magistrates court when dealing with offences committed by those civilians who are described in the Bill as subject to service discipline. For the court martial and the service civilian court, the Bill creates a more modern and appropriate sentencing regime which primarily reflects changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Importantly, we believe that improvements in speed and efficiency will come from the changes I have described. At the moment, every single case charged must first go to the commanding officer. He looks into the matter. If he thinks that it should go to court martial, he refers it to higher authority in the chain of command. In turn, higher authority refers the case to the prosecuting authority. However, in serious cases the service police will, while keeping the commanding officer informed—that is important—send the case straight to the director of service prosecutions, who will determine any charge to be brought.

Finally, I turn briefly to two other key areas in the Bill that deal with non-disciplinary matters. The first is the redress of grievance system, which some hon. Members have mentioned. Service personnel will retain a right to complain about any matter where they think themselves wronged. However, the current system takes too long and involves consideration through successive layers in the command chain. We want to improve that. We shall introduce a more streamlined system that will reduce the bureaucracy and provide for the majority of matters that cannot be resolved by the commanding officer to pass quickly to a panel outside the chain of command with powers delegated to it by the Defence Council. Moreover, we have provided in certain cases for a person who is independent of the chain of command, not a civil servant, to sit on the panel.

The second area is that of harmonised provision for service inquiries. We think it essential that the services retain the ability to hold internal investigations to establish the facts of a matter and to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. That is what boards of inquiry, as they are currently known, are for. As now, much of the detailed procedure and powers of such inquiries will be made in subordinate legislation.

I have spent a considerable amount of time introducing the Bill because I am aware of its importance to the House and to the armed forces. The armed forces deserve nothing less than a fair and modern criminal justice system with all the appropriate safeguards. That is why, on becoming Secretary of State, I ordered a review of the support we give to those accused under service law. Those who serve their country are entitled to be sure that we will carry out the duty of care as seriously as they would wish us to. I have seen the outcome of that review. I am satisfied at present that the support that we give them is of a high order and in the tradition of the responsibility that commanding officers have to those under their command. That level of support must and will continue under a single system of service law.

I believe that the reforms in the Bill should be welcome to those who serve in today's forces. The Bill recognises the special circumstances, risks, dangers and demands that we place on service personnel. Its key purpose is to provide them with a fair, modern system of criminal justice that will underpin their operational effectiveness, of which every Member of this House is justly proud. I hope that the Bill will serve them well into the future. If it serves them as well as they serve their country, it will have been the accomplishment that we set out to achieve. I commend the Bill to the House.

This major new Bill will have far-reaching consequences for all members of Her Majesty's armed forces. Conservative Members will judge it against the essential criterion that it must reinforce operational effectiveness and reinforce, not undermine, military ethos.

As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Ministry of Defence has been working on the Bill for some five years. It is therefore a little regrettable that we received the explanatory notes only last Wednesday. However, as we will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in some considerable detail in a special Select Committee, taking evidence from witnesses, we shall not oppose its Second Reading, although we reserve our position as regards Third Reading. There are grounds for supporting the Bill's objectives, if not all of its detail—not least where it brings disciplinary procedures into line with operational procedures.

As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is a much-valued tradition in the House that at the outset of each defence debate, whatever the specific topic, we pay sincere and deserved tribute to the courage and professionalism of all the men and women of our armed services, in whom this country can and does take pride.

I have long had an interest in defence matters. Indeed, one of the reasons why I was drawn into politics was the campaign against the unilateralists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—a battle that I look forward to rejoining in the coming months. I had the pleasure of serving for five years as a medical officer, albeit as a civilian, in the Royal Army Educational Corps tri-service centre at Beaconsfield. That gave me a useful insight into the Army medical services as well as issues relating to welfare provision for service families.

The pride in our armed forces that has already been expressed in this debate rests in part upon how officers and servicemen and women deliver military power with self-restraint and discipline. It is greatly to be regretted that there are increasing misgivings among the armed forces about the rules of engagement and the extent to which soldiers, in particular, are being held to account for their actions in extremely difficult circumstances. While we deliberate in this air-conditioned House of Commons, several thousand miles away in Iraq soldiers have to make life and death decisions—a situation made even more challenging, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, by the phenomenon of the suicide bomber. If they hesitate, they may be killed; if they are too hasty, they know that they may face a court martial.

What is the hon. Gentleman's view on the George Mendonca case?

I shall come to that issue later, when it is appropriate for me to do so.

Perhaps the most graphic example of the situation was described in an article in The Sunday Times on 6 November, which reported a senior Royal Army Medical Corps doctor saying that in Basra he and his colleagues had been counselling young soldiers who

"feared a military investigation as much they did the insurgents".

Even more alarming is the assertion that

"There doesn't appear to be any overt consideration or understanding of the pressures that our soldiers are under. The unpopularity of the war at home and a belief that firing their rifles in virtually any circumstances is likely to see them end up in court are sapping morale."

The reality of that would undoubtedly be contested but the perception exists, and perception affects behaviour. We must take that into account in our debate.

