With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House on the case of Mr. Binyam Mohamed following the judgment handed down this morning in the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that, in the light of disclosures by a United States court in December 2009, which I shall describe below, the seven paragraphs that have been redacted from the original judgment of the divisional court in this country of 21 August 2008 should be published. The seven paragraphs contain summaries of American intelligence relating to Mr. Mohamed’s case held in UK files. I accept the Court’s ruling, which concludes a very complex, and in various ways apparently unique, case, and I have made the relevant paragraphs available this morning on the Foreign Office website. The judgment is significant not just in respect of the seven paragraphs but for important principles that are at the very heart of both our national security and our democracy.

The facts are as follows. Mr. Mohamed, an Ethiopian national formerly resident in the UK, was detained in Pakistan in 2002. In 2004, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. In August 2007, the then Home Secretary and I wrote to the US Secretary of State to seek Mr. Mohamed’s release from Guantanamo Bay and his return to the United Kingdom, along with four other UK residents. Mr. Mohamed was released from Guantanamo a year and a half later, in February last year.

In May 2008, Mr. Mohamed brought proceedings against the British Government in an effort to secure disclosure to his legal counsel of any material held by the British Government that might assist in the defence of his case before a US military commission. The question at issue in our appeal against the judgment of the divisional court was not this disclosure, which we supported and secured. It was instead whether intelligence provided, on a confidential basis, by one state to another, in absolute trust that it would be kept secure, should be disclosed into the public domain in the interests of open justice; or whether the breach of trust would be so grave as to endanger intelligence-sharing relationships and therefore affect national security. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, in this case it was US intelligence and an English court, but it could just as easily be British intelligence in a foreign court. As I have also said to the House, often, at issue in this case was not the content of the seven paragraphs, but the principle of their disclosure by an English court against US wishes.

I am grateful for the consideration that the Court of Appeal gave to the control principle. This principle, which states that intelligence belonging to another country should not be released without its agreement, underpins the flow of intelligence between the US and UK. This unique intelligence-sharing relationship is vital to national security in both our countries. Crucially, the Court has today upheld the control principle. The judgment describes that principle as integral to intelligence sharing. It specifically vindicates the careful assessment that releasing the seven paragraphs without the consent of the United States would have damaged the public interest. It also specifically makes clear that

“this litigation has endorsed the application of public interest immunity and the maintenance of confidentiality over secret information.”

This is important for the future of intelligence-sharing with the US and others.

However, on 17 December last year, we received notice of a US court ruling in the case of another Guantanamo detainee, Farhi Saaed Bin Mohammed, which made a finding of fact in respect of Binyam Mohamed’s allegations of mistreatment. That judgment does not set out the content of the seven paragraphs per se, but it does include references to the treatment of Mr. Mohamed covered in the seven paragraphs. We brought this to the attention of the Court of Appeal and Mr. Mohamed’s counsel immediately. The Court of Appeal today ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because, in its view, their contents were placed into the public domain by a United States district court. Without that disclosure, it is clear that the Court of Appeal would have upheld our appeal and overturned the fifth judgment of the divisional court. The Court of Appeal was also clear that the judiciary should overturn the view of the Executive on matters of national security only in the most exceptional circumstances. It states that

“it is integral to intelligence sharing that intelligence material provided by one country to another remains confidential to the country which provided it and that it will never be disclosed, directly or indirectly by the receiving country, without the permission of the provider of the information. This understanding is rigidly applied to the relationship between the UK and USA.”

I spoke last night to Secretary Clinton about this case, which has been followed carefully at the highest levels in the US system with a great deal of concern. Recent events have shown the importance of the US-UK intelligence relationship in the fight against terrorism; equally, the determination of the US authorities to protect the confidentiality of their intelligence has been absolute throughout this case. We will work carefully with the US in the weeks ahead to discuss the judgment and its implications in the light of our shared goals and commitments.

Mistreatment of prisoners, not to say torture, violates the most basic principles of this country, never mind our national and international legal obligations. There is a fundamental commitment on the part of myself, responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, responsible for the Security Service, and the heads and staff of those agencies, to uphold the highest standards of conduct not just for ourselves but with the countries with which we co-operate.

A wide range of allegations have been made during the course of this case. Today some of the facts can be publicised, in some cases for the first time. First, the paragraphs released today describe information received by our intelligence agencies concerning the conditions of Mr. Mohamed’s detention by the United States in Pakistan in April 2002. They note specifically that he was subject to sleep deprivation, threats and inducements, that he was held shackled, and that the treatment, were it conducted by the United Kingdom, would be contrary to undertakings first given to this House in 1972. I repeat that it was not conducted by the UK.

Secondly, now that they are in the public domain, it will be evident that the paragraphs do not contain information on Mr. Mohamed’s most serious claims of mistreatment, notably in respect of alleged genital mutilation, during his detention until his release from Guantanamo last year. We, the United Kingdom, have no information to corroborate those allegations. Those matters have quite properly been raised by Mr. Mohamed in his civil claim for damages and will be addressed there.

Thirdly, during the course of these proceedings, allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing by a British official were made. The Home Secretary referred them to the Attorney-General for her consideration, and they are now the subject of a police investigation.

The most basic values of this country are at issue in the debate that will follow the Court’s decision today. Our position is clear: the UK firmly opposes torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This is not just about legal obligations, it is also about our values as a nation and what we do, not just what we say. We have taken a leading role in eradicating torture internationally, both through organisations such as the United Nations and by assisting other countries. Where possible wrongdoing is found, it is fully investigated.

I also want to place on record the fact that we are lucky to have the best intelligence agencies in the world. Their staff are second to none in their commitment and public service. They are respected across the world, and the work that they do to keep Britain safe deserves all our admiration and gratitude.

There is a fundamental myth that needs to be addressed, which is that the security services operate without independent oversight. Ministers and agency heads have the first responsibility for the conduct of their organisations. The Intelligence and Security Committee provides parliamentary scrutiny of agency activities, and independent judicial oversight is provided by the commissioners, who by law must be given access to whatever documents and information they need. Both report annually to the Prime Minister and to Parliament. Then there are the courts, whose role is to protect the rights of individuals and provide recourse to justice when they believe they have been infringed. That they have done, and continue to do, in this case.

Today’s judgment is not evidence that the system is broken. Rather, it is evidence that the system is working and that the full force of the law is available when citizens believe that they have just cause. The six judgments in this case, plus a closed judgment, show a seriousness of purpose in our legal system that is a vital part of our system of accountability. We have fought this case and brought the appeal to defend a principle that we believe is fundamental to our national security—that intelligence shared with us will be protected by us. No one likes to lose a case, but the force of the judgment is that it firmly recognises that principle. In doing so, the Court is fulfilling its vital constitutional role, protecting this country and upholding the law.

