Guantánamo Bay
73. In September 2006, a number of us became the
first members of a committee of a national Parliament outside
the United States to visit the detention facilities at Guantánamo
Bay. Following this visit, we published a report that said that
the international community needed to do more to help the United
States in relocating detainees that posed no danger to the public,
and in assisting with the closure of the detention facility at
Guantánamo Bay.[118]
74. The FCO report states that it is the Government's
position that the circumstances in which detainees are held indefinitely
are "unacceptable" and that it firmly believes the detention
facility "should close". It welcomes "President
Bush's commitment to close the detention facility as soon as practicable".[119]
However, Human Rights Watch's submission notes that "in fact,
President Bush has now stated that he will not do so, and that
he will leave Guantánamo for the next President to deal
with".[120] The
FCO report notes some outstanding concerns with the US Military
Commissions Act 2006 (which aims to bring about the trial of some
of the detainees), particularly relating to habeas corpus
and the treatment of those acquitted.[121]
In what was seen as a coded criticism of the United States, the
Foreign Secretary commented in February 2008 that "it's very,
very important that we always assert that our system of values
is different from those who attacked the US" on 9/11.[122]
75. The FCO report notes that, in August 2007, the
Government decided to request the return of five former British
residents who had been granted refugee status, indefinite leave
or exceptional leave to remain before their detention. This, argues
the report, "was an appropriate way to take action to help
expedite the closure of Guantánamo". Three of the
five were returned to the UK on 19 December, but two (Shaker Aamer
and Binyam Mohamed) remain held at the camp.[123]
In June 2008, US military prosecutors announced that they have
charged Mr Mohamed with war crimes. Lawyers representing him claim
that evidence was obtained through the use of torture in Morocco.
If convicted of conspiring to commit terrorism, he could face
the death penalty.[124]
The Intelligence and Security Committee held an inquiry into Rendition,
during which it considered the case of Mr Mohamed. It concluded
that there was a "reasonable probability" that intelligence
passed on by the UK to the US was used in subsequent "interrogation"
and it further concluded that "it is regrettable that assurances
regarding proper treatment of detainees were not sought from the
Americans in this case."[125]
76. Tom Porteous told us that Human Rights Watch
has documented evidence of people being returned to Russia and
Tunisia, and being seriously mistreated in both cases. He also
highlighted the number of Uighurs, from Xinjiang province in China,
who cannot be returned to their country of origin (in fact, some
have been taken in by Albania). He argued that the UK and its
EU allies "could play a very helpful role in aiding whoever
succeeds President Bush in closing that facility" by taking
on those cleared for release but who are unable to be sent back
to their country of origin.[126]
We raised this with Lord Malloch-Brown, who told us that the Government
has "been talking to other European countries about the possibility
of taking other non-citizens".[127]
Writing to us at a later date, he said such discussions were "sensitive"
and that "it would not be appropriate to name specific countries".[128]
77. We conclude that the European Union can and
must do more to help the United States in bringing about the overdue
closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay.
We welcome the Government's representations on behalf of the five
British residents in Guantanamo Bay. Given its decision to intervene
in their cases, we recommend that the Government should express
particular concern over the prospective trial of Binyam Mohamed
under the Military Commissions Act and lobby strongly against
any use of the death penalty if he is found guilty. We recommend
that the Government should continue to press for the return of
Binyam Mohamed and Shaker Aamer to the UK.
Private Security Companies
78. In February 2002, the Government published a
Green Paper into regulating private security companies, borne
in part from an inquiry by the Foreign Affairs Committee into
the conduct of Sandline, a British-based security firm operating
in Sierra Leone. Our predecessor Committee published a report
later in 2002 considering the Government's Green Paper, and expressed
its hope that it would lead "to the establishment of sound
legislation, to ensure that the dangerous, embarrassing and wholly
unacceptable events that became known as the Sandline affair are
never repeated."[129]
Our calls for regulation were supported by the Defence Committee.
In its 2005 report on Iraq: An Initial Assessment of Post-Conflict
Operations, it concluded that the Government should "urgently"
bring forward proposals for such regulation.[130]
79. Six years have now passed since the Government's
Green Paper. In the intervening period, the war in Iraq has led
to a proliferation of the use of private security firms by the
Government and its allies - a report by the campaigning organisation
War on Want in October 2006 estimated that there were three British
private security guards to every British soldier deployed in Iraq
at that time.[131]
On 16 October 2007, employees of the American company Blackwater,
contracted by the US Government to protect State Department officials,
shot and killed at least 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. Both Kate
Allen and Tom Porteous expressed strong concern over the lack
of regulation or oversight for private security firms, especially
in Iraq. Ms Allen said it was "completely unacceptable"
that "not one allegation has been heard in a court".
Mr Porteous noted that "these companies tend to operate in
places of weak governance and conflict where, if they or their
employees commit abuses, they can get away with impunity".[132]
80. According to Kate Allen, 70-85% of private security
companies are based in the UK or the US.[133]
However, there is still no sign of forthcoming Government legislation
to regulate these firms. Answering oral questions in October 2007,
the Defence Secretary, Rt Hon Des Browne MP, referred to a review
that was carried out by the FCO in 2005 and said it "raised
a number of complex issues that officials are considering in detail".[134]
We put our concerns to Lord Malloch-Brown who told us:
[T]he delay has not been acceptable, and we are
hoping that on our watch David Miliband and I will solve this
persistent irritant. I have to say that I do not think that the
delay has been because of any aberrant desire to prevent regulation.
