Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
There is a high threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Attacks have taken various forms. At their height in 2003 and 2004, they included kidnappings, large-scale truck bombings of residential compounds and Saudi Government offices, an attack on the US consulate in Jeddah, targeted shootings of individuals, small-scale car bombings, parcel bombings and the bombing of shopping areas.[ Official Report, 7 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 906.]
The pressures on the Saudis are enormous, and it seems self-evident that they need our co-operation at least as much as we need theirs.
That issue has not been properly explained, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to do so in a few moments. How formal were these warnings from the Saudis? Were not the Government outraged when, out of the blue, we were suddenly being told that important security co-operation that matters to both our countries was to be withdrawn merely on the basis of a particular SFO inquiry? Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used every available channel to protest about these crude tactics by an important partner? If it has, and it has been unsuccessful, what on earth does that now say about our relationship with the Saudis that those proceedings did not work? Separately, we can attack this by asking how credible those threats were, and what discussions there were at that time about the loss that the Saudis would suffer from breaking those links. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what reappraisal has been forced on the UK on the strength of these experiences and what that now says about our broader relationship with the Saudis.
This issue has spilled over into the Atlantic. We now know that the Ministry of Justice is carrying out its own investigation. I welcome the fact that the Solicitor-General said earlier that the Home Office has received a formal request and that that co-operation is proceeding. What further discussions are taking place with the FCO or the Ministry of Defence on what part they are going to play in this?
The sale of arms will always be secretive, by its very nature, and it is necessarily so. Great issues of national security are at stake and the economic value of arms exports is crucial to us as a country. Equally, our relationships with partners to whom we sell aircraft, tanks or whatever, matter greatly. Of course, there are separate significant issues relating to national security bound up with those relationships. We cannot ignore any of that, but nor should we in Parliament ignore our responsibility to scrutinise such issues, and to ensure that Government policies are right and their implementation appropriate.
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells): Despite the subject of the debate, which is very wide-rangingThe investigation of alleged corruption overseasmuch of it has focused on the decision by the director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop the fraud investigation into BAE Systems. There is only so much I can add to that discussion, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has dealt carefully and in great depth with the events that led the director to make his decision. As my hon. and learned Friend said at the start, that decision was made by the director alone, althoughwe have always been very open about thisrepresentations were made to him about the need to safeguard national and international security.
It is difficult to imagine what alternative path he, and we, should have taken. The Government were given good reason to believe that there is a real and present danger to their security and intelligence co-operation with a country that plays a vital role in helping us to ensure the safety of our citizens from threats posed, among others, by al-Qaeda terrorism. I have been working with our middle eastern partners for long enough to assure the House that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a key partner in tackling al-Qaeda threats to the lives of British nationals and other civilians at home and abroad.
It would have been wholly irresponsible of us to have ignored that information. It would have been wholly wrong not to make the Serious Fraud Office aware of it, and it made a decision based on that evidence. It was not an easy decision, and I do not think that anyone here today claimed that it was. Of course it was not; the investigation was not begun with the intention of calling it off further down the line. However, on balance, it was the right decision, and we are confident that it was compatible with the OECD convention. It has been implied this afternoon that we have set a precedent by the decision of the director, Robert Wardle. We have not. Faced with the same set of circumstances and the same evidence of the implications for national and international security, we would make the same representations to the SFO. The idea that there is now a carte blanche for companies from this country to bribe at will is patently absurd, and I urge colleagues to think hard before throwing the sort of allegations around that imply otherwisesome of which we have heard today.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has told us, the SFO is pursuing other investigations vigorously, including some, as she reminded us, into BAE Systems. We have made it quite clear that no company or individual is above the law. We expect high standards of business conduct, and compliance with the law of the United Kingdom and that of the countries in which they operate, from all UK defence companies. We expect those high standards to be observed in any future contract in respect of defence sales to Saudi Arabia. We would expect the high standards operated by British companies to be recognised and respected by Members of this House from all parties.
Companies such as BAE Systems are very much aware that their world-leading products and services need the benefits that a good reputation bring in international sales. They also know, and it is a sharp
reminder to all of us, that convictions for corruption in this country can mean a seven-year jail sentence and/or an unlimited fine. That should focus everybodys minds.
