---

Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said, the Serious Fraud Office decision was a difficult decision and an uncomfortable one, so it is not surprising that some of us still have to be satisfied that it was the right decision. I say at the outset that I find it difficult to be persuaded that the decision by the SFO to suspend the investigation into BAE Systems and the al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia was the right decision. I shall make and have made no allegations of unlawful activity by any company, any Government or any individual in relation to the matter. I share the concerns of my hon. and learned Friend. In the debate today and in the debate on Tanzania last week, I heard it alleged that Governments, for example, have been involved in bribery, when there is not a shred of evidence for that. However, I am slightly amused when I hear it suggested that there has never, ever been any shred of evidence that bribery and corruption have been evident in any arms deal with Saudi Arabia. I shall give one example. I saw ““Newsnight”” on 16 June 2006, when the former Defence Secretary, the noble Lord Gilmour, clearly stated that Britain bribed senior Saudi officials to secure arms contracts. Do not believe me, believe The Daily Telegraph of 17 June last year, in which Lord Gilmour was quoted as saying:"““‘You either got the business and bribed, or you didn’t bribe and didn’t get the business.’””" I am the first to say that that is not a reference about today or about recent years, but I find it strange that there are still those who deny that there has ever been anybody who has provided any significant evidence of bribery at any time in relation to al-Yamamah. If a Defence Secretary cannot be trusted—[Hon. Members: ““He was not a Defence Secretary.””] May I quote again? The Daily Telegraph refers to him as"““a former Tory defence secretary””." I will take an intervention to correct The Daily Telegraph any time.