One corporal said that troops arriving in Basra were confronted with warnings from the Royal Military Police that every incident would be investigated and that, if they shot someone, they would face an inquiry that could take up to a year. Hon. Members of all parties accept that to achieve the goal of maximum operational effectiveness, discipline must be maintained and that, therefore, an effective system of military justice must be in place. The system must support commanding officers and the rights of those serving at every level. That is a difficult balance, but it must be struck.

No hon. Member believes that members of the armed forces should be above the law. Indeed, according to the manual of military law, those in our armed forces are not only subject to the law of the land, but the disciplinary environment is maintained by supplementing the ordinary criminal law and judicial system with a special code of discipline and a special system for enforcing it.

For all our servicemen and women, it is essential that justice is done and seen to be done. That is important not only for the standing of our armed forces at home and abroad, but for their morale. Discipline must be clear, coherent, transparent, efficient and fair. Perhaps above all, there must be a clear link between discipline and command, as several of my hon. Friends have said. If the link is broken, it means that those who have to make life or death decisions on the spur of the moment may worry as much about the legal consequence of their actions as about the actions. That is potentially catastrophic for our operational capabilities. What a tragedy if our serving men and women were to become as afraid of lawyers as of insurgents.

We must always remember that the armed forces are different and need to be different. They are asked, in the name of our national security, to take lives and, at times, to give lives in a way that ordinary civilians are never required to do. The system of discipline that is applied to them and the considerations around it need to take fully into account that those involved are in potentially lethal situations. The position is unique and must be tackled as such.

Ministers have often stated that servicemen and women should reflect or be representative of British society. Although I agree that our forces should reflect the make-up of society at large, I put it to the House that the outstanding success of our armed forces derives from their adherence to a set of values which is, all too often, in short supply in society. Furthermore, when soldiers undertake operations, they operate under a different set of circumstances, which must be acknowledged by the law, and for which the wholesale adoption of civilian legal procedures is not appropriate. The Secretary of State made that point in his opening speech.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because I have not been present for the whole debate, for which I apologise.

The hon. Gentleman said that servicemen and women operate in different circumstances. Today, in marked contrast to 30 or 40 years ago, those circumstances include the fact that they nearly always work alongside nationals of other countries and with armed forces of other nationalities. Sometimes, when there is a difference in perception of the disciplinary structure and systems of different nationalities, it may cause distress and further complications. How does he believe that we can reconcile that?

Far be it from me to attempt to put words into the Secretary of State's mouth, but it is difficult enough to reconcile the disciplinary position between the three services in this country without trying to reconcile it with the disciplinary procedures for other forces serving abroad. In any case, in some details, for example, in the Falklands and Iraq, our soldiers often operate by themselves and have to be subject to a British disciplinary code that is based on British law. Surely that is the correct position for British armed forces.

The correspondence between the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State's predecessor, which was discovered during a recent legal action, is extremely revealing. An article in The Observer on 27 February reported that the Attorney-General wanted to replace the Army prosecuting authority with criminal lawyers from outside the Army, an intervention about which, I am pleased to say, the former Secretary of State said that it

"did indeed cause me concern".

Such a move would be a grave mistake.

Ministers need to understand that, in many parts of the services, there is a general anxiety about the increasing threat to the disciplinary traditions of the armed forces. Perhaps it was best put by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, when he spoke in a debate in the other place on 14 July. He said:

"The Armed Forces are under legal siege and are being pushed in a direction that will see such an order being deemed as improper or legally unsound. They are being pushed by people not schooled in operations but only in political correctness. They are being pushed to a time when they will fail in an operation because the commanding officer's authority and his command chain has been compromised with tortuous rules not relevant to fighting and where his instinct to be daring and innovative is being buried under the threat of liabilities and hounded out by those who have no concept of what is required to fight and win."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]

There will undoubtedly be a debate on how true that perception is. However, its existence is debilitating. There is a particular anxiety about the operation of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and its impact on service law, of which we had several recent examples. The basic problem is that no set-aside was made for the military. When debating the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who was then shadow Foreign Secretary, called for us to do as the French had done and exercise a seven-year opt-out. He also called for a watertight opt-out, which would enable Ministers who were confident that a case was vexatious to ensure that a warrant was not executed against a member of Her Majesty's armed forces. Neither proposal was heeded.

Several cases that involve the Human Rights Act or the ICC are causing considerable anxiety, for example, that involving Colonel Mendonca and six other members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and the Intelligence Corps—the first brought against British personnel under the ICC. We heard today about the case of Trooper Williams. That raises suspicions in some quarters that the prosecuting authority behaved in a way more compatible with political than judicial priorities.

I want to make a small technical, but important point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not make decisions about how to prosecute. I have neither authority nor accountability for them. Nevertheless, we should be accurate. The charges have not been brought against the soldiers whom the hon. Gentleman named or referred to under the ICC. The two pre-existing charges in English law have been brought under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which is different. The two charges, which are inhumane treatment and manslaughter, already existed. They are English law charges that have merely been incorporated in the ICC Act as the latest relevant measure under which they could be brought.