While Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon have offered contradictory explanations of how officials handled a Red Cross report on human rights abuses in Iraq, a third minister has come under fire for his statements about the brutality claims.

The foreign and defence secretaries appeared at odds on Tuesday over how the Red Cross report had been dealt with by British officials in Iraq.

And armed forced minister Adam Ingram has come under fire for suggesting that as of last week no reports of brutality had been received by ministers.

Straw admitted in the Commons that he was unaware of the Red Cross report last week and accepted that "with the benefit of hindsight" Foreign Office officials should have made ministers aware of the it earlier.

Questioned by shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram, Straw said he did not know of the contents or existence of the report until last weekend.

"With the benefit of hindsight it should have been made available to ministers, but it happens it was not," Straw said.

The Cabinet minister added that having been passed to Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, it was seen by a legal adviser to the British representatives in the CPA in February, before a copy was subsequently passed on to the Foreign Office.

Contradiction

That statement contradicted comments made by the defence secretary on Monday.

Hoon had said the report was given to the prime minister's former envoy in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK military representative in Iraq and defence chiefs based in the UK, rather than the legal adviser, who decided it did not require the attention of ministers as all the issues it contained had been dealt with.

Ancram called on the foreign secretary to explain the "glaring inconsistency" in the statements of the two ministers.

His intervention prompted Straw to say that further clarification would be provided.

But speaking to the BBC shortly after Straw's comments, the defence secretary appeared to stand by his version of events.

"My understanding was the report was passed by the Red Cross to Ambassador Bremer... I was told then to Sir Jeremy Greenstock who then in turn passed it on to our military representative in Iraq," he said

"As far as I am concerned at the moment, that is the position."

Pressed on the inconsistency, he added that it would be "necessary for us to establish" how the report was handled.

Later, Number 10 said the Red Cross had presented its report to Paul Bremer and British officials including Sir Jeremy's legal advisers.

"As a result of that meeting the report was sent to the relevant people in Iraq to be dealt with," said the prime minister's official spokesman.

"The contents of the report were already being acted on and that was why it was being handled in that way.

"The confusion arose because we thought Sir Jeremy had read that report but in actual fact, he hadn't."

Responding to the uncertainty, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said ministers had created the impression of "confusion and
disarray".

"The House of Commons is entitled to a clear and specific account of the paper chase relating to the Red Cross report," he said.

"So long as ministers appear to be at sixes and sevens MPs are denied an opportunity to make an informed judgement about this matter."

Ingram's denial

Meanwhile, the armed forces minister has become embroiled in a separate controversy over government knowledge of brutality by UK troops in Iraq.

Speaking in the Commons last week, Ingram said he had not "received any adverse report, or reports at all" on the way in which detainees had been dealt with by British forces.

But Amnesty International spokesman Neil Durkin told BBC Radio 4's The World at One that it had sent a dossier of alleged abuses to the Ministry of Defence last November, and had received a response from Ingram.

"We were surprised [by Ingram's comments] because we have the correspondence back signed by Mr Ingram himself," said Durkin.

"It clearly shows that he himself and presumably Geoff Hoon, who the original letter outlining our concerns about mistreatment and death in custody went to, did know about these serious allegations and indeed Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office officials did know directly from Amnesty as early as the 29th of May [last year] that we had these concerns."

That prompted Geoff Hoon to tell the programme that Ingram would "help everyone" if he made it clear in a forthcoming Commons debate that he was talking only about detainees.

"There is in fact a personnel debate dealing with Ministry of Defence issues on Thursday. And he will obviously have the opportunity, if it is still necessary, of clarifying that," said Hoon.

"I think it will help everyone that if he makes clear... that he was asked a question about detainees and with the exception of a single letter that I received around a year ago, the cases highlighted by Amnesty International have not been about detainees."

Responding to the developments, shadow defence secretary Nicholas Soames said that if Amnesty's statement was correct "Adam Ingram may have materially misled the House of Commons".

"The consequence of that would be in the first case that he needs to come to the House of Commons and explain the context in which he said what he said," the Conservative claimed.

"My judgement is that he, being a straightforward and honourable chap, will wish to explain to the House what he meant."

Low point

As the row over human rights in Iraq continued, ministers were warned during Commons questions that the publication of images showing abuse of Iraqi's by coalition troops had damaged their credibility.

Former Labour Foreign Office minister Tony Lloyd said the photographs marked "a new low point" in the Iraq conflict.

Straw accepted the Red Cross had revealed "evidence of appalling and disgusting human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib prison for which there is and there can be no excuse whatsoever".

"Let me say that the allegations, and clear evidence in the United States sector, of abuse are very damaging. There is no question about that, nor should there be any pretence," he told MPs.

"Let me also make clear that this in no sense, as President Bush has asserted, was supported or connived at by the United States administration and they are as appalled by this evidence as are we."

Menzies Campbell said the UK was paying "a considerable moral price" for the latest allegations.

But the foreign secretary insisted the professionalism of UK forces was "well known by the vast majority of Iraqis".