Corruption is, sadly, unregulated

Bribery is a habit that many major British arms companies indulge in, but few are prepared to talk about in public - a bit like middle-aged married men masturbating while their wives are out. If you are caught doing the latter, though, I would recommend that you don't use the excuse: "Well, if I didn't do it, someone else would." Not unless you want to end up on the window ledge of Buckingham Palace in a Batman costume, asking David Blunkett to make room for one more.

The main difference between the two practices is that one of them is wrong. Or, if I can rephrase that to avoid confusion among strict Catholics and Taliban supporters: one of the two practices is illegal. One of them is also supported by Patricia Hewitt at the Department of Trade and Industry. Can you guess which?

Britain has long dragged its feet on combating bribery. When BAE Systems was caught pumping large sums of money into a Jersey bank account belonging to the foreign minister of Qatar, around the same time as it was striking an arms deal with Qatar, the company said it had done nothing illegal. This may be true. It became illegal for UK firms to use bribery abroad in 2002, when the OECD's anti-corruption working group started to mutter about imposing economic sanctions on the UK.

Trying to prevent bribery in some UK companies is a Herculean task. And nowhere is the shit piled so high against the Augean stable doors than at the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which is under Hewitt's DTI. The ECGD provides underwriting (insurance) for UK businesses supplying goods, such as arms and power stations, in medium- to high-risk markets such as Nigeria, Indonesia and India. You'd have to be the kind of person that appears in Heat magazine pretty regularly not to connect the words "arms" and "Indonesia" with possible backhanders. Yet, for years, the ECGD has merrily used public money to back what were in fact bent deals, and has successfully investigated none.

So hopes were raised in March when the ECGD wrote to its corporate customers to inform them that "enhanced provisions in respect of bribery and corruption" were to be issued. The new measures, it said, were a "balanced package . . . to the ultimate benefit of all UK companies". So were the bastions of British corporate integrity such as the Confederation of British Industry happy with the changes? Apparently not, as minutes from the ECGD's advisory committee state that the revised procedures were "not... well received by major customers".

So the ECGD, not wishing to upset its customers, embarked on a major consultation, solely with big business, and promptly issued new, watered-down guidelines. Let's call these "probity lite".

Under "probity lite", companies that get ECGD backing do not have to supply the names and addresses of any commission agents they use if they deem the information commercially confidential. Yet commission agents are the most obvious conduit for bribes. In the case of the 1996 Alvis deal, backed by the ECGD, to supply tanks to Indonesia, the commission agent happened to be the daughter of that country's president. In the Rolls-Royce deal for the Godavari power station in India, which was also backed by the ECGD, the commission agents happened to be owned by the managing director of the power station responsible for awarding the contract.

Under the "probity lite" regulations, neither of these cases would have been exposed. The regulations require the ECGD to write to any firm it suspects of financial wrongdoing before it carries out an inspection. So, in effect, a briber will get a note saying: "Hide the evidence; you have five days." How would this work in other areas of law-breaking? Perhaps the police could send notes to crack dealers, saying: "The sniffer dog has a cold at the moment, so we'll pop round later looking for drugs."

The list of changes to the original procedures is well documented in papers prepared by the Corner House, an anti-corruption NGO, which is taking the ECGD to judicial review in the next few weeks.

The ECGD did not invite either the Corner House or Transparency International, another anti-corruption body, to any meetings during its "extensive" consultations on the regulations. Yet it managed eight meetings with the Society of British Aerospace Companies, the British Exporters Association, the British Bankers' Association and the CBI.

That may seem unbalanced enough, but at least none of those bodies had itself been accused of corruption. By contrast, the Serious Fraud Office is investigating allegations that BAE Systems bribed Saudi Arabia's defence procurement minister Prince Turki bin Nasser. BAE Systems attended six of the meetings, as did Rolls-Royce. Airbus, 20 per cent owned by BAE, attended five. It is not recorded if ECGD officials checked their watches and wallets after the sessions.

Why are torture items for sale on a UK website?

Several papers noted a report in the Police Review (5 November) of a couple who seem to have an exemplary relationship of trust and excitement. A former police officer and director of a company called Pro-Tect Systems (specialists in Tasers, or stun guns), Peter Boatman, addressed a conference on health and safety earlier this year. He was reported as saying to the gathering that he was sure Tasers were safe as he had tried them out not just on himself but on his wife, too.

Now, I am sure that many readers may have heard the words, "Darling, I think we should try something new". But I'm reasonably sure that none of you have then heard the words, "I think we should experiment with short bursts of electrocution."

I assume the electrocution of Mrs Boatman probably took place within the confines of a company registered with a Section Five firearms licence. It couldn't have taken place in the couple's bedroom, for example, as this could be a breach of the law. Electrocuting one's spouse for business or pleasure has to be construed as a bizarre act. Let us just be thankful that Pro-Tect Systems don't have a "bring your children to work" day.

The injury and distress caused by the use of Tasers has been well documented by Amnesty International. The use and sale of the electro-shock batons should be of equal concern. Amnesty has described them as "the universal tool of the torturer", as they cause extreme pain and leave no tell-tale marks. The export of electro-shock batons from the UK has been banned since 1997.

In 1998, Scotland Yard found a loophole through which British businesses could trade in these illegal goods. After an 18-month inquiry into the sale of torture equipment by a businessman called David Knights, the Crown Prosecution Service decided it could not prosecute because he had brokered the deal. The weapons had been purchased in the US and shipped to Cyprus and were not, therefore, imported through the UK. As long as the "goods" didn't touch British soil, it was entirely legal for UK plc to flog them. And flog them it did.

Indeed, British Aerospace (now BAE Systems), the MoD's arms dealer of choice, even went so far as to give away an electro-shock baton as a free gift during negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Gosh, don't we all know how hard it is to shop for Saudi royalty: what do you give a man who has everything? Torture equipment, sweetie, that's what: the gift that keeps on giving.

In 2002, the Export Control Bill was passed. This banned the brokering of items such as stun batons and stun guns. In May 2004, with the completion of the secondary legislation, it became law. UK businesses can now no longer broker torture equipment. So imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon the website of TLT International, a UK company based at 55 Vesta Rd, London SE4, which advertises stun batons and stun guns. Under pictures of the equipment, the site says, "This is a manufacturers' outlet", presumably in an attempt to distance TLT International from the manufacturer.

The products have the trade name "Security Guard", the same name the Korean Han Seung Electronics Ind Corp uses. The site goes on to say, "Please make inquiries". Most people would be forgiven for imagining that this website was in the business of promoting and/or assisting the sale of torture equipment. In fact, you couldn't be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Has the company broken the law, though? The Department of Trade and Industry has stated that, under the Trade in Goods (Control) Order 2003, "a person may not [without licence] . . . do any act calculated to promote the supply or delivery of 'restricted goods'". It goes on to say: "Advertising activities in the UK . . . that promote the movement of restricted goods from one third country to another third country would require a UK trade licence." Which would suggest that TLT International might well have broken the law. However, Roger Berry MP, chairman of the Quadripartite Committee (which examines arms licensing), said after viewing the site: "If this is not illegal, it should be. If the company facilitates the transaction of weapons of torture, it is in breach of the law."

The address is www.tltinternational.com/stun_gun.htm: go and have a look, and make up your own mind.

The matter is with Customs and Excise, and it remains to be seen if it will investigate. Human rights campaigners and MPs will await the outcome with interest. Many have argued that the government has failed to close down arms brokerage fully, since legislation applies only to torture equipment, long-range missiles and WMD, and not to the many other goodies churned out by the arms industry.

TLT International might just show us how effective the laws created in the past two years really are.