---

Serious Fraud Office Investigation

Let me say that the issue was national security—our national security—and our foreign policy objectives and the extent to which those might be damaged as a result of the continuation of the investigation, rather than, as I made clear in my statement, relations with another country. The issue was our national security and the extent to which it depends on these matters. It is appropriate under the 1951 so-called Shawcross convention, in a Shawcross exercise, for the Attorney-General to obtain the views of other Ministers on a decision such as this. I have taken the trouble to ensure that I have in front of me the classic statement of that convention, made by the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in 1951. He said that"““the true doctrine is that it is the duty of an Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to authorise the prosecution, to acquaint himself with all the relevant facts, including, for instance, the effect which the prosecution…would have upon public morale and order, and with any other consideration affecting public policy.""In order so to inform himself, he may…consult with any of his colleagues in the Government and indeed…he would in some cases be a fool if he did not.… The responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the Attorney-General, and he is not to be put, and is not put, under pressure by his colleagues in the matter.””" I confirm in relation to informing the director any representations that he was able to be aware of the representations that were received. When he made the decision, he saw the written representations himself. He was able to take a view, without undue pressure. He formed a view, quite properly, and he expressed that view. He reflected on it overnight and he confirmed that it remained his view. The Attorney-General and I had, in the meantime, formed a view that was the same, or broadly the same. Therefore, the decision-making process was conducted entirely properly.