§ Ann ClwydTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the company that was responsible for 553W handling, storing and distributing the electro-shock batons that were trans-shipped from the United States to Saudi Arabia via the United Kingdom under the 1993 trans-shipment licence granted by the Department of Trade and Industry had been issued with the relevant licences under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968; [68190]
(2) if the companies that were granted export licences by the Department of Trade and Industry for the export of electro-shock batons from the United Kingdom between 1989 and 1994 had been granted the relevant licence under section 5 of the Firearms Act to (a) handle, (b) store, (c) distribute and (d) manufacture such weapons; [68191]
(3) what actions his Department has taken against (a) companies and (b) individuals that were not in possession of the relevant firearms licences for the handling, storage, distribution or manufacture of electro-shock batons. [68240]
§ Mr. BoatengTwo of the four companies in question had authority to deal in weapons prohibited by section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, which would include electro-shock weapons as well as other types of weapons capable of discharging a noxious liquid, gas or other things. The other two companies, one of which was the company granted the trans-shipment licence, did not have such authority.
The investigation of possible offences under the Firearms Acts is a matter for the police, who will consider whether there are grounds to bring criminal charges. The decision as to whether or not to prosecute in an individual case rests with the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Office have no powers to intervene. However, information about the two companies that did not have authority to deal in prohibited weapons was forwarded by the Home Office to the relevant police forces for their consideration. I understand that, in both cases, the police have decided to take no further action.