Responses to Quadripartite Committee Questions
asked by letter of 5 March 2003
PART 1
***
7. SIEL No 23713 (Unfinished products
for large calibre artillery ammunition). Assessment made of threat
to regional stability posed by export of goods under this licence.
Would large calibre artillery ammunition of this sort have been
licensed for export in finished form?
As the Government made clear in its response
to the Quadripartite Committee in October 2002, criterion four
(the preservation of regional peace, security and stability) has
been a key factor in export licensing decisions for India and
Pakistan. The Government did not approve any licences for exports
where we judged there to have been a "clear risk" that
either country would use such exports aggressively against each
other.
The Government cannot make hypothetical assessments
on hypothetical applications. However, the Government does consider
components in the same way as it would the complete article.
***
PART 2
***
4. An explanation of what the Government
means when it writes of "handcuffs being used as manacles"—what
is the difference between the use of handcuffs as handcuffs and
as manacles?
The concern is where handcuffs are used to tie
ankles, which we oppose.
5. In a written answer of 3 December
2002 (Hansard, col 686W), the Government's statistics show that
four SIELs were issued for over-sized handcuffs during 2001. How
is this information to be reconciled with the six countries shown
as destinations for licensed over-sized handcuffs in the 2001
annual report.
The DTI has now written to Mr David Chidgey
MP correcting the discrepancy between the figures published in
the 2001 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls and its response
to his Parliamentary Question. A copy of the letter (attached)
has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
***
24 March 2003
| 
