Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office
Thank you for your letter of 14 December 2005
in which you requested written answers to a series of questions
relating to the operation and regulation of Private Security Companies
in Iraq. For ease of reference I set out below the questions and
our responses to each in the same order as they appear in your
letter.
1. What are the rules of engagement
which currently apply to personnel working for companies under
contract to provide security services to HMG in Iraq?
The operation of private security companies
in Iraq is regulated by CPA Memorandum No 17 (attached as Annex
A). (CPA legislation remains in force as part of the law of Iraq
by virtue of Article 26 (C) of the Transitional Administrative
Law and Article 126 of the Iraqi Constitution until amended or
repealed by the new Iraqi Government). Annex A to CPA Memorandum
No 17 sets out binding rules on the use of force which apply to
all private security companies in Iraq.
FCO have contracted two private companies, Control
Risks Group and ArmorGroup, to provide security services to HMG.
Annex A to CPA Memorandum No 17 forms part of their standard operating
procedures (SOPs). Every individual working for these contractors
is required by contract to follow rules of engagement based on
these SOPs (attached as Annex B).
2. What criminal law currently applies:
(a) to personnel working for companies under contract to provide
security services to HMG in Iraq, (b) to personnel working for
British companies under contract to provide security services
to other governments or to international bodies in Iraq, and (c)
to British citizens working for foreign companies under contract
to provide security services to other governments or to international
bodies in Iraq?
In general, the criminal law of Iraq applies
to crimes committed within the territory of Iraq and the application
of this law is not affected by the nationality of the perpetrator
or the identity of a person's employer. Personnel employed by
private security companies in Iraq may, however, enjoy immunity
in some circumstances from the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts.
Foreign nationals working in Iraq may in some
cases remain subject to the criminal law of their state of nationality.
The scope of application of such extra-territorial jurisdiction
will depend on the legal system of each state.
Category (a): Personnel employed by Control
Risks Group and ArmorGroup in Iraq are notified to the Iraqi Government
as members of the Administrative and Technical Staff of the British
Embassy. This status means that they are entitled to immunity
from the criminal jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts, although such
immunity may be waived. The FCO is currently reviewing the conferral
of this status on these personnel.
Category (b): By virtue of CPA Order No 17 (Revised)
(attached as Annex C), all non-Iraqi personnel working under contract
in Iraq for (i) the MNF-I; (ii) a body engaged in humanitarian,
development or reconstruction efforts; or (iii) any foreign diplomatic
or consular mission, are required to respect the laws of Iraq,
except that they are not subject to Iraqi laws or regulations
in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their contracts.
Private Security Companies are however required to comply with
any CPA legislation regulating the activities of such companies.
Such contractors are immune from the jurisdiction of the Iraqi
courts with respect to acts performed pursuant to the terms and
conditions of their contract, but this immunity may be waived
by the State that has employed the contractor.
Iraqi nationals in categories (a) and (b) have
no immunity.
Category (c): The position of British citizens
working for foreign companies under contract to provide security
services to foreign diplomatic missions in Iraq or to international
bodies engaged in humanitarian, development or reconstruction
efforts is the same as for other non-Iraqi personnel in category
(b).
In addition, if a contractor of British nationality
(in any category) were to commit a criminal offence in Iraq it
is possible that in some circumstances he could be prosecuted
in this country. This would depend on whether extra-territorial
jurisdiction exists for the offence under English law. The CPS
would assess whether to bring a prosecution in accordance with
the normal requirements laid down in the Code for Crown prosecutors,
ie whether there was a realistic prospect of a conviction and
whether it was in the public interest to bring a prosecution here.
3. Is there a standard form of contract
for companies which provide security services to HMG in Iraq?
If so, may the Committee have a copy? If not, may the Committee
receive examples of indemnity clauses from such contracts, with
any commercial in confidence information removed?
The contracts with companies that provide security
services to HMG in Iraq are based on a standard format. I attach
a copy of the current core contract (Annex D).
4. How is compliance by private companies
with the terms of contracts for the supply of security services
to HMG in Iraq monitored?
Day to day contract management is carried out
by the Overseas Security Manager at Post overseen by the Deputy
Head of Mission with support from FCO London (Iraq Policy Unit,
Iraq Resource Management Unit, Security Management Directorate
and Procurement Strategy Unit).
The Overseas Security Manager ensures that the
Private Security Companies have the agreed number of staff on
the ground, that they comply with FCO security procedures, that
they maintain effectively FCO supplied security equipment, and
that, in FCO parlance, they do not bring the FCO into disrepute.
Any transgression of terms of contract would be flagged up by
the Overseas Security Manager with senior managers of the contracted
security companies at post, and if necessary disciplinary measures
taken.
I hope our response has addressed your queries.
Kind Regards
Chris Stanton
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
12 January 2006
|