Downing Street Says » al-Yamamah contract

The Leader was asked why the present government was so reluctant to admit to the activities of Saudi princes. Mr Straw responded by saying that he did not recognise the descriptive term used by the journalist. The issue had been raised with him on two occasions during Business Questions earlier. He had responded by repeating what the Prime Minister had said this morning, that he would not comment on individual allegations.

Mr Straw said that, after quoting the Prime Minister’s words, he had referred to what Mr Justice Collins had stated in a judgement, issued on May 29 and published this week, in respect of an application for judicial review of the decision to suspend the Serious Fraud Office investigation. The judge had said that case that the applicants had put was "unarguable" and had gone on to say that "it is clear that national security must always prevail and no State could be expected to take action which jeopardises the security of the State or the lives of its citizens."

The Leader pointed out that he had told the House there was a danger of withdrawal of national security co-operation by the Saudis, and that the Prime Minister, as had the Attorney General and the Solicitor General last December, had made clear that that was the reason for the decision.

Asked if it was his understanding that it had been a statement of principle irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations, Mr Straw said it had related to the specific case and circumstances. In addition, he had also told an MP during Business Questions that "we vitally need – and have received – co-operation from, amongst others, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia" in respect of the serious terrorist threat facing the UK. The Prime Minister had been right not to jeopardise that, and now had the endorsement of a High Court judge for that decision.

Pressed to explain what he had meant when he had told the House "that we will look for an opportunity" to give clarification, Mr Straw said that had referred to an MP’s query whether the Serious Fraud Office had come to a conclusion, one way or another, about the remaining investigations. The Leader said that, after Business Questions, he took up issues with relevant departments where necessary. In this case, he would draw it to the Attorney’s notice, for him in turn to draw it to the attention of the SFO. It was not a government decision.

Asked if the Government’s response was not leaden-footed, Mr Straw disagreed with the suggestion. He thought that, in the circumstances of the Attorney’s decision and statement last December, based on what the Prime Minister had said, the Government’s response today was appropriate. He again referred to Mr Justice Collins. Mr Straw said he suspected that, had the judgement gone the other way, it would have received rather more media coverage than it had done.

The Leader was asked if he was satisfied that "nothing illegal" had happened. He said that was not a judgement for him, but he could refer to the Attorney’s statement in December, when he had stated – to paraphrase – that, even had the SFO investigation continued further, it was unlikely that the evidential tests would have been satisfied.

In response to a further question, Mr Straw said he had not seen the National Audit Office report on the contract. It was perfectly normal for some NAO reports, relating to matters of great sensitivity – in this case, national security – not to be published. Under Freedom of Information law, there was also complete exemption for the work of the agencies and a qualified exemption in respect of other national security considerations. Asked if the Government was being inconsistent between its decision about this investigation and the action of the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of the extradition request relating to the Litvinenko murder case, Mr Straw said that he thought they were completely different.

Asked about comments by the Chancellor that he hoped to do more about scrutinising arms sales, the Leader said that the Government had not only been looking at ways to strengthen arms control but had also done so, by establishing the so-called Quadripartite Committee and by earlier action to establish "common criteria" for arms control in Europe in 1998. There were other things that could be done and were being looked at, but he had no announcement to make.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, June 7, 2007

al-Yamamah contract

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries