PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REPORT
TUESDAY 23 JULY
Members present:
Mr Donald Anderson, in the Chair
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr John Maples
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr Eric Illsley | Sir John Stanley
|
| Andrew Mackinlay | |
Draft Report (Private Military Companies), proposed by
the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph
by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 3 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 4 read, as follows:
4. The debate about regulating these companies is not only
concerned with preventing the damage that an unregulated private
military sector may cause. In some circumstances, private military
companies may be able to provide security services more efficiently
and effectively than states are able to. Such companies have the
potential to make a legitimate and valuable contribution to international
security. The challenge of regulation is therefore not only to
prevent PMCs from inflicting damage, but also to establish how
the Government should work with them to maximise the benefits
that a properly regulated private military sector can bring.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from "cause."
to the end of the paragraph and insert "Some of the evidence
provided suggested that in certain exceptional circumstances,
private military companies may be able to provide security services
more efficiently and effectively than states are able to. Such
companies have the potential to make a legitimate and valuable
contribution to international security. The challenge of regulation
is therefore not only to prevent PMCs from inflicting damage,
but also for the Government to consider regulating the industry
in face of opposition from the private military companies. A challenge
this Government must succeed in."—(Mr Andrew Mackinlay)
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 1
Andrew Mackinlay
Noes, 4
| Mr Eric Illsley | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Mr John Maples | Sir John Stanley
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 5 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 6 to 9 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 10 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 11 to 15 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 16 to 18 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 19 to 21 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 22 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 23 to 26 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 27 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 28 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 29 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 30 to 39 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 40 to 43 read and postponed.
Paragraph 44 read, as follows:
44. Further definition of the activities that should be subject
to regulation may also help to speed legislation. We discuss this
in paragraph * below.
Paragraph disagreed to.
Paragraph 45 read and agreed to (now paragraph 40).
A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up,
read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph
41).
Paragraphs 46 to 57 (now paragraphs 42 to 53) read and agreed
to.
A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up,
and read the first time, as follows:
"In addition PMCs have not only received minerals directly,
a way of payment allegedly not of great use to these companies
as Tim Spicer has explained, but what they have in some instances
been given are the rights to protect companies which exploit these
minerals. These companies then have to pay PMCs for their protection.
A way in which minerals are indirectly used to finance PMCs."
Question proposed, That the paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 2
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Andrew Mackinlay
|
Noes, 5
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Sir John Stanley
|
| Mr Bill Olner | |
Paragraph 58 (now paragraph 54) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 59 to 63 (now paragraphs 55 to 59) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 64 (now paragraph 60) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 65 to 67 (now paragraphs 61 to 63) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 68 (now paragraph 64) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 69 (now paragraph 65) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 70 read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 70
and insert the following new paragraph:
"We conclude that there are very few instances in which
we accept that PMCs should have a role in contributing to the
establishment or maintenance of stability. We believe there is
a need for clear guidelines as to which types of roles PMCs should
be entitled to take up in weak states."—(Mr Andrew
Mackinlay)
Question put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 1
Andrew Mackinlay
Noes, 5
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Sir John Stanley
|
| Mr John Maples | |
Paragraph 70 agreed to (now paragraph 66).
Paragraph 71 read, amended and agreed to (now paragraph 67).
Paragraphs 72 to 74 (now paragraphs 68 to 70) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 75 read, as follows:
75. The danger that British based companies might be confused
with British government forces or British foreign policy is increased
by the tendency of some private military companies to imitate
British military names and uniforms. Such imitation poses a danger
to the integrity of British armed forces, and threatens to tarnish
their excellent reputation. To reduce this risk, we recommend
that the Government prohibit private military or security companies
from using names similar to those of British regiments or fighting
units, or from the use of any emblem, symbol or distinctive item
of uniform similar to those of the British armed forces.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after the word "names",
to insert the words "other than Gurkha"—(Sir
John Stanley).
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 2
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Sir John Stanley
|
Noes, 4
| Mr David Chidgey | Andrew Mackinlay
|
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Mr Greg Pope
|
Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 71).
Paragraph 76 (now paragraph 72) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 77 (now paragraph 73) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 78 (now paragraph 74) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 79 to 98 (now paragraphs 75 to 94) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 99 (now paragraph 95) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 100 and 101 (now paragraphs 96 and 97) read and agreed
to.
A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up,
and read, as follows:
Whilst questioning whether it is practical or right for PMCs
to get involved in peacekeeping operations, we accept that keeping
up peacekeeping operations can take up and strain military capacities.
At the same time we note that if Sandline and other PMCs can recruit
ex-military personnel why can the British government not do so
too? An example of where such practice takes place is the RUC
fulltime reserve. We suggest that the government could establish
such a reserve for specific peacekeeping operations made up of
ex-military personnel. For example our troops currently located
in Cyprus supporting UNFICYP could be substituted by a contingent
of such a reserve force, freeing up the current British military
personnel stationed there.
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 2
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Andrew Mackinlay
|
Noes, 5
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr John Maples | Sir John Stanley
|
| Mr Bill Olner | |
Paragraphs 102 to 104 (now paragraphs 98 to 100) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 105 read, as follows:
105. We are reassured by Denis MacShane's answer. We certainly
do not believe that the Government should be aiming for further
cuts in the armed forces though the greater use of PMCs to perform
core defence tasks. However, we conclude that the Government
should consider carefully whether the greater use of PMCs in UK
humanitarian and peace support operations might help to reduce
military overstretch. PMCs might be employed to undertake
tasks such as such as tax collection, road building or water and
sanitation projects, which are currently performed by UK forces
in peace support operations. The creation of an additional cadre
of former armed service personnel to perform these non-combat
roles might also help to alleviate overstretch. We provide details
of this alternative to the employment of PMCs in paragraphs *
to * below.
Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out the words
"tax collection"—(Andrew Mackinlay).
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Mr John Maples
|
| Andrew Mackinlay | |
Noes, 6
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr Eric Illsley | Sir John Stanley
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 101).
Paragraph 106 read, as follows:
106. Given the evident existence of—and likely growth
in—a market for private military services, military companies
will continue to exist, and absolute prohibition of the sector
in the United Kingdom would simply drive them overseas. We are
convinced that a properly regulated private military sector can
make a positive contribution to international security. We also
share the view, articulated by Denis MacShane in rather negative
terms, of the benefits of establishing a transparent relationship
with the companies through regulation: "I would rather these
things were in the tent, as it were, where we could see in which
direction they were aiming rather than outside the tent when we
have not got the faintest idea what they are up to until we are
splattered with very unpleasant after-effects." We conclude
that an outright ban on all military activity abroad by private
military companies would be counterproductive.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, to leave out the first word "military"—(Andrew
Mackinlay).
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 2
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Andrew Mackinlay
|
Noes, 7
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr Eric Illsley | Sir John Stanley
|
| Mr John Maples | |
Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 102).
Paragraph 107 (now paragraph 103) read, amended and agreed to.
Postponed paragraphs 40 to 43 again read, and inserted (now paragraphs
104 to 107).
Paragraph 108 read, as follows:
108. We recommend that private companies be expressly prohibited
from direct participation in armed combat operations, and that
firearms should only be carried—and, if necessary, used
—by company employees for purposes of training or self-defence.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from the word "operations,"
to the end of the paragraph.—(Sir John Stanley).
Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:—Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 4, at the end to add the words
"Should the Government be unwilling to accept this recommendation,
we recommend that any contract involving British private military
companies in the provision of armed combat services should require
individual licence approval by the Government and be the subject
of prior parliamentary scrutiny."—(Sir John
Stanley).
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Andrew Mackinlay
|
| Mr Eric Illsley | Sir John Stanley
|
Noes, 5
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr John Maples | |
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 109 to 114 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 115 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 116 to 119 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 120 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 121 and 122 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 123 read, as follows:
123. We recommend that each contract for a military/security
operation overseas should be subject to a separate licence. The
FCO, working with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry
of Defence and the Department for International Development, should
be responsible for assessing and approving each licence application.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from "licence"
to the end of the paragraph and add the words "with the
exception of companies of demonstrable responsibility and integrity
engaged in the provision of non-contentious services for whom
the Government considers a general licence would suffice."—(Sir
John Stanley).
Proposed Amendment amended, in line 1, by leaving out the words
"of demonstrable responsibility and integrity".
Question put, That the proposed Amendment, as amended, be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 6
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr John Maples | Sir John Stanley
|
Noes, 3
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Andrew Mackinlay
|
| Mr Eric Illsley | |
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 124 to 128 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 129 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 130 to 134 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 135 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 136 to 139 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 140 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 141 to 143 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 144 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 145 to 147 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 148 and 149 read, amended and agreed to.
A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up,
read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraph 150).
Paragraphs 150 to 155 read and agreed to (now paragraphs 151 to
156).
Paragraph 156 read, as follows:
156. We recommend that, to monitor the work of PMCs, the
Government consider employing former military personnel to travel
with PMCs on their operations abroad for purposes of monitoring
and evaluation. We further recommend that the Government consider
making participation of and cooperation with such monitors a condition
of licence.
Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 156
and insert the following new paragraph:
We recommend that the Government establish as an integral
part of any regulatory system an appropriate monitoring and evaluation
regime and make full co-operation with that regime a condition
of the granting of licences to PMCs.—(Sir John Stanley)
Question put and agreed to.
Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 157)
Paragraph 157 read, as follows:
157. The establishment of a regulatory measure such as this
has important resource and staffing implications for the relevant
Government departments. Denis MacShane expressed the belief that
the "industries themselves should accept the cost of ensuring
that they have the status to do what they want to do." We
agree with the Minister on this point. We recommend that PMCs
be required to pay the costs of regulation, monitoring and evaluation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 157.
Question put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 6
| Mr David Chidgey | Mr John Maples
|
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Greg Pope
|
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Sir John Stanley
|
Noes, 3
| Mr Eric Illsley | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Andrew Mackinlay | |
Paragraphs 158 and 159 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 160 read, as follows:
160. We conclude that procedures similar to those for Parliamentary
scrutiny of arms export licences should apply to any regulation
of PMCs.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, at the end, to add the words ",
with prior parliamentary scrutiny being applied to any licence
applications that might involve PMCs in the provision of armed
combat services."—(Sir John Stanley)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 5
| Mr David Chidgey | Andrew Mackinlay
|
| Mr Fabian Hamilton | Sir John Stanley
|
| Mr Eric Illsley | |
Noes, 4
| Sir Patrick Cormack | Mr Bill Olner
|
| Mr John Maples | Mr Greg Pope
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 161 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 162 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 163 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Ninth Report
of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134
(Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.
Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence
taken before the Committee be reported to the House.—(The
Chairman.)
[Adjourned until Tuesday 22 October at Ten
o'clock.
| 