We on the Conservative Benches have always held that the intelligence co-operation between the United States and the United Kingdom is unique in the world and of immense value to both countries, and that its disruption would have serious consequences for our national security. I echo the Foreign Secretary’s tribute to the security services.

At the same time, we have consistently argued for full investigation of all credible allegations of UK complicity in torture, and for the Government to find a way in this particular case to balance the needs of national security with the need for justice and accountability in our democratic society. We therefore welcome today’s judgment, which upholds the principle of control and the need for openness in this particular case.

The alleged treatment of Binyam Mohamed described in the seven paragraphs now released by the Foreign Office is so utterly unacceptable, and the alleged treatment described in the US court judgment in December so dramatically unacceptable, that if true, they are not only morally wrong but will harm our efforts to combat terrorists, play into the hands of their propagandists and weaken, rather than strengthen, our national security.

We have always believed that the principle of control could be upheld while seeking an exception in this case from the United States. The Foreign Secretary will recall that I put to him in the House a year ago this week that the Government could have positively asked the US for permission to publish these paragraphs. If they had done so, and if the US had agreed, we would have arrived at the same outcome as today’s Court judgment, without a further year of legal proceedings, more quickly and smoothly, and in a way that left the Government less open to the attack that they were withholding from the public evidence of complicity in torture. Does not the fact that the relevant information has been published anyway in the US strengthen our case that that would have been the right course of action a year ago?

In other respects, we agree with the Foreign Secretary’s statement, particularly on maintaining the principle of control of intelligence, which, indeed, the Court ruling reaffirms and which we fully support. He has long argued that the intelligence-sharing relationship would be damaged by the release of these paragraphs. Is it still his view that that relationship will be damaged now that the information has been published? Can he say whether there are any other cases pending involving allegations of torture, in which he expects the principle to be challenged? In the light of the failed Detroit bomb attack and the serious threat at the moment to both the UK and the US from terrorism, can he assure the House that the sharing of information at this critical time has not been affected in any way? Have any other countries with which we share intelligence warned that they will reconsider the basis on which they share information in the light of today’s developments?

My final set of questions concerns the overriding need to draw a line under this episode and restore the UK’s moral authority in the matter of allegations of complicity in torture. As the Court ruling states,

“the rejection of torture…has a constitutional resonance for the”

British

“people which cannot be overestimated.”

Many of us have criticised the use of extraordinary rendition and the possibility that it can sometimes lead to torture in a third country. The US court ruling, which was decisive in making the Court of Appeal here change its view on publication, states unequivocally that, as a matter of fact, Binyam Mohamed was tortured over a period of two years. Do the Government now accept that statement? The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the police are currently investigating possible criminal misconduct in the case of Binyam Mohamed. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether there are additional investigations into other, parallel cases, and how many cases the Attorney-General is reviewing?

This case has come to epitomise the challenge of international terrorism and how we deal with it. However difficult that challenge is, we must be clear that winning the battle against the perpetrators of terrorism and their ideas requires moral as well as military strength. The Government must be able to assure the country and the world that a line has been drawn, that we are far more confident that allegations of complicity in torture cannot be made against the UK in future, and that all the necessary lessons of this episode have now been learnt.

I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that this case has come to symbolise or epitomise some of the most difficult issues raised by the terrorist campaign in the nine years since 11 September 2001. It has also come to symbolise some of the key judgments that need to be made on how to ensure that our values and security are brought together. It is absolutely the case that the shared commitment across the House against torture and in favour of meeting all of our commitments in respect of cruel or inhuman treatment is a vital part of making this a safe country—far from undermining that, our commitment goes to the heart of what we are seeking to defend.

The right hon. Gentleman queried the decision not to launch a campaign, as I called it last year, for the release of the documents in the United States. He is right that we did not launch such a campaign, although we were absolutely clear that they must be released to Mr. Mohamed’s defence counsel, as indeed they were.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the same outcome would have been achieved if we had launched a campaign and it had succeeded. That is not entirely the case, because obviously the commitments that the Court has made today about the control principle would not have been made in those circumstances, and those commitments and comments are valuable and important.

I also said to the right hon. Gentleman last year, and I stick by it today, that the United States Administration under President Obama have shown clearly their commitments in respect of anything that resembles torture or inhuman treatment. They are reviewing all the cases and they have clearly decided, so far, not to release the documents. The paragraphs released today are summaries of the US intelligence that we hold, not the actual documents, so I do not think that it would have been right for us to launch such a campaign. Apart from anything else, it would have suggested a degree of uncertainty about the commitments that the US Administration made that would not be merited.

The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about any chilling or constraining effect that this case might be having, has had or will have on intelligence sharing. That is of grave concern to me, the Government and the whole country. I said in my statement that we would work with the US Administration, not just the State department but across all aspects of the US Government, to analyse this judgment; to understand its implications; to draw attention to the commitments that the Court makes in respect of the control principle; and also to discuss how we continue to defend that principle in the future. I am clear that it is an important job for me and for my colleagues to minimise any potential effect on the intelligence-sharing relationship, not least given the recent events that show how important it is, but it is too early to say that there will be no such effect and we need to work to ensure that that is indeed the case.

The fact that the Court of Appeal has so clearly said that it was the disclosures in a US court that led it to make its decision today that the seven paragraphs should be published is obviously a material aspect in the discussion about whether the control principle has been breached.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the judgment of facts that the US district court made. We await the US Government’s view on whether those are indeed matters of fact, as they have not yet corroborated or committed to that, but we obviously recognise that, as far as the court is concerned, they have been established as a matter of fact and it is not for us to query the judgment of the US court in that respect.

One key aspect of any lessons drawn or consequences arising from this case concerns the following three allegations that have no truth at all. First is the allegation that there is no oversight of the security services in this country. That is wrong. The second allegation is that it is our policy, if not to torture or commit acts of inhuman treatment ourselves, then to be complicit in them. That is not true. It is also not true to allege that, if possible wrongdoing occurs, it is covered up. This case shows clearly, in the work of the Attorney-General and the courts, that this country is committed to upholding all its commitments, and it does so for very good reason.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and echo his support for our excellent security services and his emphasis on the importance of our close relationship with our American allies, but given that one of the most senior judges in the land has openly criticised the Foreign Secretary and his legal representatives for accusing other judges of being irresponsible, and dismissed the Government’s appeal, the Foreign Secretary should have been more contrite in his statement today.

The Liberal Democrats also respect the control principle for the way in which foreign intelligence is handled, but unlike the right hon. Gentleman—and like the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—we believe that the Government had a duty to ask the American authorities at the highest level whether they would release this information. Given the gravity of the accusations and the information that has now been published, one would have thought that that was exactly the right thing to do.

I turn to the content of the seven paragraphs that the Foreign Secretary has been forced to publish today. Is it not now clear that the British authorities knew that the US was using torture techniques against Binyam Mohamed? Will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House what steps the British Government took at the time to deplore that use of torture? What steps did they take to ensure that Britain was not complicit in that torture? Will he guarantee today that at no stage in this case was Britain in breach of either our domestic or international obligations on torture?

Anyone who has followed this case closely, including the evidence given by the Security Service officer involved to the courts, will recognise that knowledge of the American use of torture did not remain within the secret service but was almost certainly passed on to the highest levels of Government. Does the Foreign Secretary know whether Ministers were told that the US was torturing Binyam Mohamed, and when? Will he now ensure that all such evidence is given to the police in charge of investigating allegations of British complicity in torture in this case?

I accept totally that the Foreign Secretary fought this case for honourable and just reasons, but will he now take another honourable step, given this and other allegations of British complicity in torture, and set up a wide-ranging judicial inquiry?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the work that is done by the security and intelligence services and salutes that work, but he does himself no justice by asking questions that he knows I cannot answer, because of the legal circumstances, or by repeating as questions allegations to which he knows the answer. He asked about the case involving so-called witness B. He knows that I cannot talk about that case because it is currently in front of the courts. It is not right to seek answers to questions that could prejudice an ongoing police investigation.

The hon. Gentleman also asks whether the police have been given access to all the relevant papers, and he knows very well that all the relevant papers have been handed over to the police, because that is the basis on which the Attorney-General made her decision to ask for a police investigation.

The hon. Gentleman also asked what the effects—I think that that was the word he used—of this case would be. It depends how the debate is carried forward, but he will know from the successive reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee that significant changes have been made in the nature of the guidance that is issued to our security and intelligence service personnel and the way that policy is promulgated. As well as the generic issue, individual cases have been examined and set out by the Committee. Its recommendations have been followed and the Government have said clearly what they have done in that respect.

One outstanding issue concerns the publication of the reformed guidance in the light of the Binyam Mohamed case. That is currently sitting with the Intelligence and Security Committee, as the Prime Minister promised the House that it would, before publication.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people listening to this debate will be surprised to hear him describe the Court ruling as a vindication, when in fact he has been forced to reveal information that he has struggled for a long time not to reveal—even when it was legally available in the US? Is he aware that it cannot be right to describe the information released today as clearing the Government of any involvement, past or present, in extraordinary rendition—and thus complicity in torture? He must be aware that, whatever is happening now under a new US Administration, there are still questions to be answered about past British involvement in extraordinary rendition and thus in torture.

The vindication is of the control principle, and that was made clear by the Court. The Court also makes it clear that, in the absence of the American judgment of December 2009, it would have found in favour of the Government. That is an important point.

In respect of extraordinary rendition, I do not recognise my hon. Friend’s description of UK complicity—

There are questions to be answered.

Well, questions have been asked about extraordinary rendition in respect of Diego Garcia. My hon. Friend knows very well that two cases have emerged from studies of the American files. They were immediately publicised to the House in the appropriate way. There may have been subsequent questions, but there have also been answers to each and every one of those questions in respect of Diego Garcia. It is very important that we do not allow the impression to go abroad that there are outstanding issues in that respect—there are not.

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for making this statement, because it is good that he did so? Just before he stood up earlier, The Guardian published on its website a copy of a letter from Jonathan Sumption QC, his lawyer, raising the matter that the Government are still seeking a redaction—it would appear—from the judges’ rulings. I shall read the Foreign Secretary the following short extract from that long letter:

“The Master of the Rolls’s observations…are likely to receive more public attention than any other part of the judgments. They will be read as statements by the Court (i) that the Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights…(iii) that officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and Security Committee on this point (iv) that this reflects a culture of suppression in its dealings with the Committee, the Foreign Secretary and indirectly the Court, which penetrates the service to such a degree as to undermine any UK government assurances based on the Service’s information and advice; and (v) that the Service has an interest in suppressing information which is shared…by the Foreign Office for which he is responsible.”

Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that?

I will comment on it, but it is very important that the facts are on the record, not the allegations, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to go through this. First, it is not correct to say that the Government or, more specifically, the counsel for the Government, sought redactions of the judgment. A redaction suggests that we wanted an item deleted that we accepted was true. Once our counsel had been provided with a copy of the judgment in draft, as is normal practice, he had a real concern that one paragraph set out conclusions that went beyond the evidence presented and raised prejudice in respect of the ongoing case involving witness B. He took the view that that should be brought to the attention of the judges in the case. The three judges examined that letter and decided to amend the paragraph so that it took the final form that it did; the court concluded that the concern was well founded, so it revised its paragraph in the light of it.

It is very important that we also remember that in open court today the counsel for Mr. Mohamed apologised unreservedly for releasing this private legal document—it is a normal part of legal practice that such correspondence should take place. It is also important that no suggestion is made anywhere to impugn the integrity of the judiciary in making their own judgments. What the judiciary say in a draft judgment or in a final judgment is their business, and their independence is at the heart of their final words. The words that appear today in public are those of the justices in the case, and it is their decision to release them on that basis.

In no way do I question my right hon. Friend’s integrity, but is he aware that for some of us the heart of this issue is simply the question of whether British security officials knew that torture was being applied against Mr. Mohamed by the United States? If no action was taken by us and no information was given to Ministers, that is a stain on the reputation of our country and it should never happen again. It is just not good enough to say that Britain is not a party to torture. If we know that torture is being carried out by our closest ally, we have a responsibility to act, and I am afraid that in the case of Mr. Mohamed we did not do so.

My hon. Friend rightly says that we have responsibilities not only in respect of the conduct of our own officials, but if we come to know that torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment, is being undertaken by others with whom we work. We have a responsibility to act when we have that information and we should do so. A criminal case is being studied at the moment to see whether the actions taken were in accord with the principles that he and I share, as does the whole House. That is how the system should work and that is how it is working. For all the proper talk of lessons, I should also say that significant changes have been made since 2002 in the way in which guidance is offered to all officers, in the way in which they are trained and in the way in which the system is patrolled and policed, and that is the right approach.

At the time?

In respect of what happened at the time, that information is in front of our police at the moment and if they proceed to charges, it will go in front of the courts in order to find out exactly what happened in this particular case.

According to comments made by the great theorist of counter-insurgency, Sir Robert Thompson, more than 40 years ago, not only is prisoner abuse morally wrong, but it is lethal to any counter-insurgency campaign. I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot or does not wish to comment on the particular case that is before the courts, but in response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) can he address the question of what representations the Government made to our American allies more generally when it became known that waterboarding was being used?

