Letter from Alex Marshall, Chief Executive, College of Policing,
to the Chair of the Committee, 14 June 2016
Thank you for your letter of 8th June following up on our evidence regarding the College’s work in training foreign police forces, and the value of individual contracts with foreign governments.
We welcome your recognition that our international programmes can promote the highly respected British model of policing, contribute to the UK Government’s reform agenda in other countries, and support the development of the College, to the benefit of its members and the taxpayer. I want to reiterate the College’s appreciation for the importance of ensuring that its work promotes British values, based on human rights and high standards of ethics. We welcome the Committee’s scrutiny of this area and its consideration of how the College can provide international assistance in a way that enhances and shares the status and strength of British policing at home and abroad.
I am pleased to provide answers to the questions posed within your letter:
1. How do we monitor and ensure that our training is not being used for unethical purposes during and after its provision?
The College works with its international partners and wherever possible, the relevant UK government department, to design international training programmes which are always consistent with the British model of policing by consent, and always includes consideration of respect for human rights and dignity. Trainers introduce learning and instigate discussion along these themes during the provision of all training.
The College’s ability to meaningfully monitor the everyday and ongoing use of the skills it has taught in each of almost sixty countries or regions is limited. However, any evidence that the skills provided have been used to violate human rights would be investigated immediately. We constantly evaluate and review the training we deliver both in the UK and overseas.
The more strategic aspects of international policing work are considered by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) International Coordination Committee (ICC) which can draw on the insights of in-country advisers from the FCO and other sources, including civil society groups, to make an informed assessment about the appropriateness or otherwise of the continued involvement of British training or resources within a foreign state. The College would never provide training, or support the use of its products, in a country which was considered to be using British resources for unethical purposes.
2. In contracts with foreign governments, do we require them to confirm in writing the purposes with which the training will be used, and confirmation that it will not be used for purposes deemed unethical by the British government?
Any country seeking training from the College must state in writing the purpose for which that training will be used, and those requests are evaluated internally before being additionally assessed by a range of government departments and partners, engaged through the International Policing Assistance Brief (IPAB) process.
3. How many proposed contracts between the College and foreign governments have been rejected on the basis of human rights guidance?
None. As we outlined in our letter of 10 May 2016, the College’s internal and IPAB assessments include consideration of the College’s Code of Ethics, promotion of human rights abroad and the ‘fit’ of any proposed training with HMG’s interests.
Developing a proposal is a lengthy process of negotiation involving the initiating department, the proposed partner country and the College. During this process the College will explain that consideration of human rights will be interwoven throughout any training delivered and the purpose for which training will be provided will be made clear. This ensures that the requirements around our training are known at the earliest stage and no proposal would be developed if it did not uphold human rights guidance. Therefore, the College would consider it a disappointing lack of due diligence if a proposed formal contract had to be rejected on the basis of further human rights guidance from IPAB.
4. Since Police Scotland have provided open and transparent information on the value of the Scottish Police College’s foreign contracts, why can the College not do the same?
The College is committed to transparency and has placed a substantial body of information about its international work in the public domain. These publicised facts include the total income generated from international training and service delivery and the amounts paid by various countries for the College’s International Leadership Programme (ILP) and International Strategic Leadership Programme (ISLP) (attached). In addition, we have disclosed the amount of income received per financial year by region and most recently we disclosed the amount of income generated per financial year in various subject matter areas of international training and delivery. This information has been attached for your reference.
The College has not disclosed the details of individual foreign contracts due to the risk of exposing certain countries’ vulnerabilities and, on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), to avoid prejudicing the UK’s international relations.
As part of our consultation with external stakeholders about our response to FOI requests concerning international training, the FCO has informed us that, in relation to one partner country, it is their policy not to make public the UK’s work on Justice and Human Rights on the grounds of sensitivities to international relations and the potential risks to the safety of the individuals involved in HMG’s work on the ground.
Releasing a comprehensive listing of specific training in certain countries could therefore, by a process of comparison with other information, inadvertently risk disclosing information which relates to information supplied by, or relating to bodies dealing with security matters. This information is covered under section 23 of the FOI Act and the Information Commissioner’s Office has reviewed and agreed with this stance.
Additionally, a number of countries expressed objections to disclosure of details of what the College has provided to them and how much it was paid per purchase. As some countries place great emphasis on the confidentiality of the amount paid for commercial activities, the FCO have advised us that if we released information it would negatively affect our national interests.
The College is keen to provide information to the Committee on these matters in a way which both builds confidence at home and protects the promotion of British interests and values abroad. We would be happy
to be involved in any further discussions between the Committee and HMG on how this can be best achieved.
Finally, on a wider point we understand that CC Andy Marsh (NPCC lead on International Policing) has been in discussion with HMG to seek an agreed cross-government strategy for international policing which would provide further clarity on the ambition for British policing abroad. The acceleration of the development of such a strategy would be of benefit to all those in UK policing who conduct work abroad. Any support the Committee could give to this process would be welcome.
I hope that this information is of assistance to the Committee. Yours sincerely,
Alex Marshall, CEO