It has had more to do with the fact that regulation is quite tricky
for an international business where most activities take place
offshore. There is concern about how we can develop a regulatory
structure that is credible and effective enough without just driving
companies, if you like, offshore to register somewhere else.
He added that the Government was "now in the
late stages of trying to get agreement across Whitehall on a way
forward on this, so I hope that relief is in sight".[135]
However, it is important to note that there was no mention of
private security companies in the Draft Legislative Programme
for 2008-09 that was presented by the Prime Minister to the House
of Commons in May 2008.[136]
81. Lord Malloch-Brown told us there were a number
of options available in regulating private security companies.
These are "self-regulation through a trade association, national
regulation based on export control and national regulation based
on a kind of company licensing system." He also stated his
belief that the Government should consider international regulation.[137]
Amnesty International argues that a key feature of any legislation
should be to enable "private military and security contractors
to be brought to justice in the UK for serious crimes committed
abroad".[138]
In its 2002 report, our predecessor Committee concluded that a
voluntary code would be "insufficient" as it would not
provide the Government with the means of preventing the activity
of disreputable companies.[139]
82. We conclude that the Minister's commitment
to introducing regulation for private security companies is to
be welcomed. We further conclude that the delay in introducing
regulation has been unacceptable. We are disappointed that there
was no mention of legislation on private security companies in
the Prime Minister's Draft Legislative Programme 2008-09, and
we recommend that the Government should announce its intention
to introduce the relevant legislation in the forthcoming Queen's
Speech. We further recommend that such legislation should impose
strict regulation on private security companies, and ensures that
these companies can be prosecuted in British courts for serious
human rights abuses committed abroad.
63 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights
Annual Report 2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, p 15 Back
64
Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08,
Overseas Territories, HC 147-I, para 55 Back
65
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, p 16 Back
66
Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08,
Overseas Territories, HC 147-I, para 70 Back
67
Q 17 Back
68
Q 60 Back
69
Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08,
Overseas Territories, HC 147-II, Ev 346 Back
70
Q 59 Back
71
Ev 67 Back
72
HC Deb, 3 July 2008, col 58WS Back
73
Ev 99-102 Back
74
Ev 23 Back
75
Ev 5 Back
76
"US does not torture, Bush insists", BBC News Online,
7 November 2005, news.bbc.co.uk Back
77
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, pp 12-13 Back
78
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights
2006: Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, Cm 7127, June 2007, p 9 Back
79
"Defining torture in a new world war", BBC News Online,
8 December 2005, news.bbc.co.uk Back
80
"Hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence",
5 February 2008, www.dni.gov Back
81
Ev 111 Back
82
HC Deb, 21 April 2008, col 1726W Back
83
Q 62 Back
84
Q 63 Back
85
Ev 65 Back
86
Ev 4 Back
87
Ev 22 Back
88
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, p 12 Back
89
"MI5 accused of colluding in torture of terrorist suspects",
The Guardian, 29 May 2008 Back
90
Ev 30 Back
91
Q 40 Back
92
Q 72 Back
93
Q 74 Back
94
Q 71 Back
95
Ev 65 Back
96
Q 65 Back
97
Ev 65 Back
98
Q 67 Back
99
"Revealed: torture centre linked to MI5", The Guardian,
12 May 2008 Back
100
Ev 65 Back
101
HC Deb, 16 May 2008, col 1815W Back
102
HC Deb, 4 June 2008, col 1006W Back
103
Q 66 Back
104
Q 65 Back
105
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, p 14 Back
106
Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2006-07, Human
Rights Annual Report 2006, HC 269, para 67 Back
107
Q 19 Back
108
"Ministers accused of sidestepping torture ban", The
Guardian, 2 November 2006 Back
109
"Preacher Abu Qatada wins appeal", BBC News Online,
9 April 2008, news.bbc.co.uk Back
110
Q 19 Back
111
Q 75 Back
112
Q 76 Back
113
Ev 65 Back
114
Q 19 Back
115
Ev 3 Back
116
Q 19 Back
117
European Court of Human Rights, Case of Saadi v Italy: Judgement,
28 February 2008, para 122 Back
118
Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2006-07, Visit
to Guantanamo Bay, HC 44, para 116 Back
119
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, p 12 Back
120
Ev 22 Back
121
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, p 13 Back
122
"Miliband 'concerned' by Guantanamo trial", The Independent,
13 February 2008 Back
123
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report
2007, Cm 7340, March 2008, pp 12-13 Back
124
"UK man charged at Guantanamo Bay", BBC News Online,
4 June 2008, news.bbc.co.uk Back
125
Intelligence and Security Committee, Rendition, Cm 7171,
July 2007, p 34 Back
126
Q 20 Back
127
Q 86 Back
128
Ev 65 Back
129
Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2001-02, Private
Military Companies, HC 922, para 2 Back
130
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2004-05, Iraq: An
Initial Assessment of Post-Conflict Operations, HC 65-I, para
211 Back
131
"Fears over huge growth in Iraq's unregulated private armies",
The Guardian, 31 October 2006 Back
132
Q 25 Back
133
Ibid Back
134
HC Deb, 22 October 2007, col 2 Back
135
Q 89 Back
136
HC Deb, 14 May 2008, col 1385 Back
137
Q 89 Back
138
Ev 10 Back
139
Foreign Affairs Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2001-02, Private
Military Companies, HC 922, para 137 Back