Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2003
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR EDWARD
OAKDEN AND
MR TIM
DOWSE
Chairman
40. That is very important. This discovery by
the Military Attaché " was not just an accidental
"just happened to see", was it?
(Mr Straw) No.
(Mr Dowse) No, it was part of his task.
41. It is very important that we appreciate
that he was specifically looking for any breaches of the agreement.
That is the important point.
(Mr Straw) And he found them. Obviously we would have
responded, had it been an NGO, but it was he who spotted it. He
worked this out. He knew enough about tank chassis to form the
opinion there might be a connection.
42. Yes, because there had been conflicting
accounts about how that arose, had there not?
(Mr Straw) Indeed.
Chairman: That has qualified that. Perhaps we
can move on.
Tony Worthington
43. Can I move on to Criterion 8, sustainable
development. You will recall that we have the sort of anomaly
of the Government saying that this is a very, very important criterion,
that one should not export if it is going to damage the sustainable
development of a country, but unfortunately in, say, 2001, we
could not find any instance, and it was agreed that there was
no instance, of where sustainable development had been a grounds
upon which a licence had been turned down. Is that still so?
(Mr Straw) Mr Worthington, can I just ask officials
to talk about the licences where Criterion 8 has been a reason
for turning them down. It does not follow that a criterion is
worthless, or that it has not been applied, just because we have
not had applications where we have had to turn them down on that
basis, because in all of this it is self-policing. There are plenty
of criminal offences on the statute book which are very rarely
subject to prosecution—in some cases not at all. That does
not mean that we should remove the offence from the statute book.
It may be that the law is working really rather well. So it cuts
both ways. As to the numbers, I do not know, they are very small
and rare.
44. There have been none.
(Mr Straw) As far as I know, that is correct. But,
as I say, that does not mean the criterion is not working.
45. If it happened year after year, that you
had a very, very important criterion, but it was never used, you
do not automatically conclude that the law is working well. You
ask other questions, do you not?
(Mr Straw) Hang on a second. These criteria are public,
and in many cases the applicants make the application against
the criteria, so that it is in their interest to look at the criteria,
take advice about how they operate and seek to ensure that their
applications come within the criteria, because if they do not
come within the criteria they will not be accepted. So that is
it.
46. But you have tightened up on the criteria,
have you not?
(Mr Straw) Mr Dowse is saying that there were only
ever 20—
(Mr Dowse) Across the entire EU, our understanding
is that there have only ever been about 20 refusals on a Criterion
8 basis, since the code was adopted. It does not mean that the
assessment is not undertaken, but the fact is that the criterion
is one that we have looked at quite extensively in the last year.
We have developed our understanding of how the criterion should
be interpreted interdepartmentally. We have identified a certain
number of benchmarks, if you like, indicators.
47. Could you say more about those?
(Mr Dowse) In general terms, I can give you some examples
of what the indicators are. We have agreed that levels of military
and social expenditure are one indicator. Dependency on international
aid is another. Balance of payments issues is another. The level
of debt servicing requirements is another. These were developed
between the experts in DFID, the Treasury and ourselves, as a
way of making more systematic and consistent the way in which
we applied Criterion 8. So we do take it seriously. Just because
we have never had a refusal on the basis of Criterion 8 does not
mean that we are not taking seriously the application.
48. Does that mean that the Tanzanian air traffic
control system would not get through now?
(Mr Straw) The Tanzanian air traffic control system
did get through. There was an interesting debate about it—I
think some of that was really your side. I happen to think that
on the basis of the information we had available at the time,
it was a correct judgment.
49. But there has since been further information,
has there not?
(Mr Straw) There has not been since further information
which tells me it was an incorrect judgment. I know, Mr Worthington,
you did agree with the air traffic control system. I did not,
and I thought my colleagues in Government took the same view.
There we are.
50. Do you have any further information about
that application, how it went through and whether it has been
altered in any way, or whether the whole thing has been exported?
(Mr Dowse) We do not monitor exports as such, but
when an export has been completed, the licence is then exhausted
and is returned to the DTI. To date, I understand the DTI has
not received the exhausted licences for the air traffic control
system.
Chairman: I think we need to move on to another
topic.
Mr Chidgey
51. Foreign Secretary, I would like to ask you
a few questions about licences granted in 2001 potentially giving
rise to human rights concerns. I would like to ask you in particular
some questions about handcuffs and restraints, particularly over-sized
cuffs. To refresh the Committee's memory, in a written answer
back in 1997, the Government said it "would take the necessary
measures to prevent the export or transhipment from the UK"
of various equipment designed primarily for torture, including
"leg-irons, gang-chains, shackles—excluding normal
handcuffs", amongst other things. As late as 20 February
this year, in a letter to the Clerk of the Committee, the Government
explained that it had implemented the necessary measure, and it
also added that "having further considered the issue of the
manufacture of the specified items it has been decided that there
would be little reason to ban the manufacture or sale of equipment
covered by the ban" against instruments of torture, because—and
I quote—"There is no market for leg-irons and shackles."
You know the definition, I am sure, Foreign Secretary, of what
these instruments are?
(Mr Straw) Yes, I do.
52. If I may refresh your memory, we are talking
about over-sized handcuffs—
(Mr Straw) No, I remember, sure.
53. —defined as handcuffs with a locking
circumference of greater than 240 millimetres.
(Mr Straw) I refused a licence, I think, in this case,
for over-sized handcuffs.
Mr Chidgey: I just wanted to bring your attention
to the background.
Chairman: Let us have the question.
Mr Chidgey
54. What is the Government's policy on the export
of over-sized handcuffs? When are licences for such handcuffs
allowed? How does the Government assess the likelihood of such
handcuffs being used as manacles or leg-irons, in contravention
of the Government's ban on the export of such items?
(Mr Straw) As I said, the handcuffs come in various
shapes and sizes—and I know this from my previous responsibility
for the Home Office—but we in this country do not use leg-irons
or shackles, and their export is also prohibited. So in a particular
case there was an application which came before me, I think, some
time before the end of the year, for what were over-sized handcuffs
which would require a very large hand to restrain and plainly
could be used as a leg-iron, so I refused a licence. There is
not an issue here between you and me, Mr Chidgey. It is fairly
straightforward.
55. I understand, Foreign Secretary, that you
and I share the same sentiments on the control of this, but there
are serious issues here which I would draw to your attention.
You may recall that during your time as Home Secretary a particular
company was brought to the attention by many of us here—Hiatts
of Birmingham—who were manufacturing these items and then
selling them elsewhere through a subsidiary in the United States,
Hiatt Thompson. I can tell you that today, despite the legislation
that your Government introduced, it is advertising on the website
that "We are great fans of Hiatt Thompson in the States.
They offer a number of unique designs. The cuffs themselves are
manufactured in England. The speciality chainwork to convert these
cuffs into manacles is added in the United States." Consequently,
the attempts by the Government so far to prevent the export of
leg-irons is singularly failing. To make matters more interesting,
I have here an invoice for purchase of these implements via the
internet from a company called Discount Handcuff, for a Hiatt
model 5000 heavy-duty nickel leg-cuff manufactured clearly in
this country, purchased in the United States for the princely
sum of $82.95 a number of months ago. At the same time these items
are on sale in Hiatts in Birmingham. I draw it to your attention,
Foreign Secretary, not to try to embarrass you, but to refresh
your memory.
(Mr Straw) My embarrassment threshold is slightly
higher than this.
56. Nevertheless, it is a very serious issue.
The legislation clearly is not working.
(Mr Straw) If you have information, Mr Chidgey—which
you do—we will examine it. I shall look at it very carefully.
In the example I gave, since I prohibited the export of the over-sized
handcuffs which could be used as leg-irons, the question of their
then being attached to chains obviously by definition cannot arise,
because we are not exporting them anyway. But I will look at the
information you have.
57. Another question from me is that in a written
answer in December of last year, the Government's statistics show
that four SIELS were issued for over-sized handcuffs during 2001.
Can you tell us how this information could be reconciled with
the six countries shown as destinations for licensed over-sized
handcuffs in the 2001 Annual Report?
(Mr Dowse) We are trying to investigate the discrepancy.
At the moment we do not have an answer. We will write and tell
you. It came as a surprise to us.
58. It is a shambles, is it not? Thank you.
(Mr Straw) Hang on a second, Mr Chidgey. With great
respect to you, I do not accept that for a second. There may be
discrepancies sometimes, but this is a very carefully administered
system, all right, and I do not think that kind of description
is at all justified. It is a complex system, complex because Parliament,
quite properly, required that it should be thorough.
Mr Chidgey: I think that when you see my evidence
you might want to change your mind.
Chairman
59. I think the important thing is that there
is discrepancy which has now appeared in the record, so if you
could let the Committee know about that, I would be very grateful.
(Mr Straw) Yes, we will let you know.
|
