Skip to main content

Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by James Gray (Conservative). It was answered on Monday, 22 October 2007 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.


Private Security Companies (Iraq)

Question
The Secretary of State sounds reluctant to grasp the nettle on the issue so ably raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Surely there are two problems: that the companies are doing things that the British armed forces would traditionally have done themselves, were it not for overstretch, and that the attraction of some of the companies is such that they pull people out of our armed services to go and work for them at much higher wages. That in itself contributes to overstretch.
Answer

The hon. Gentleman only adds to the complexity of the issues with that qualification. It is not true to suggest that those companies, which are not all, by any stretch of the imagination, within the Government's control, do work that the British Army would otherwise do were it not for overstretch. In fact, in Iraq, the Departments that contract those companies do so to provide security for civilian operators. It is by no means correct that the Army would provide that security in any event or that other military forces would do so. There is no lack of willingness on my part or energy to work our way through the difficulties, but they are significant, and we want to try to get them right before we announce the detailed policy to the House.


Secondary information

Type
Oral question
Reference
465 c3 
Session
2006-07
Oral question type
Supplementary
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Iraq Private sector Peacekeeping operations Security
Link
View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk