BBC
Newsnight
transcript: Feb 16, 2010
Thailand
bans GT200 ‘bomb’ detector – but it’s STILL being sold
(Try the English
first. Then, for Thai version go here or here. For CNN report, go here.)
Presenter: Well, the Prime Minister of Thailand today ordered his government to stop buying a British bomb detector after tests proved it was ineffective. It follows an investigation by this programme last month after which the British government banned exports of such devices to as Iraq and Afghanistan. The Foreign Office is concerned they might pose a risk to UK or friendly forces.
The serious questions are now being raised about why the British government didn’t act sooner to stop them from being sold at all.
Caroline Hawley reports:
It’s used by the Thai army to search for bombs. 4,000 people have been killed in southern Thailand since the Muslim insurgency began in 2004. So lives depend on it.
After our investigation last month amid a growing clamour of concern, the Thai prime minister ordered tests on this so-called bomb detector know as the GT200.
Today, he announced the results. The device had performed so badly, he banned the purchase of any more. The authorities are reported to have spent over 20 million dollars on the device, at an average price of 30 thousand each.
For the man who sells the GT200 it’s been a winner. And it’s clearly helped Gary Bolton to a certain life style (that) he’s been keen to show off to his Internet friends. He’s declined to speak to us and through his lawyers (?) has threatened to sue if we suggest his device has cost lives.
This is the GT200 in the hands of an expert. Sidney Alford is a leading authority on explosives and last month, he took one of the devices apart for us.
CH: “So there is nothing in there that could detect a bomb that could possible work.”
SA: “Speaking as a professional, I would say that was an empty plastic case.”
Newsnight learned that Gary Bolton tried to sell an almost identical, now discredited, device called the MOLE to the British authorities. In 2002 it was tested for use as a drug detector at Heathrow, but it failed to find a sample of cocaine from less than a metre away. The UK authorities decided against buying it.
“I’m going to try to keep it steady and I’m going to walk over here.”
The Professor who’s helped expose this devices was astonished.
Professor Brue Hood, Bristol University: “What I find remarkable about this whole episode is that this company tried to sell this piece of equipment to the authorities in this country almost 10 years ago.”
The MOLE was scientifically tested in 2002 in the USA and found not to work.
BH: “It was evaluated and shown to be nothing more than the dousing rod. Now what makes this unacceptable is that at that point someone should have stepped in and shut this operation down, but instead, this company was allowed to go to other countries and exploit the naivety of these people and sell pieces of basically plastic with a car aerial sticking out of it as legitimate scientific equipment which it clearly isn’t.”
So, when did the British authorities become aware of concerns about so-called bomb detectors like the GT200 and the similar ADE 651 widely sold to Iraq?
We’ve seen an internal e-mail from 2005 to customs which refers to the ADE 651 as “sounding like witchcraft” and it’s emerged that the chair of the Commons Defense Select Committee James Arbufnaut (sp?) wrote to the Defense Procurement Minister Quentin Davis in January 2009. He expressed concerns about the way the GT200 was being marketed with suggestions it was backed by the British military.
In May, Quentin Davis replied: “I am grateful to you for drawing this to my attention and enabling us to investigate this matter. I should first explain that GT200 is not in service with our armed forces, nor has it ever been. Whilst the MOD is aware of GT200 it has not been considered to satisfy any of the capabilities we need.”
We contacted the Ministry of Defense who told us it wasn’t for them to take action, that they passed the matter on to the Foreign Office. Tonight the Foreign Office told us they started monitoring the sale and use of these types of device when they became aware of concerns in March 2009.
But it wasn’t until late last month that the government banned the export of the devices to Iraq and Afghanistan. And it was only 11 days ago that governments world-wide were advised of British concerns.
But the ADE 651 is still in use at checkpoints in Baghdad.
“They should be banned,” this man says. “It looks as though they’re giving the bombers a green light to pass. It makes it easy for them to go undetected. I think it’s wrong, but I also think that some of those who made the deal have benefitted from it.”
The man behind the ADE 651, Jim McCormick, was arrested on January 5 by Avon and Somerset police. A shipment of his devices was stopped at East Midlands airport late last year. But both the ADE 651 and the GT200 have been sold around the world, everywhere from China to Mexico, Kenya to Lebanon and Pakistan. They’ve been marketing as detecting everything from explosives to elephants and drugs and they’re still being used despite the risks that they pose.
Presenter: Carolyn Hawley. I’m joined now by the Liberal Democrat MP David Heath who has raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions.
David Heath, explain why there can be a ban on exports to Afghanistan and Iraq but nowhere else.
DH: Well, I’m not sure I understand it myself. I have to say that the pretext the government are using is because British forces might directly be at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan which I think begs the question of what in Earth is happen in the rest of the world where these devices are being sold.
P: Of course, it makes it exactly like that we only care about British and American lives.
DH: Precisely so, but I mean, even if that were the case, even if that was a reasonable position to take, I have to say that there are British tourists travelling through Thai airports on a daily basis or any of the other countries that these are being sold and they are at risk as long as this is the detection devise that is being used to detect explosives and counter terrorism.
P: We know, of course, that Thailand was alerted by our programme last month, but, as Carolyn Hawley said, Kenya, you know, China, Pakistan of all places, Lebanon, Mexico – Have you actually done anything beyond the government that is only now alerting these countries, but why was this not happening last year when Quentin Davis received that letter?
DH: Precisely so. I
mean what has now emerged, and it
answers one of my questions, my first question is weren’t the
government even
interested in this. And we now know that the Ministry of Defense
actually knew
from January 2009, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office knew from March
2009, it
seems as though nobody told the business department who were actually
responsible
for licensing exports until your programme came out and they put in the
export
ban.
But it really does raise I think serious questions about why people were so incurious about a device which purportedly providing protection both for civilians in those countries but also for British forces, why nothing was done to try to stop this at the earliest opportunity and why other countries were not warned that these devices were, quite apparently, useless in protecting the public.
P: So what do you say to people who say actually all you’re doing is stifling British exports.
DH: Oh come on. I mean, yes, we want to promote British exports but we don’t want people to be given bomb detectors that don’t work. In the present climate around the world, this is outrageous, isn’t it?
P: So, what are you going to do about it?
DH: We’ll I’m going to keep on asking questions. I’m going to keep on asking questions until I get some answers. And, I have to say, I do not accept the argument that the present arrangements for export controls can only work as far as Iraq and Afghanistan is concern. You know, these are what I would term, “dual-use” exports – they have a military function as well as a civil function. I would have expected them to be within the export control operation already.
P: So the export control, because the export control apparatus only exists for military …
DH: Military, or dual use
P: or dual use, so as long as it’s dual use, you say, actually there could be a complete export ban.
DH: I think there could be. That’s the question I want to ask and I want the government to explain why one department is not talking to another department and why none of them, apparently, saw that there was both a practical reason for warning other governments and a moral reason for doing so as well.
David Heath, thank you very much.