---

Serious Fraud Office Investigation

First, I thank the Solicitor-General for the promptness with which the statement has been made to Parliament and also for having given me an advance copy of what the Attorney-General was going to say in the House of Lords, which has been repeated here. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that the decision to discontinue the investigation was made by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and not by anybody else? Secondly, can he amplify a little on the way in which the phases in the investigation were divided. In particular, will he explain a little more the impact of any investigation in so far as it related to events before the passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? As I understand what he has said, it is effectively that no criminal offence would have been committed prior to the coming into force of that Act in any event. As to phases 2 and 3 of the investigation, which the Solicitor-General identified, will he amplify or make it clear that the obstacles to a successful prosecution lie, as I understand his statement, in the nature of the case itself rather than in any public interest considerations—a matter on which he placed considerable emphasis? Will he also reassure the House that in so far as public interest considerations have been taken into account, it is the director of the SFO himself who has taken them into consideration in coming to his overall decision? Finally, the Solicitor-General will be aware—he has made it clear—that the company and individual deny any wrongdoing, yet it is clear from the occurrence of the investigation and the Solicitor-General’s points that there appears to be a potentially difficult area of interpretation—let me put it that way—of what may fall inside or outside the scope of criminality as determined by Parliament’s passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. If it is to be clear in future what is in conformity with the law and what is not, will the Government look carefully into providing guidelines or other explanations so that the sort of problem that may have arisen post-2001 does not occur again? If it does occur again, it must be quite clear to any company or any individual transgressing the Act that prosecution will follow.