5 Trade in products used for capital punishment,
torture etc.
| (24579)
5773/03
COM(02) 770
| Draft Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
|
| Legal base | Article 133 EC; QMV
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 16 October 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxvii (2002-03), paragraph 2 (25 June 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 In December 2003, the Commission put forward this proposal,
which would:
- ban all trade in equipment which has no, or virtually no,
practical use other than for capital punishment, or torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: this ban would also
extend to brokering or facilitating such trade; and
- allow competent Member State authorities to control
the trade in certain listed equipment and products, which could
readily be used for capital punishment or other cruel etc. uses,
but which also have legitimate uses.
5.2 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 June 2003,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of
Trade and Industry (Mr Nigel Griffiths) told us that the UK currently
bans, through its export licensing system, certain torture equipment,
and requires a licence for the export of various other items which
could be used for torture. He added that the proposal would enable
additional items to be banned or controlled with minimum changes
to UK legislation, and in the process would make these criteria
legally, rather than politically, binding. The UK therefore supported
the broad thrust of the proposal, subject to two reservations.
5.3 First, human rights and export licensing decisions
are not currently within Community competence, and the proposal
suggested that an application for a licence to export equipment
with a potential use in torture could be objected to by another
Member State or the Commission. Moreover, if this happened twice,
the power to take that decision would ultimately pass to the Commission.
The Government, therefore, wanted to examine carefully the proposal
that the Commission should be involved in the decision-making
process. Secondly, the proposed export ban on equipment which
could be used only for torture or capital punishment might be
difficult to implement in practice, as many such items have legitimate
uses.
5.4 In our Report of 25 June 2003, we noted that,
although the purpose of this proposal was clearly laudable, there
appeared to be outstanding questions regarding Community competence
in this area and the practicality of action against certain types
of equipment with a dual use. In view of this, we decided simply
to draw the proposal to the attention of the House, pending further
information on these two points.
Minister's letter of 16 October 2003
5.5 The Minister has sought to address these
issues in his letter of 16 October 2003. On the first question,
he says that the proposal may be adopted on the basis of Article
133 of the Treaty in so far as it applies to restrictive trade
measures relating to goods, but that its scope regarding the provision
of some services goes beyond the scope of that Article in as much
as it impinges on matters involving the cross-border movement
of persons. On the point regarding the practicality of the measure,
he says that discussions at official level have yet to begin,
but that the UK will be seeking agreement that certain items (such
as handcuffs, individual cuffs and automatic drug injection systems)
should be moved from an Annex which would allow export authorisation
for public display in a museum to one which allows case-by-case
assessment against agreed criteria, on the grounds that such items
have other legitimate uses.
Conclusion
5.6 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister for
this information, we had been under the impression that the concern
expressed in his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 June 2003 related,
not to the Treaty base chosen for this proposal, but to the extent
to which the mechanisms proposed would mean that the power to
take export licensing decisions would ultimately pass from the
Member State of origin to the Commission. We would be glad, therefore,
if the Minister could say whether or not that last concern still
arises, and, if not, why not. In the meantime, we are not clearing
the document.
|
