§ Mr. Tony LloydTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) the UN and (b) its agencies in respect of the involvement of UK companies in (i) transporting arms, (ii) selling arms and (iii) facilitating arms sales to (1) Rwanda and (2) exiled Rwandans; when he received these; and if he will make a statement. [5496]
§ Mr. OppenheimThe report of the UN International Commission on Rwanda claims that letters dated 30 November 1995, 18 December 1995 and 26 August 1996—the last letter recalled the two earlier ones—were sent by the UN International Commission to Customs and no response had been received. These letters were not received by Customs.
Customs did, however, have a meeting with Commission officials on 10 January 1996 and received written communication both from UN International Tribunal in Rwanda, on 21 March 1996, and from the UN International Commission, 12 September 1996. In these 435W contacts, the UN requested information from Customs about arms supplies to Rwanda and exiled Rwandans. Customs investigators responded to these UN requests.
More recently, Customs obtained from the UN copies of the letters dated 30 November 1995 and 18 December 1995. The information requested by the UN in these letters was, in fact, provided by Customs investigators to UN officials in their meeting of 10 January 1996.
The UN Commission has recently expressed complete satisfaction with the co-operation received.
§ Mr. LloydTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations have been instigated with regard to Mil-Tec Corporation Ltd. in connection with armaments whose final destination was Rwanda or Zaire. [5299]
§ Mr. Oppenheim[holding answer 21 November 1996]Customs is aware of the current allegations and will take appropriate action in the light of its assessment of information obtained.
It is not, however, Customs general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of any investigations of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences since to do so could risk prejudicing any on-going inquiries or future criminal proceedings.