I am very happy to say clearly that the Government, as has been detailed in successive Intelligence and Security Committee reports, did follow that up, and not just in terms of our own system and how practices were developed. I think I should set out what happened in a letter to the hon. Gentleman. It has also been documented what did not happen and what should have happened, not in respect of an individual case, but in respect of training and guidance for officials, for example. That means that we are in a much stronger position today than we were in 2001-02, and rightly so. We always keep things under review, and the publication of the current guidance, which is before the ISC, will be an important opportunity for not only the whole House, but for the whole country to see how that is taken forward.

May I join the Foreign Secretary and others in congratulating the security services on their professionalism? May I also take him back to the police investigation? I wrote to the Attorney-General on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs a year ago about this matter and she referred it to the police. Has this been ongoing for a whole year? If so, can we expect an update from the police as to when these investigations will conclude?

No—I am afraid that there is a very short answer to that. It is not for the police to provide a running commentary on their investigations; they have to continue them until they are concluded and then make a decision. I understand that when the case was before the Attorney-General, my right hon. Friend made representations for her to speed up her work. She concluded that work and it is now before the police, but I cannot give him any joy about any running commentary that the police might provide.

The Foreign Secretary’s statement makes it plain that in 2002, while in US custody, Mr. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to systematic maltreatment, probably amounting to torture. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when the Government first learned of those facts? At what level in government were those facts known? What steps were taken to make urgent representations to the United States Government that this must stop? What steps were taken to prevent extraordinary rendition from being practised, to which we were a party? Was not the concealment of this document very damaging to Mr. Mohamed’s claim for civil damages?

I recognise the rhetorical technique that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was deploying but, unless my arithmetic failed me, I counted about six questions, to which one answer will suffice.

I apologise.

Not at all. I call the Foreign Secretary.

I think that the best way I can answer the legitimate questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has posed is to detail for him what has, in fact, been reported through the ISC about what the Government knew, when they knew it and what action they took. In answer to one of his questions I wish to say that it was the actions of the Government, as recorded in the divisional court, that got the documents to Mr. Mohamed’s legal counsel. That is why the constant confusion between the “suppression of evidence” as regards Mr. Mohamed and the publication of the evidence is so damaging. It was at the heart of the Government’s case that we had a responsibility to ensure that Mr. Mohamed was able to defend himself. That is why we made representations to the US authorities, and the divisional court, in effect, congratulated the Government on achieving that. That is not the same as publishing the documents in the public domain, because one concerns justice for the individual whereas the other concerns the public interest in open debate. I shall provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a detailed explanation in respect of his other questions.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House and for once again making it clear to everybody that torture or complicity in torture is totally unacceptable, may I add a thank you for his comments about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I serve? I believe that it scrutinises the security agencies forcefully and purposely. However, will there now be—this is crucial for us all—a watching brief on how intelligence sharing between Britain and the UK will continue? I ask that because it is important for us to acknowledge that that relationship is crucial to Great Britain’s future security.

My hon. Friend is right; there will be a taking stock, as I set out in my statement, and we will seek to ensure that the full intelligence sharing that is so vital to both our countries continues unabated. However, there is no point in denying that there will be a taking stock as a result of this judgment.

The Foreign Secretary said that our most basic values as a nation are at stake here. I agree. It is only by getting to the truth about all this that we can bring closure to the whole sorry episode that is now called extraordinary rendition and in which the UK appears to have allowed itself to become complicit in kidnapping and torture. Indeed, a judge in another case said that we had facilitated a rendition, so the issue of facilitation, in principle, is no longer in doubt. Given all that, will the Foreign Secretary now finally discuss with the Prime Minister the need for a judge-led inquiry, which is supported by Lord Carlile, who is the Government’s own anti-terrorism watchdog, and by the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, as well as many others?

I am interested to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is re-committing himself to a judicial inquiry—I shall pursue it with Opposition Front-Bench Members to see whether it is the case. The Government have discussed whether a judicial inquiry would be right, but have concluded that it would not be right, not least because the judicial system in this country is performing a very effective function in the courts, which is where it belongs. I also want to put it on the record that a dangerous confusion is emerging between rendition—sometimes called extraordinary rendition—and torture. They are not the same thing, although both are reprehensible and contrary to the laws and spirit of this country. However, it is important that we do not confuse the two. In Mr. Mohamed’s case, there are allegations that he was subject to both, but they are not the same; they are separate. However, they are both wrong and they both need to be addressed fully. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s main point, however, I do not think that the conclusion to be drawn from today’s events is that a judicial inquiry is necessary; I draw the conclusion that the judiciary is performing its function extremely vigilantly.[Official Report, 22 February 2010, Vol. 506, c. 2MC.]

May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the question of Mr. Binyam Mohamed and what happened to him in 2002 in Pakistan? When did the British Government know about it, what protests have been made and are they satisfied that there is not a continuation of this practice, either in Pakistan or in other places, from where the US takes prisoners to some other destination? Furthermore, does he not think that Guantanamo Bay should have been closed many years ago and that we should have done much more to close it?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to imitate the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). There was a quartet there, but again one answer from the Foreign Secretary will suffice.

Yes, the Government have stood out against Guantanamo Bay for a very long time, but it is also a fact that the current US Administration are committed to closing Guantanamo Bay and are seeking to do so as fast as possible, and quite rightly so. However, I can answer in the affirmative to both the questions asked by my hon. Friend. In respect of whether those practices are continuing, it is absolutely clear from the executive orders that President Obama has issued, among other things, that those practices have been completely banned by the US, which puts it into line with our position.

In his statement, the Secretary of State stated that Mr. Mohamed is an Ethiopian national formerly resident in the UK. What is his current immigration status, and why was he allowed back into the UK, especially when it was obvious that he was going to seek legal aid to mount a challenge in our courts?

The Government judge that our interests in securing the closure of Guantanamo Bay were so strong that it was right that British residents, as well as British citizens, be given the chance to come back to the UK. We did that in the case of nine British citizens and five British residents. One British resident, Mr. Shaker Aamer, continues to reside in Guantanamo Bay, and we continue to press the case for his release. We took the decision on the basis that the closure of Guantanamo Bay was right and that we had to play our part in it. However, it is also right that Mr. Mohamed, along with four others, was a UK resident at the time of his extraordinary rendition—not rendition from this country, but from within south Asia.