The Government are second to none in the transparency and rigour of their regulation of arms exports and dual-use goods. I remind the House that before manufacturers are allowed to export, they submit applications for export licences to the Department of Trade and Industry, as it was. Hon. Members will excuse me if I cannot remember what the new Department is called [ Interruption. ] I believe it is DBERRthe Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The Department consults Whitehallthe Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defenceto check whether an export is legal and consistent with the United Kingdoms obligations. We abide rigorously by the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. The earlier implication, therefore, that we are somehow not up to the mark internationally, is completely spurious.
Since the debate isnominally at leastabout the wider issues of corruption and bribery, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Governments record on the issues. The fact is that in the past 10 years, the world has moved on a great deal from a time when many powerful Governments and businesses turned a blind eye to practices such as bribery and kickbacks. There is now a global coalition of non-governmental organisations, consumers, Governments and companies helping to put the frameworks and mechanisms in place to stamp such practices out. The United Kingdoms role in that shift has been considerable, involving activities and alliances that are designed to root out corrupt behaviour.
We are pushing for the implementation of the United Nations convention against corruption. The provisions on improving international co-operation and on asset recovery are particularly important. We are implementing the third European Union directive on money-laundering to make it even harder to move criminal money, including looted assets, through our financial system. The Department for International Development has put £6 million into strengthening the UKs law enforcement capacity to investigate allegations of foreign bribery and the laundering of corrupt assets by political elites.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): One of the more constructive comments to come out of this debate was that of the Solicitor-General on the need to strengthen the law on bribery and corruption. Would the Minister give us more of an idea of the timetable for that legislation?
Dr. Howells: As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General told us earlier, this is an important matter. She accepted some guilt for slowing the process because she wanted to be vigorous in the examination of proposed legislation. Like the hon. Gentleman, whose views I very much respect, I would like to see the process move more quickly than it has, and I hope that what we have heard during the debate helps to do that. I understand that the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee took a lot of time over the matter, and did not much like the shape of the proposed legislation. It has to take another look at it, but I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is a priority, and it must go ahead quickly.
We have been working with Transparency International on funding elements of a major anti-corruption programme in south Asia, focusing on improving transparency in public procurement. Of course, it is this Government who have shown long-running leadership on the extracted industries transparency initiative. We were involved with the beginning of the Kimberley process to stamp out conflict or blood diamonds, and that has brought results. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is widely recognised as the international standard for the management of public revenues from oil, gas and mining.
Our support for the work of the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has helped it to become the most successful anti-corruption body in Africa, reporting more than 150 convictions and the recovery of $5 billion since 2002. There is also the Kenya textbook project, where we transferred funds to individual school bank accounts, so that money was more likely to go towards education and less likely to be siphoned off along the way.
I believe that probably no Government in the world have a better record than ours on fighting bribery and corruption world wide. It is damaging nonsense to claim that the Serious Fraud Offices decision to discontinue a single investigation because of our concern to safeguard national and international security has undermined all that work.
Transparency Internationals latest independent analysis says that the United Kingdom ranks as the least corrupt of the G7 countries. I am not sure whether that is damning with faint praise but it says something. We are not complacent about the challenges in the United Kingdom or abroad, and we will take them up with energy and determination.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made his usual statement at the beginning of the debate. He is, of course, a great master of dubious poetic phrases and he has a resilient mud-throwing arm. Today, he spoke about money, and we heard that the Governments money is not allocated, spent or exchanged but swills around. He is a great expert at diving into the swill tub. He throws its contents at any convenient target, regardless of the impact of his efforts. This afternoon, he threw some at Sir Richard Mottrams reputation by implying that he is part of a conspiracy that dates back to the al-Yamamah arrangements. He did that despite the fact that Sir Richard is one of our most distinguished and respected public servants, who has played a crucial role in helping this country reconfigure and strengthen our defences against the real and present danger that terrorists within and beyond our shores pose to the United Kingdom.
I therefore hope that hon. Members will vote against the absurd Liberal motion and support the Government amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |