Proceeding contribution from Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 February 2007. It occurred during Opposition day on Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement.
Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement
Does the shadow Attorney-General acknowledge that the decision was not made on the basis that there might not be enough evidence to stack up in order to bring charges? It was made on the other ground on which prosecution investigations can be discontinued. We shall never know the answer unless we see the papers and the trail of discovery. The SFO has been charged to do this kind of work since it was set up in 1988, and its director has been in post for many years. Is it really credible that he would have committed himself and his staff to an investigation for almost three years if the basis of the crime did not exist in the first place?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 456 c884
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Air traffic control Corruption Arms trade Ministry of Defence Terrorism Serious Fraud Office USA Saudi Arabia Committee of Public Accounts al Qaeda Tanzania BAE Systems
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:08:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376824
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376824
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376824