---

Serious Fraud Office Investigation

The Liberal Democrats are grateful for the early statement following the director’s announcement, but we are not going to be nearly as welcoming about the content. Will the Solicitor-General confirm several points in relation to the burden of his statement? The first is that the inquires have not been completed—indeed, they may potentially have up to 18 months to run. The second is that the balance of probabilities test, which is always the proper test, has not yet even been applied in relation to whether there is a more than 50 per cent. chance of conviction in this case. The third is that, in a case involving a £20 million slush fund allegation in relation to a £10 billion Eurofighter contract with Saudi Arabia, the public interest judgment has been arrived at after representations by the Saudi Government to the British Government and our ambassador in Saudi Arabia, and from our ambassador, our Prime Minister, our Foreign Secretary and our Secretary of State for Defence to Law Officers and the Serious Fraud Office. The director of the Serious Fraud Office is having to balance the public interest within hours or days of the most heavy pressure and advice from a foreign Government, as well as from the head of the Administration in the United Kingdom. Given that Parliament, led by the Prime Minister, said how important it was that we passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to ban international bribery and corruption, is not the predominant justification for a decision that the rule of law needs to follow that Act’s implications and intentions? Even if it would have been difficult to go back before 2001 and 2002, when the Act came into force, should not all activities since 2002, at the latest, be investigated to a conclusion? That would give confidence that when we vote for something and say something in this Parliament, we mean it and we do not change our minds when there are suddenly political difficulties. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that there was an ultimatum from the Saudi Government, that they mentioned 10 days for us to make a decision and call off the investigation, that they told us that if we did not, they would not continue with conversations—indeed that they have stopped talks already—and that the British Government are clearly influenced by the fact that the French want to compete for the contract? Lastly, whatever the answers to those detailed questions, is not the truth that the balance between the rule of law and the public interest—in a country where we have already made one recent decision that is arguably against the rule of law: to invade a foreign country—must be that we stand by the rule of law and that our defence industry stands by it so that it is not just seen to be acting without corruption, but is in no way able to be suspected of acting with corruption? The best principle for British foreign policy and defence policy is that we act according to the rule of law, and that investigators investigate to a conclusion and are allowed to make an unpressured decision about whether a company, however important—and however important our international interest—has broken the law. Is that not the key point and have not the Government clearly failed on that today?