Alleged Overseas Corruption

Part of Opposition Day — [17th allotted day] – in the House of Commons at 5:30 pm on 16 July 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Shadow Minister (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow Solicitor General, Shadow Minister (Justice), Shadow Solicitor General 5:30, 16 July 2007

That is right. The Attorney-General came to the House of Lords and said that there were two planks to the decision. On one, he had a difference of opinion with the SFO. That has come out, and more details have been provided today, for which we should be grateful.

The Liberal Democrats' motion states that

"serious damage has been done to the reputation of British business".

The issue is complicated by the fact that it is not just a case of a private company contracting with the Saudi Arabian Government. As my hon. Friend Mr. Grieve said:

"It is a relationship package at a Government-to-Government level rather than an ordinary commercial agreement."—[ Hansard, 7 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 881.]

Furthermore, it is plain that the cultural view of bribery—or shall we call it greasing the wheels?—has changed dramatically in the UK since al-Yamamah was first signed more than 20 years ago. That cultural change was represented by the 1997 OECD convention. We could spend much time looking at the nature of agency payments, but as over-generous and distasteful as those payments and the related corporate entertainment may have been, and as many good headlines as were created for the tabloid press as a result, there seems to be inadequate evidence, after much investigation, to prove that a crime was committed.

On 7 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the shadow Attorney-General, concluded that there was no evidential basis for the Attorney-General having been involved in any wrongdoing in relation to the closure of the investigation. I see no reason to change our position now, but if any additional and significant information is available, it should be handed over to the relevant authorities for consideration.

The Liberal Democrats' motion refers—their Front-Bench spokesman did not—to

"the consequences for the role of the Attorney General".

However politically convenient it may be for them to attribute blame to the Attorney-General, we believe that there is insufficient evidence to sustain such an assertion.

Moreover, the Lib Dems seem to be missing the real issue, which is that what constituted the public interest was and is cultivated not by the Attorney-General, but by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet, all of whom have been remarkably quiet on the issue. My right hon. and learned Friend Sir Malcolm Rifkind said:

"If the ultimate reason for the decision was national security, it would be for neither the SFO nor the Attorney-General but the Prime Minister to express a view on the matter. It would be the Attorney-General, reflecting the view of the Prime Minister, who would then have discussions with the SFO."—[ Hansard, 7 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 886.]

The Solicitor-General today set out some more detail from the Prime Minister's memorandum, for which we were grateful. However, I note that it has been released now rather than at an earlier stage. I feel that the Government could have been more transparent in that regard.