---

Quadripartite Committee Reports

: The items concerned are missiles with a range of 300 km and more, and torture equipment. The answer to the question of how trafficking and brokering are defined is that they are not defined in the legislation at all. They are instead defined by particular types of transactions taking place in particular places. The details are to be found in article 3(2) of the Trade in Goods (Control) Order 2003. That is the ambit of what in broad terms we call trafficking and brokering, but the legislation provides no such definition. It defines the activities simply by categories of transaction. As to the particular designation of the items that are caught, those are found in two separate places. The missiles are defined in the schedule to the order to which I have referred, under the heading ““Certain Missiles””, as:"““Missiles capable of a range of 300km or more, and specially designed components therefor””" The pointer to where to find the other items, the so-called torture equipment—and again torture is not defined anywhere—first appears in the same schedule, under the heading"““Certain Security and Para-Military Police Equipment””." The reader is then referred to:"““Any good falling within paragraph c. or g. of PL5001 in Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003.””" It may be helpful, certainly to me, to turn to that order—statutory instrument No. 2764 of 2003—in which PL5001 in schedule 1 is headed:"““Other security and para-military police ‘goods', as follows””." Torture equipment is specified in paragraph c, which states:"““Restraints specially designed for restraining human beings, as follows:""1. Leg-irons;""2. Gangchains;""3. Electric-shock belts;""4. Individual cuffs””." Details of their dimensions are then given. Paragraphs c5 and c6 list various types of shackles, and paragraph g states:"““Portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self-protection by the administration of an electric shock (e.g., electric-shock batons, electric-shock shields, stun-guns and electric-shock dart-guns (tasers)) and components therefor specially designed or modified for such a purpose.””" I wanted to read out those details because they support and illustrate a point that the hon. Member for Kingswood made and that I also wish to come to. On policy, in the extensive evidence that we took from the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State for Health, I never understood why she took the groundbreaking step of extending extraterritoriality and accepting the principle of doing so, but then made such a mess of implementing the statutory instrument. Why was it necessary to accept the principle and then entirely miss the main weapons and equipment that are the subject of trafficking and brokering? To this day, I have not understood why she adopted the policy that she did and then walked—very predictably—into strong criticism from our Committee and outside organisations, such as NGOs and now even the Defence Manufacturers Association. Indeed, in the latest evidence that it gave the Committee, the association recognised that the current policy does not make much sense to its members as legal, legitimate sellers of arms of one sort or another. They are carrying out legitimate business, but are in danger of having their entire industry tainted by the activities of those acting outside the law. Whatever the reasons for the Government arriving at the current, pretty ludicrous policy, it does not stack up. Let us first take missiles. I am not aware of any UK person being involved outside the UK in the trafficking or brokering of missiles of a range of 300 km or more. If someone has done so, they have kept it quiet, but I fancy that it would have come into the public domain long before now. I am not advocating removing that category of weapon, but the likelihood of such a thing happening is very small indeed, and I am not aware of any such case. However, I stress that I do not want that category removed. The issue is different with torture equipment. I have sympathy with the Government and acknowledge the difficulties. It is impossible in reality to produce a list of every item that could conceivably be used for the purposes of torture. I acknowledge that straight away, and I note that the Minister is nodding. The Government have done their best; they could probably widen the list somewhat further, but they have come up with a reasonable first stab. However, it is illusory to imagine that it will ever be possible to come up with a comprehensive list of items that could be used to inflict pain. The hon. Member for Kingswood referred to the items that had been brought to him by students. Indeed, one of the witnesses who came before our Committee just a few months ago illustrated his point by bringing a pair of thumb cuffs, with extremely nasty serrated edges. They were passed round for the members to have a look at and see for themselves the kind of items that are readily available but not within the ambit of the statutory instrument to which I have drawn attention. I acknowledge that the issue of torture equipment is difficult, but the key failure is that the overwhelming bulk of trafficking and brokering is of items that are completely outside the ambit of the legislation that the Government have introduced. Those items are small arms, light weapons, automatic weapons and weapons that are man portable—man portable missiles and man portable rockets. Such items are overwhelmingly the subject of this extremely dangerous trade, but there is no mention of them whatever in the secondary legislation. I remind the Minister of how relatively easy it is for traffickers and brokers to get such weapons, making them available in areas of conflict, where they could conceivably be used against our own forces and against innocent civilians all around the world. An absolutely outstanding piece of investigative journalism was published on the front page of The Sunday Times on 8 May 2005, under the heading ““Radiation rockets on sale to ‘terrorists'””. I do not want to gloss the piece; I shall read out just the opening sentences, because they indicate in a compelling way how the existing legislation is so inadequate:"““Three radioactive rockets capable of contaminating a city centre were offered for sale last week to a Sunday Times reporter posing as a middleman for Islamic terrorists.""The Alazan rockets, which have a range of eight miles, were among 50,000 tons of weapons left behind at an arms dump in the breakaway eastern European republic of Transdniester””—" that is part of Moldova—"““when the Russian army withdrew after the cold war.""They were offered to the reporter for $500,000 . . . after he approached a senior officer in Transdniester's secret police, claiming to represent a militant group in Algeria. The officer contacted a local arms dealer who arranged meetings with the reporter on a bridge in Transdniester and later at a hotel in neighbouring Moldova.""At their first meeting two months ago, the dealer said the price of a single rocket would be $200,000.””" As an indication that the people in the business are providing guarantees of death with their items, the article continued:"““The rocket could be independently inspected with a Geiger counter to verify that its warhead contained radioactive strontium and caesium””." That story has been wholly corroborated. The Quadripartite Committee pursued it with the Government, and asked them to respond to the report. I felt that their reply was completely unsatisfactory. It began:"““We are concerned by reports of illicit arms sales involving Transdniester””," and went on to make comments about trying to tighten up the border between Moldova and Transdniester. I put it to the Minister that, given that we have evidence of how easy it is to get hold of radiation rockets with a huge capacity to inflict death and long-term radiation sickness, to state:"““We are concerned by reports of illicit arms sales involving Transdniester””" seems a grossly mild response.