Photographs allegedly showing British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners were faked, the armed forces minister has said.

Speaking in the Commons, Adam Ingram said both military and independent investigators had concluded they were "categorically" not taken in Iraq.

"The truck in which the photographs were taken was never in Iraq," Ingram said.

And those involved "may have committed criminal offences under military law", he warned.

Piers Morgan, the Mirror editor who published the photographs, was also challenged to cooperate with continuing investigations into the claims.

Ingram said the paper had "not cooperated extensively" with the official investigation, adding that "considerable" resources had been diverted to investigate the claims.

The minister said the reputation of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment had been "dragged through the mud by the Mirror".

"From the start of this episode, the Daily Mirror has demanded that the MoD and the army operate under the highest of standards both in honesty, openness and professionalism.  I now challenge the Daily Mirror to do the same," he said.

Proof

Ingram's comments appear set to anger the newspaper which has so far stood by its story and demanded conclusive proof from the government to back up ministers' claims.

The minister defended the conduct of the UK's soldiers, saying the public debate had been "unbalanced" and unfair to the soldiers concerned.

Responding to the statement, Conservative defence spokesman Keith Simpson said the decision to publish the photos "did a great wrong".

"They tainted the reputation of abiding humanity and decency of the British armed forces and their families," Simpson said.

"Their good name and... possibly their lives have been traded for what at the end of the day now appears to be cheap news headlines."

He added that the Press Complaints Commission should investigate the case.

But publication of the photographs has already sparked a wider row about how the government dealt with allegations of brutality by British forces serving in Iraq.

Ministers have denied early knowledge of critical Red Cross reports, saying that problems arising from the conduct of British troops had already been dealt with by the time the report was received.

'Clarification'

But Ingram was forced to explain previous comments in the Commons that he had not received any reports of abuse.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International said it had set out its concerns to the minister last autumn.

That prompted Ingram to clarify for MPs "what I said and what I meant by what I said".

"'Report' had a specific meaning to me. It is something that is properly researched, properly constructed and properly presented," he said.

He said it was "a correct and honest answer" to say he had not received the Red Cross report.

"That does not mean to say I was unaware of the issues and the actions being taken."

Ingram said a letter received from Amnesty in October was in "a different category", being just over a page long.

Brandishing a copy of the letter, he said: "This is not a dossier, as some have alleged, nor is it a report."

The Conservatives said this explanation amounted to the "Clinton defence", relying on the meaning of an individual word.

Simpson said "what we have seen today has been a lot of legalistic semantics made by a minister who has been unable or unwilling to answer more substantial questions".