This dreadful conduct is alien to our history and principles, and will certainly increase the risk of terrorism to this country. In the Secretary of State’s stock-taking, will he consider the possibility of returning to the fully independent, British foreign policy that served us so well in the Vietnam war?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that British foreign policy is fully independent. However, it is not autarkic: although we pursue our foreign policy with our allies, we also have to pursue it with people who are not our allies in order to achieve our goals. We are absolutely committed to doing what is right for the United Kingdom, and that involves a very close relationship with the United States. However, that does not mean that we always agree with them, although I am pleased to say that we agree with the current Administration more than with some previous ones. That does not mean, however, that we agree on everything. That is the right way to proceed.

Will this case speed up the release and return of Mr. Shaker Aamer, to whom the Foreign Secretary referred and whose family live in my constituency? Is there any intelligence material about the torture of Mr. Aamer in our possession, and could that be a reason behind the reluctance of the US Government to agree to his return to this country?

I do not believe that this case has any bearing on the Shaker Aamer case. We continue to press the case for his release, and we will continue to do so with all due effort. I know that my hon. Friend supports us strongly on that.

Today, I am publishing the review of the armed forces compensation scheme that I announced on 27 July last year. I would like to thank Lord Boyce for producing a rigorous report that has looked at every aspect of the compensation scheme, including the principles underlying it; the process by which a claim is made; and the amount of compensation provided. I will implement all of Lord Boyce’s recommendations in their entirety. This will include: raising by about one third the annual payment made to the youngest and most seriously injured personnel throughout their lives to help them to deal with the ongoing effects of their injuries; retaining the top award level of more than £500,000 for the lump sum payments but increasing all other levels by up to two thirds; and increasing the maximum award for those suffering from mental illness as a result of their service.

We ask a lot of our armed forces. On a daily basis, I see evidence of their bravery, selfless commitment and determination. The job they do on our behalf is unique. There is no such thing as a risk-free military operation, and those serving on the front line in Afghanistan know this, accept it and are committed to getting the job done. They are protecting Britain’s national security by denying safe haven to violent extremists, and the sacrifice has been significant. Earlier, the Prime Minister paid tribute to Private Sean McDonald, Corporal Johnathan Moore from 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland and Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland from 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers. They lost their lives in the past few days. These were professional, courageous, and committed men, and each death is a personal tragedy for the families, friends and comrades of those killed.

In Afghanistan today, British troops are fighting as part of an international security assistance force campaign to seize the initiative across southern Afghanistan. It will be hard, and we must brace ourselves for further casualties. There will always be a human cost when our forces are committed to action, and we have a moral obligation to honour their commitment and fulfil our responsibilities.

When servicemen and women are injured, we must ensure that they are provided with the right support—not just financial help, but medical care and through-life support. I am pleased that today’s National Audit Office report recognises that the medical care provided to our armed forces on the battlefield, in theatre and back here at home is first class. The advances made in medical care mean that many people who would previously have died of their injuries now survive and are able to lead fulfilling lives. Today we are announcing an extra 30 beds at the defence medical rehabilitation centre at Headley Court, as well as updating and expanding the existing facilities. For some people, injuries will mean that their career path in the armed forces is inevitably different. General Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, has been looking at that closely, and will be announcing shortly how the Army will ensure that everything is done to support soldiers in such circumstances.

We have a further duty to those injured due to service. They must have a just and fair compensation scheme. We must remember that the current scheme is a huge improvement on the war pensions scheme that it replaced in 2005. Unlike under the old system, injured servicemen and women are able to claim compensation while they are still in service. It is important that the new scheme is regularly reviewed, and that we act to ensure that it continues to evolve to meet people’s needs where it has been shown to fall short. For example, in 2008 we doubled the top levels of compensation payments, as part of the service personnel Command Paper.

Last summer I asked the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, to lead the latest review. To support him, we put in place an independent scrutiny group of external experts, including those from the medical and legal fields, and representatives of the service charities. I would like to thank them for their work on the review. When put in place in 2005, the new compensation scheme was designed to ensure that those with the most serious injuries received the greatest support. I am pleased that Lord Boyce has concluded that that is the right approach, and that the scheme lives up to that promise.

As Lord Boyce has recommended, we will make the following notable changes. As I said earlier, we will increase most of the lump sum compensation payments. The top level will remain at £570,000, but every other level will go up. We will also increase tax-free annual payments to those who suffer the most serious injuries, to take account of future career prospects that they might otherwise have expected. For the youngest soldiers suffering life-changing injuries, those payments will be more than 35 per cent. higher. We will increase the top-level award for those who suffer mental illness because of their service, as well as increasing their annual guaranteed income payment.

We will ensure that the scheme treats those with multiple injuries more fairly. In future, all injuries from a single incident will be recognised as part of the compensation award. A new fast-track interim payment will be introduced, so that those injured can receive some money before the entire claims process is completed. We will extend the time that people have to make and to appeal claims. That will include taking further account of the late onset of a condition, which will particularly help with mental illness. We will create a new opportunity for exceptional reviews after 10 years if health conditions unexpectedly and significantly deteriorate. When making a claim, the burden of proof required will remain the same, but allowances will be made where records have not been properly maintained. We will also make a range of other improvements recommended by Lord Boyce, such as increasing payments to widows.

The injuries that those in our armed forces receive can be complex in the extreme. Ensuring that the compensation scheme is fair and just is not straightforward. One size does not fit all. Changes to the scheme must be guided by expert evidence. We will create an independent expert medical group to advise on the right level of compensation payments, as the knowledge and treatment of certain medical conditions improve. Together, all those measures will help us to give the scheme the flexibility that it has previously lacked.

As I said when I announced the review last year, in an exception to the normal rule, all those who have received compensation for their injuries under the armed forces compensation scheme since 2005 will benefit from the improvements that we are announcing today. Those in our armed forces must have the confidence that if they are injured, they will receive the help that they need. With the implementation of Lord Boyce’s recommendations, we have a scheme that fully recognises the severity of their injuries and helps to provide for their future.

It is not in our power to undo the injury, but the changes that I am announcing today will ensure that we do what is right and proper for those who sacrifice so much to keep this country safe and protected.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it. I would also like to join him in paying tribute to those who have recently lost their lives in Afghanistan. The whole House is united in respect for their bravery and their commitment to our security here at home. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends at this uniquely distressing time for them.

I would also like to add my thanks for the work done on this subject by Lord Boyce. It has been carried out with all the clarity and efficiency that we have come to expect from him, over many years of distinguished public service. There is much to be welcomed in the Government’s statement today, but we will of course need to examine the detail of its implementation before we can make a full judgment.

As Lord Boyce reminds us, the review was carried out in response to the public fury at the Court of Appeal case involving Corporal Duncan and Marine McWilliams. The sight of the Government trying to reduce compensation scandalised the country. Lord Boyce said that the judgment should be taken further, to provide even greater clarity about some aspects of the scheme, so let me question the Secretary of State further on a number of issues.

Lord Boyce has said that there is considerable scope for improvement in the current, unsatisfactory way in which the scheme is communicated to all members of the armed forces, their families and interested stakeholders. We are talking about the Government’s scheme, and therefore the Government’s failings. How will that be put right, and who will oversee this, to ensure that the Government do not get it wrong again? In particular, what role will there be for independent scrutiny?

Next is mental health, which the Secretary of State mentioned. The low priority that we give to mental illness in this country is a sad indictment of our values. The way it was treated in the past in our armed forces was a sad dereliction of duty. Today marks a welcome step forward. How will the proposed expert group be set up? By whom and with whom will it be set up, and how will Parliament get a chance to be updated on its progress? Mental illness is an issue of the utmost importance to Members in all parts of the House, and I am sure that we would wish for some transparency on it.

We welcome the extension, from five to seven years, of the period in which a claim can be submitted, but how exactly does that fit in with the extended periods for presentation of mental illness? As the Secretary of State well knows, post-traumatic stress disorder can take many years to present—up to 14 years, according to the latest figures from Combat Stress. How will the system be amended to ensure that those who present late with such problems do not find themselves excluded? Do we not need to find ways as a country proactively to seek out those who might be at risk, to prevent some of those problems from emerging, as our party has been proposing for some time?

On the subject of medical facilities, the Secretary of State said in his statement,

“we are announcing an extra 30 beds at…Headley Court”.

The written ministerial statement says, “We are therefore now working on plans to provide up to 30 extra ward beds later this year”. That is not quite the same thing. How soon can we expect the extra beds, and what factors might delay them? Is the Secretary of State concerned by today’s NAO report, which suggests that our ability to deal with significant increases in casualties might be limited? Does he share the anxiety expressed by the NAO when it suggests that we are just coping medically—a position that is less than ideal at the start of a major offensive?

The Secretary of State has announced what amounts to a retrospective review of settlements made under the 2005 scheme. I assume that I am correct in that assessment. That is a big undertaking, and it would of course be unnecessary if the Government had got this right at that time. What is the timeline for this process? How will it be structured? How many cases will be involved in the retrospective review, and what estimates have been made of the cost?

Finally, may I raise a point about the reserves? We welcome Lord Boyce’s suggestion that a factor should be introduced into the guaranteed income payment scheme to take account of the average range of promotions forgone while still in service because of injury. The whole House will agree with that, but how does it relate to reservists who might face long-term loss of civilian income because of the nature of their injuries? What is the equivalent compensation for them? That is especially important given our increased use of the reserves, not least in Afghanistan.

Our armed forces take unique risks and play a unique role in our national life. Is the Secretary of State confident that the money exists in the MOD budget fully to carry out the changes that will result from the review that he has set out today? Many people in our country will pay a high price for this Government’s colossal economic mismanagement. Our injured armed forces should not be among them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about our armed forces and about Lord Boyce, who has done an excellent job; I am glad that that is recognised across the House. We took the case to court, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because we had to maintain the principles, the clarity and the fairness of the scheme. That was recognised by the judge. The issues that were raised at the time led us to bring forward the review, and the individuals concerned will benefit from the changes in the same way that any other individual will benefit.

On communication, yes, we do need to make every effort to ensure that those across the armed forces are informed of their rights and entitlements. We are putting in better systems to help those who are injured to get through what is a very complex process at a time when they are feeling particularly vulnerable. That is being overseen by the compensation advisory group that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) runs. That group brings in people from outside the MOD; we get assistance from service charities and others, and we take their advice on an ongoing basis. We—and, indeed, the single services—also need to step up the support that we give to people, and to ensure that it is adequate and that they know the situation that they face.

The hon. Gentleman said that the symptoms of mental illness often come to light only after many years. The timelines for the scheme will allow someone to make an application or an appeal after their diagnosis has been made. It will therefore not matter how long it takes for an illness to come to light. People will have an extended timeline after the date of their diagnosis in which to come forward and make a claim or an appeal. There will be no restriction on people with conditions such as PTSD, which often come to light many years after an individual’s service career has ended.

I hope that the House accepts that the NAO report said in no uncertain terms that the treatment available in theatre and back here at Selly Oak and Headley Court was first class. It does not criticise it in any way. Yes, of course it flags up the potential need for further capacity. We were already aware of that and planning for it—as illustrated by our announcement that we are seeking to provide another 30 beds at Headley Court—but we will have to do far more than that.

Approximately 6,000 people have made claims under the scheme since 2005. We have always said that that scheme would need to be reviewed. Anyone who examines the record can see that we have said that quite openly. We are dealing with a complex situation, and we made the commitment regularly to review the scheme. We brought forward this review, which is particularly thorough—I think we have Lord Boyce to thank for a lot of that—but we always said that we would backdate the benefits to the start of the scheme so that people did not have to worry that their claim might be overtaken by subsequent improvements that we introduced. The hon. Gentleman asked about reservists. They will benefit, as well as the regular forces, from the improvements that I have announced today.

I echo the words of tribute to those who have fallen in the past few days in Afghanistan; I salute their courage and valour.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and, indeed, for the briefing earlier today. The Government were right to introduce the scheme in 2005, but today’s statement shows that it has not worked as well as it might have done since then. I am pleased that the Government have changed course, because, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, the sight of court cases fought over levels of compensation was not edifying. Admiral Boyce has done a very good job. He and his team have made some positive recommendations, which I welcome, on the levels of compensation, the easier time scales, the slight readjustment of the burden of proof and, in particular, the greater recognition of mental illness than has been the case to date.

What is it all going to cost? I know that that is hard to estimate, but the Government seem a little coy about it. There is a strong moral argument, whatever it costs, that it is the right thing to do, but I would welcome an estimate—they must have one—of what they think it will cost.

Lord Boyce said that he was trying to establish a system involving a comparator between the awards and those in civil life. I know that it is hard to make such comparisons, because the scheme involves an ongoing payment, which would be most unusual in civil cases. The Secretary of State says that the scheme will be kept under constant review, which is welcome, but I urge him to guarantee that the comparator with civil compensation remains part of the ongoing review process.

The Secretary of State also said in his statement that the quality of medical intervention was so advanced that many more lives were now saved than in the past. That is undoubtedly correct. It means that, at the point of the initial intervention, more compensation is needed than has ever been needed before. I welcome the fact that the statement acknowledges that. As he keeps these matters under review, will he also recognise that we will be entering uncharted territory, and that we might need to come back after several years, or even decades, to see how those people with very serious problems have been doing over the longer term, and whether their level of support needs to be revisited on account of factors that we cannot anticipate or even imagine at this stage?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for many of his comments. He mentioned the 2005 scheme. Let us remember that that represented a massive improvement on what went before. There was no lump sum payment and no ability to claim during service before the introduction of that scheme. I make no apology for wanting to make a significant difference with a lump sum payment for the most seriously injured. We did that in 2008, and Lord Boyce has now effectively readjusted the differentials to take into account the improvements that we made. That represents yet further improvement.

