Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
56-59)
KATE ALLEN
AND TOM
PORTEOUS
10 JUNE 2009
Q56 Chairman: Ms Allen, thank
you for coming back for the public session. Mr. Porteous, welcome.
You are both familiar with this Committee. In fact, you have probably
attended more often than most Ministers, because Ministers change
but Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are always there. In the public
session this afternoon, we shall deal with the wider human rights
issues. I would like to begin with Iraq. You will be aware that
our Committee has been looking at allegations of abuse by contract
staff of KBR at the Baghdad embassy. There have been quite a lot
of allegations and we have taken the matter up with the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office. I would be interested in your view of
this issue, and whether you think the FCO has dealt with it appropriately
or adequately.
Tom Porteous: I
have four points. First of all, the FCO does have a responsibility
for the behaviour of its contractors within its embassy in Iraq.
Secondly, this investigation was fundamentally flawed—the
investigation that did take place. It was flawed because, first
of all, it was carried out by the contractor itself; it should
have been carried out by the UK Government; secondly, it had serious
procedural shortcomings, such as a failure to interview the key
personnel involved who made the allegations—in conflict
with the guidance from the UK's own Equal Opportunities Commission;
and thirdly, those accused had free access to the alleged victims
and were therefore able to intimidate them. There were indeed
allegations that this is what happened. No disciplinary measures
were taken against the Kellogg, Brown and Root staff. However,
the complainant and local staff who had supported the complainant's
allegations were dismissed. That is another concern. The next
concern is that after all this there were further allegations—of
sexual harassment—involving the same Kellogg, Brown and
Root staff. That is no doubt a consequence of the impunity that
stemmed from this flawed investigation.
Q57 Chairman: What can be inferred
from the inclusion of the decision by the FCO, in correspondence
from the permanent secretary to us, that they accept that occasions
may arise when it is right to take action jointly, rather than
simply allowing the contractors to carry out the investigation?
Do you think they have learned from the experience and are now
more prepared to have FCO officials involved in any future investigation?
Tom Porteous: There needs to be
a proper investigation of these incidents. That still has not
happened. That should lead to sanction for those involved, if
the evidence is found to be reliable and stands up in the investigation.
Those staff who have been the victim of this abuse and those who
have been dismissed because they supported the allegations of
the complainant need to be compensated.
Chairman: We have a related issue, which
is how we deal not only with people who are private contractors
employed in our diplomatic posts but also how we deal with a large
number of private security companies, which operate in great numbers
not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan and elsewhere. From personal
experience of being in Afghanistan, the guys who looked after
me there and gave me personal protection did an excellent job.
I survived, I am here and nothing untoward happened. I should
place that on the record before I bring Mr. Mackinlay in to ask
some questions on these issues.
Q58 Andrew Mackinlay: You are
aware of the so-called regulatory scheme which the Government
are so-called consulting them on. You can detect my cynicism and
prejudices about it, but what do you say about private security
companies? What prospect is there for regulation? I understand
that the industry, of course, wants self-regulation and it looks
as though the supine Government are going to accept that. I would
like your views on what you think should be done and what framework
of law should be instituted to regulate the recruitment of private
security companies operating out of the UK, and also whether there
is any international law which could at present be applied to
them. We in Parliament should be reminded of them. My final point
flows on from that, because the borderline between a private security
company and private contractors is a grey area. It was put to
us in relation to the matter you have just discussed with the
Chairman, that this was extraterritorial, that there was no way
we could exercise great investigatory powers. I want to hear your
views.
Tom Porteous: In fact, Human Rights
Watch has not done any research on this, so I hesitate to say
anything and will hand over to Kate Allen.
Kate Allen: To pick up from the
scepticism in your comments, the Government have announced their
options for change following a 2002 Green Paper, so there are
massive delays in making those recommendations, which included
voluntary self-regulation. However, the proposals are so weak
that even signing up to the voluntary code is not a precondition
to getting a Government contract. The Government completely ignored
this Committee's recommendations back in 2002. From Amnesty International's
perspective, the proposals are absolutely insufficient and cannot
hold overseas military or security operations to account. They
are extraordinarily weak. There is a lack of jurisdiction to prosecute
contractors in the UK for the crimes that they commit abroad.
So we certainly call upon the Government to make their proposals
ones that put in place legislation that enables contractors to
be held to account. Given that about 70% to 85% of private military
and security companies are based in the UK and the US, and that
the UK Government are, as the Chairman reminded us, a major user
of these companies, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is
essential for the UK Government to put in place greater restrictions,
rather than a voluntary code of conduct that, even then, does
not have to be signed up to.
Q59 Andrew Mackinlay: Do you think
that the British Government and their agents favour using private
security companies because if anything goes pear-shaped—if
there is an atrocity or something goes wrong—they can deny
responsibility?
Kate Allen: I don't know. The
situation is that there is no ability to hold people to account
in the same way as with the Government's armed forces. Given how
much of what is happening in some parts of the world has been
contracted out to private military and security companies, it
is untenable that they should not be held accountable and brought
to account in the UK for actions that they are responsible for
overseas.
|
