Home / Inquiries / Baha Mousa Inquiry / BAHA-44
← BAHA-43 BAHA-45 →
BAHA-44

External Inspection by HMIP

Baha Mousa Inquiry · The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry - Volume III · Issued 8 September 2011 · Addressed to: Ministry of Defence

Government responseMinistry of Defence: Not accepted (Mar 2014)

DeliveryMinistry of Defence says not accepted (Oct 2014)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

In the ongoing deliberations as to what arrangements should be made for external inspection of main operational detention facilities, the fullest consideration should be given to:

(1) the significant benefit that Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (HMIP) involvement in the inspection process would bring; and
(2) the fact that while inspecting operational detention facilities may involve compromises to, and divergence from, HMIP’s normal practice, certain practical realities (e.g. inspection only with a warning; CPERS who may very well be distrustful of any inspector from the UK; and limitations on visiting some areas in theatre) would apply to anybody that undertook the inspection role.

Were it to be the case that HMIP did not feel able to fulfil the inspection role for the main theatre detention facilities, the MoD should urgently consider other routes to achieving independent inspection/validation of those facilities by the best means that can be achieved short of full HMIP involvement.

Baha Mousa Inquiry, The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry - Volume III · 8 Sep 2011 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Inquiry asked the Ministry of Defence to consider external inspection of detention facilities. Answering for the department in October 2014, Mark Francois MP stated that it had considered independent inspection by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, but maintained that an existing regime involving the Provost Marshal (Army), the Army Inspector, and the International Committee of the Red Cross was "already fit for purpose and does not require further amendment" (Mr Mark Francois, Oct 2014). Sir Thayne Forbes, Chairman of the Al-Sweady Inquiry, found in December 2014 that the recommendation might well have formed part of the recommendations at the conclusion of his inquiry's report (Sir Thayne Forbes, Dec 2014).

Sources

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 12 Oct 2026.

Report-level response context

The Secretary of State for Defence accepted all of the report's 73 recommendations in principle together, in one sentence of his statement to the House of Commons on 8 September 2011, with one reservation: the recommendation on tactical questioning (BAHA-23), which he said he could not accept. That sentence is not a response to any one recommendation alone, and the Ministry of Defence published no response to each recommendation. A written ministerial statement of 27 March 2014 said the Ministry of Defence had taken action to consider and address all the accepted recommendations, and said of recommendation 44 that the existing inspection regime did not require further amendment.

Government response

●Ministry of Defence · Not accepted · 27 Mar 2014

Words of: Mark Francois, Minister for the Armed Forces, written statement to the House of Commons, 27 March 2014 (HC Deb vol 578 cols 29-32WS)

As envisaged in recommendation 44 of the inquiry’s report, the Department has given careful consideration to the possibility of an independent inspection of the UK’s Afghan detention facilities by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. However, UK detention facilities in Afghanistan continue to be inspected by the Provost Marshal (Army) every six months, and annually by the Army Inspector; they are also visited regularly by the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. On balance, we believe that this triple inspection regime is already fit for purpose and does not require further amendment.

Response document: Baha Mousa Report

Earlier statement from Ministry of Defence (1)

●Ministry of Defence · Accepted in part · 8 Sep 2011

Words of: Liam Fox, Secretary of State for Defence, statement to the House of Commons, 8 September 2011 (HC Deb vol 532 col 571), as published by the Ministry of Defence

I can inform this House that I am accepting in principle all of his recommendations with one reservation.

Extract from: Statement on the report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003

Site note: The words are the Secretary of State for Defence's statement to the House of Commons of 8 September 2011 as the Ministry of Defence published it on GOV.UK, which is the page the site cites. The Official Report of the statement as delivered (HC Deb vol 532, col 571) differs slightly in wording: it reads "I can inform the House that I am accepting in principle all his recommendations with one reservation."

Delivery

●Ministry of Defence says not accepted · 27 Oct 2014

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Written Ministerial Statement of 27 March 2014, (Office Report,column 32WS),in which I explained that the Ministry of Defence have considered Sir William Gage’s recommendation but have not felt it necessary to modify further the existing inspection regime which already possesses the required levels of independence: "As envisaged in recommendation 44 of the Inquiry’s report, the Department has given careful consideration to the possibility of an independent inspection of the UK’s Afghan detention facilities by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons. However, UK detention facilities in Afghanistan continue to be inspected by the Provost Marshal (Army) every six months, and annually by the Army Inspector; they are also visited regularly by the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure compliance with International Humanitarian Law. On balance, we believe that this triple inspection regime is already fit for purpose and does not require further amendment."

From: Written question 210843: Baha Mousa Inquiry, Mr Mark Francois

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●assets.publishing.service.gov.uk · 17 Dec 2014

Sir William made a total of 73 Recommendations. Initially, the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”) decided to implement all but one of them (i.e. Recommendation 23, dealing with the interrogation technique known as “harshing). Of those, Recommendations 5, 7 (in part, viz. deprivation of food and drink), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 57, 59, 62, 66, 67 might well have formed part of the recommendations at the conclusion of the Al-Sweady Report.

From: The Report of the Al-Sweady Inquiry, Part 5, Chapter 2: Recommendations, Sir Thayne Forbes, Chairman, The Al-Sweady Inquiry

Site note: This is the Al-Sweady Inquiry's report (Sir Thayne Forbes, 17 December 2014), Part 5, Chapter 2, not a statement by the Ministry of Defence. The Inquiry is reporting what it decided and what the Ministry told it; it sets no delivery status for any recommendation.

Site note: Paragraph 5.101 gives this passage once, for 28 of the recommendations together (5, 7 in part, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 57, 59, 62, 66 and 67). The same words are recorded on each of them except BAHA-23 and BAHA-29, which carry the report's own passages about them. The next paragraph, 5.102, says the Inquiry would not re-consider "that which has already been considered and implemented, or is being implemented", without saying which recommendations are which.

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.