Police use of Tasers - Home Affairs Committee Contents


2 Our Inquiry

The reasons for the revocation of the Section 5 authority

8. The Minister for Crime Prevention, James Brokenshire, told us that there were two reasons why Pro-Tect Systems had had its authority revoked. It had supplied the X12 Tasers and XREP ammunition to Northumbria Police and Lincolnshire Police, which it was not authorised to do—its authority only allowed it to supply these items to the Home Office Scientific Development Branch. Pro-Tect Systems also failed to transport the Tasers under the strict conditions set down by its authority.[7] Kevin Coles told us that the X12 shotgun had previously been supplied to Lincolnshire Police 'for the National Policing Improvement Agency to train, show and exhibit.'[8] He went on to suggest that the breaches were inadvertent:

We thought the original section 5 authority we had covered us for all Taser devices, and we had letters that reinforced that from the Americans that 'Taser' is a generic word—not unlike 'Hoover' for vacuum cleaners—that covers all sorts of devices within their scope.[9]

Mr Coles told us that although he did not think there was "anything wrong" [10] in the supply, the breaches in transportation had, in his view, prompted the revocation.[11] It was not only the supplier who was oblivious to the necessary procedure—a police agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency, purchased an X12 Taser and XREP bullets, albeit for training purposes, apparently unaware that the weapon was 'unauthorised' for sale to anyone except the Home Office Scientific Development Branch, rather than just being 'unauthorised' for general use by police forces in England and Wales.

9. We were concerned by the confusion of the witness as to the parameters of the Section 5 authority and the fact that the National Policing Improvement Agency, a police agency, had purchased what was considered to be an 'unauthorised' weapon. We recommend that the parameters of the Section 5 authority be clarified by the Home Office for all police forces, related agencies and the new authority-holder, Tactical Safety Responses Ltd (TSR). We seek confirmation from the Home Office that the National Policing Improvement Agency are now fully familiar with the relevant legal framework regarding the supply of weapons and that its successor body will be appropriately conversant with the restrictions. However, we note that the Home Office has taken steps to ensure compliance with the section 5 authority and are pleased to note that the relevant Home Office directorate will be monitoring the situation closely.

The link between Pro-Tect Systems Ltd and Tactical Safety Responses Ltd

10. During the evidence session, we were surprised to discover how close links were between the company that had been newly authorised to sell Taser weapons, Tactical Safety Responses Ltd, and the company that had previously held the authority, Pro-Tect Systems Ltd. The Home Office later clarified the exact nature of these links in supplementary evidence.

TSR [Tactical Safety Responses Ltd] has four personnel, all of whom were employed by Pro-Tect Systems Limited. Two of them are directors of the new company and the other two will be employees. None of them were directors of Pro-Tect nor did they hold any position of control within Pro-Tect.[12]

The Home Office further confirmed that

TSR [Tactical Safety Responses Ltd] have indicated that they want to make use of the remaining Pro-Tect Director, Kevin Coles, on a consultancy basis, for business continuity purposes. The section 5 authority granted to TSR is clearly conditioned to require that, in any such arrangement, the Pro-Tect Director must never have possession of prohibited weapons and, in particular, he must not have the power to authorise or direct the supply of prohibited weapons. The new company leases premises from Pro-Tect, which is continuing in business by supplying non-weapon taser products, such as clothing.[13]

When questioned as to why the Home Office had not authorised an alternative supplier, Graham Widdecombe, Head of Firearms in the Home Office's Policing Directorate, responded: "That was certainly something we did think very carefully about. Ultimately, we're not the people who appoint. It's for Taser International."[14] Christian Papaleontiou, Head of the Armed Policing and Less-lethal Weapons Section at the Home Office, later reiterated: "The process is that [the choice of a UK supplier] is a commercial decision for Taser International. That is a fact of law."[15] We continued to voice misgivings regarding the situation, leading Mr Widdecombe to concede: "We do understand the concerns of the Committee. Discussions were held with Taser International, and it was suggested that they might want to look in the longer term more widely."[16] The Home Office also stressed that the new authority, for Tactical Safety Response Ltd, would last for six months rather than the three years for which section 5 authorities are usually valid.

11. We were surprised that Home Office officials could so readily satisfy themselves that a company composed of more or less identical personnel operating in the same premises with a near-duplicate website would be a fit body to distribute this equipment when its predecessors had been judged unfit to conduct such business. The response by the Home Office, in this regard, seems to have been pusillanimous.

12. We are perturbed by a turn of events which has led to the new supplier of Tasers to police forces in England and Wales being so closely involved with the previous supplier that it leases premises from it and is staffed exclusively by former employees of that previous supplier. The circumstances surrounding TSR's selection as the sole supplier of Taser weaponry to police forces in England and Wales leads us to conclude—either 1) the Home Office has been forced, through the business model of a foreign national company, into authorising a new supplier whose links to the previous supplier ought to have precluded it from consideration; or 2) the transgressions made by Mr Boatman can be regarded as his alone and therefore not the responsibility of Pro-Tect Systems, bringing into question the decision to revoke the authority of Pro-Tect Systems to supply this equipment. The only other possibility is that the Home Office was simply not aware of the extent of the links between the two firms which would imply a serious failure of due diligence in the authorisation process. This would also call into question the decision of the Home Office to accept the wish of the supplier to use only one UK distributor.

Monopoly Supply

13. One of the main concerns which arose during our oral evidence session was the fact that Pro-Tect Systems Ltd had been a monopoly supplier, a business model which is preferred by Taser International Inc. The current supplier, Tactical Safety Responses Ltd (TSR), is also a monopoly supplier.

14. Whilst the monopoly of distribution may be a commercial preference of the manufacturer, we consider that such a model is not appropriate for police procurement even if there are marginal advantages in respect of control and monitoring.[17] The issue of a sole supplier was initially highlighted as a problem by ACPO in their report on the 2007-08 Taser trial.

A point to consider for the future development of Taser within the UK police service is the potential risk of having a sole supplier. This problem is exacerbated when all forces have separate commercial dealings with Taser UK. Taser UK holds the license to supply Taser issued by Taser International. At this time there is no apparent competition within this area of less lethal technology although another weapon is currently being reviewed by [Home Office Scientific Development Branch]. It is suggested that a national contract to supply Taser is organised to ensure that all forces benefit from logistic and procurement savings. The costs of the weapon and ancillary items appear to be fixed and bulk procurement savings for items is not available at this time.[18]

A sole supplier arrangement prevents competition and has led to a situation where the revocation of that sole supplier's authority meant that police forces in England and Wales faced running out of stock. It also raises questions as to why potential monopoly profits are given to a particular company or group of individuals.

15. The monopoly supplier business model preferred by Taser International is unacceptable—we consider that such a model is partially responsible for the unsatisfactory procurement situation and may have caused the Home Office to act precipitously when granting a section 5 authority to the new supplier, TSR. We intend to examine police procurement in a forthcoming inquiry but in the interim would strongly urge the Home Office to examine options to require a competitive bidding process to ensure that any police procurement process is subject to competition.


7   Letter from James Brokenshire to Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, 28 September 2010, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/parliamentary-business/taser-letter?view=Html  Back

8   Q5 Back

9   Q3 Back

10   Q2 Back

11   Q2 Back

12   Ev 25 Back

13   Ibid Back

14   Q 185 Back

15   Q188 Back

16   Q189 Back

17   Q 200 Back

18   ACPO Strategic Firearms & Conflict Management Taser Trial by Specially Trained Units (STUs), 20 November 2008, p11  Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 7 March 2011