What will it cost? I did not say to Lord Boyce that we must keep within a particular envelope, as I do not believe that that is appropriate. I hope that hon. Members of all parties would agree with that. We have a commitment—a moral commitment—to these individuals that we must meet, and we have to meet the costs. Yes, they will have to come from the defence budget, but I do not think that it is unaffordable. We should not place it within any financial constraint: it has to come first and it has to be funded in full.

As to the need for ongoing reviews, I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, by building in this expert medical panel, which will start considering issues such as hearing and other complicated difficulties that people have to confront, Lord Boyce has potentially brought some flexibility to the system. I cannot say to what degree that will need to be reviewed, because the expert panel will continually be able to bring back issues into the development of the compensation payable.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the guaranteed income payment is tax-free and inflation-proofed, so we will not have to review that. I am personally particularly pleased—this is one area that I wanted to see addressed—that we have effectively uplifted the guaranteed income payment to take into account the progression that a young soldier is likely to have made during his career. That is a big improvement, because it is not right to assume that a 20-year-old would have stayed at the same level of remuneration for the rest of his life. His ability to have climbed the ranks and to have made progress in life must be taken into account.

I believe that we have a pretty robust situation now, but of course we must keep it under review. My hon. Friend the veterans Minister will do so in consultation with the groups that have helped us. We have had the involvement and support of the Royal British Legion, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen’s Association, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations and the War Widows Association. The Families Federation was also represented on the group that supported us. We will continue to take those views into account.

I particularly welcome the announcement of the extra 30 beds at Headley Court, given the increase in exceptional survival rates. The Secretary of State also mentioned the potential increase in casualties over the coming weeks. Will he have talks with the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that in areas such as the west midlands, where Selly Oak is doing an exceptionally good job, neighbouring hospitals that are perfectly capable of providing the necessary extra care do provide it?

The reason why, over time, we will have to make increasing provision at Headley Court is not necessarily that the level of injuries will increase. It is because people are having to return for further or repeat treatment at the same time as the new injuries and new casualties are being dealt with. Therefore, there is a gradual increase in pressure on Headley Court, which we have to plan for and we are planning for; we will make certain that we deal with it. As to the current casualty level, we receive fantastic support from Selly Oak and from the Birmingham medical facilities overall. We plan surge capability so that we are able to put in additional medical services, which have been absolutely superb. We have talked to people in those services and made sure that eventualities can be catered for.

I welcome the statement. The Secretary of State and the veterans Minister deserve our thanks and our congratulations, as does Lord Boyce, not only on the changes made in the scheme but on the open way in which they have gone about that. The amendments to the scheme do not differentiate between injuries caused on active service in Helmand and those caused while training in the UK, for example. I entirely support that, but will the Secretary of State set out his thinking on why that should be the case?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I take his comments seriously in his capacity as Chairman of the Defence Committee. We get constructive criticism from him, but also a lot of support. We both appreciate that. We have thought about and discussed with various individuals over time whether there should be any differential between operational injuries and other injuries. It would be enormously difficult to do that, and I think that it would break the ethos of “One together” that applies to our armed forces. What would be “operational”? Pre-deployment training and all the other dangerous jobs that we expect people to do are not necessarily in the operational theatre in Afghanistan. We have always thought about it, but have set our face against differentiating injuries in service and other injuries. I have always been strong on that, and I think that it is the right decision.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement and on the work of his ministerial team. Will he consider backdating eligibility, perhaps to the beginning of the Iraq war or even to the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign in 2001? Will he also consider giving current and ex-servicemen suffering mental health difficulties a statutory right to an assessment of their needs?

There is a statutory right to an assessment of needs. Lord Boyce looked at backdating. The answer is in some ways contained within my hon. Friend’s question. Why do we not consider backdating to this date, that date or whichever date? The previous scheme goes back to 1917. Where do we draw the line? The complexity is enormous. Benefits have been paid under completely different arrangements over time, from which other issues potentially flow. I have concentrated on trying to ensure that this scheme is as good as it possibly can be by continually updating it and by continually being prepared to look at it. The flexibility that Lord Boyce has built into the scheme as well as the other improvements are of real benefit.

I also warmly welcome the statement, which I know will be well received by many of my constituents who are serving armed forces personnel. May I encourage the Secretary of State to look at the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in so far as it applies to this issue? As he well knows, serving personnel cannot sue the Crown for compensation for diseases they contract—asbestosis, for example, through working in a dockyard or naval base—whereas civilians who happen to be working alongside them can sue. Is that not a matter that the Government should now also consider?

Yes, of course we must keep the rights of our armed forces under constant review. The sacrifice that they are prepared to make—the position that they are prepared to put themselves in—is unique and therefore justifies a no-fault and improved compensation scheme such as this one. I recognise that many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have served the nation over a period of time, and that some have paid the ultimate sacrifice and some have been injured.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the level of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for an off-duty soldier who receives serious head injuries as a result of being assaulted in the UK will still be considerably more than the compensation available under the armed forces compensation scheme if that same young man suffers serious head injuries as a result of being shot in Afghanistan while on active service for his country?

Lord Boyce tried as best he could to consider comparators in this country and abroad. That is enormously difficult, because the structure of other countries’ armed forces and welfare states is very different from our own. Lord Boyce could not say, did not say and shied away again this morning from saying that this country has the best scheme; ours is among the most generous. This is not a contested court-case scheme; it is a no-fault compensation scheme for our armed forces.

I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the three soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan in recent days, and whose bodies will be carried down through RAF Lyneham and through the high street in Wootton Bassett on Friday. Does he agree that the fact that the number of fatalities—bad as it is—is not greater is due to the outstanding work of the air medical evacuation teams and the medical emergency response teams at Camp Bastion, which ensure that soldiers leave the front line, go through Bastion and return to Birmingham as quickly as possible? Those people do a fantastic job, and they are worthy of praise.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, the care must begin long before Bastion. Getting people off the battlefield and back to Bastion as quickly as possible is life-saving, and the treatment and stabilisation provided at Bastion are magnificently impressive. Many skills are also immediately available throughout the Birmingham health authority—not just in Selly Oak—and at Headley Court. Anyone who has met an injured soldier will know of the huge desire of the injured to reach Headley Court. They know that once they are there, they are on the path to recovery, and that helps them to focus on the need to make progress.

Many Members, including me, have visited our soldiers in Afghanistan, and I agree with the Secretary of State that our soldiers have displayed extreme bravery, commitment and determination and deserve our wholehearted support.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s adoption of all Lord Boyce’s recommendations, including those on many levels of compensation. I also welcome the announcement of an extra 30 beds at the rehabilitation centre, and the commitment to updating and expanding the existing facilities. When does the Secretary of State expect the beds to be provided and the facilities to be updated?

We invested £24 million in the updating of Headley Court a while ago. We have also received fantastic support from Help for Heroes, which has provided a swimming pool. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact date for the provision of the 30 beds, because there are processes to be gone through.

Headley Court does a marvellous job and has an amazing reputation among the armed forces, but we have to plan for the future as well. The site is very constricted, and long-term thinking is needed. We must ensure that we can cope during the many years that lie ahead, because our responsibilities will not go away when a particular operation goes away or the media focus goes away. We, as a nation, will have an ongoing responsibility to the people who have made sacrifices on our behalf.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right about our duty of care to our wounded. As he said, the expansion of Headley Court is constrained. Has his Department had any discussions with private foundations or the private sector about a possible new location for a different sort of home?

Yes, and I think that we made people aware, in principle, that such discussions were going on. The trustees of Headley Court are certainly aware of the long-term planning, because it is taking place in collaboration with them. As I have said, the last thing that we can afford to do is lose the fantastic reputation that Headley Court has gained for first-class rehabilitation. We must ensure that whatever facility we have in the future can cope with not only the quality of care, but the quantity of care that may be needed.

I thank the Secretary of State for his excellent statement, and for this morning’s briefing by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and Lord Boyce. It is very welcome that all political parties in the House are being briefed on an equal basis, and I look forward to the continuation of that practice. I also commend the work of Lord Boyce and his colleagues. The report is excellent, and I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted all its recommendations.

However, will the Secretary of State look closely at the issue of the bereavement grant, details of which can be found on page 41 of the report? It is being treated differently from the other forms of compensation that are being uprated. Although the 25 per cent. increase in the grant is welcome, there is to be no increase for people in receipt of that grant between 2005 and now. The 25 per cent. increase is intended to reflect increases in salaries. Will the Secretary of State consider carefully whether it is possible to taper the increase for families who lost loved ones between 2005 and the present day?

Lord Boyce’s recommendation in that regard is different from the rest. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the increase in the grant is a recognition of the need to take account of pay increases since 2005. We should be looking forward rather than back. Of course we will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am currently minded to accept Lord Boyce’s recommendations as written in view of the logic behind them.

I warmly congratulate the Government on today’s announcement. Will the Secretary of State join me in also congratulating the service charities, particularly SSAFA—the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—and the Royal British Legion, on their work with veterans and injured servicemen? Will he have a word with his colleagues in other Departments to ensure that the funds of such charities are not diverted because local councils are refusing to provide appropriate and proper disability grants, so that veterans and injured servicemen returning from service can adapt their homes in order to lead lives that are as near to normal as possible?

Under the service personnel Command Paper, which we produced in 2008, we have set up an ongoing review and an annual report. The service families federations and charities help us to determine the way in which other departments, local authorities and the rest of society serve veterans and our armed forces. That is an ongoing process. The last thing we can afford is for the Command Paper to give rights that just lie there gathering dust and never make progress. We must constantly examine new issues as they arise, and confront authorities when they do not treat our armed forces properly. The organisations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are a huge help in identifying those needs so that we can start to address them together.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones)—the veterans Minister—and Lord Boyce on the work that they have done. I think that we should all congratulate them and support their work wholeheartedly.

May I raise the issue of late-onset conditions and, in particular, cases of mental illness? I know about the compensation advisory group, but how many people out there in the wider communities—GPs, and those who supply mental health services—are aware of the path to that group, and is it able to present cases, especially those of mental health patients, to the compensation board? Who is there to represent those people and ensure that they are given a fair deal?

The compensation advisory group consists of a panel of people who have worked and will continue to work with the veterans Minister in identifying issues and ensuring that they are brought up to date, and they do that very well. It is not their responsibility to ensure that rights are communicated properly to all our service personnel. It is the responsibility of the Government, the chain of command and the single services to provide the appropriate information. According to one of Lord Boyce’s recommendations, we simply have not been good enough at that. We must and will ensure that that information is communicated all the way down to people in a timely manner, and I know that my hon. Friend the veterans Minister will drive it through as best he can.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have just released a written ministerial statement on the vexed subject of local government restructuring, which is going to force expensive and undemocratic restructuring on local government in Devon and Norfolk, and cast uncertainty over the future of the status of Suffolk. It represents a Government U-turn, reversing the position of the previous Secretary of State, and it ignores the advice of the Boundary Commission and introduces a wholly new concept of county constitutional conventions. Given the significant legal and financial implications of this statement, should it not have been an oral statement, so that Members on both sides of the House whose constituents are directly affected could properly debate the issue? The timing also raises serious questions about the probity of civil service activity so close to a general election. Do you not agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this statement should have been the subject of a debate, and that to issue a statement of such significance in written form just hours before the House rises does this House a grave disservice?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the most naked form of opportunism I have ever witnessed in this place. The fact is that the Government have now ignored the criteria by which they originally judged the issue. They have overturned a decision taken in principle—

Order. That is not a point of order. I think I have grasped the heart of the point of order of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), and I do not think we should go down the debating route. The hon. Lady will understand that she cannot draw me into giving an opinion as to how a particular matter should be presented to the House. She will know that it is open to Ministers to decide how they will inform the House of a particular matter. I do not believe that it is an immutable, or necessarily a common, practice that local government boundary changes will always be announced by an oral statement, and there will be further opportunities for the House to debate the matter the hon. Lady raises. On the timing, again it is not for me to comment, except, perhaps, to say that we are all concerned when something comes out on the eve of a recess, which means there is a delay before it can be further considered, but, again, the timing is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Lady has made her protest about this, and I am sure there will be other ways in which she can pursue the substance of the matter once the House resumes.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wishes to come to the Chamber to make a statement from the Dispatch Box crowing about the decision to make Exeter a unitary authority, because that is all about trying to save one Labour seat, rather than doing the right thing for the people of Devon?

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman chose to try to take that comment down the route of a point of order, because I thought I had already explained to his colleague that we cannot have a debate on this matter. The Chair realises that this is of serious concern to Members representing the affected areas, but I am afraid that we cannot debate it now, whatever the feelings of hon. Members on the subject. That feeling has been registered, however.

Bill Presented

Department for Work and Pensions (Electronic File Retention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Harry Cohen presented a Bill to exempt the Department for Work and Pensions from statutory requirements to retain files in written form where it holds electronic files of the information in an approved form; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed (Bill 66).