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
| 
