Following Thursday’s High Court ruling that the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into secret payments by BAE to Saudi Arabia should never have been dropped, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg has today written to Gordon Brown urging him to re-open the investigation and hold a full inquiry into how this unlawful decision was reached.

Nick Clegg challenges the Prime Minister to explain why he backtracked on his pledge to ensure that the role of Attorney General retains full public confidence, given that proposals in the draft Constiuttional Renewal Bill would give the Attorney General powers to block investigations or prosecutions on the pretext of national security.

He also calls on the Prime Minister to update Parliament on the progress of other investigations into alleged corruption by British companies, and on UK Government cooperation with the US Justice Department’s investigation into alleged bribery by BAE.

The full letter reads:

Dear Gordon,

This week’s High Court ruling on the halting of the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the “al-Yamamah” arms deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia has delivered another hammer-blow to public trust in our political system.

In order to restore faith in the Government’s actions over this matter, do you now accept that there is no alternative but to re-open the SFO investigation and hold a full inquiry into how this unlawful decision ever came about?

On taking office last year you made it a key pledge of your premiership that, in order to restore public faith in our political system, there would be fundamental constitutional reform. You recognised that the position of the Attorney General had become so sullied by the BAE issue, questions over the legality of the Iraq war and the cash for honours inquiry, that it had to be reformed. Indeed, your Governance of Britain White Paper pledged to “renew the role of the Attorney General to ensure that the office retains the public's confidence”.

This sentiment is flatly contradicted by your recent proposals in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. These proposals will give the Attorney General effective carte blanche in future to block or quash any investigations or prosecutions under the pretext of “national security”. Given that under these draft rules there would be no recourse to judicial review of such decisions, do you not see that this will be seen by the public as a step backward, not forward? Why have you backtracked on your apparent intention to address the widely-held view that the role of the Attorney General is fraught with conflicts of interest? I urge you to reconsider these proposals urgently.

There is a great deal of uncertainty too about the progress of other ongoing investigations into allegations of corruption, such as those related to British companies’ commercial activities in Tanzania, South Africa and Romania. I am concerned by reports that these investigations are not culminating in prosecutions because of weaknesses in the 2001 anti-corruption legislation which your Government brought into effect. You will be aware of concerns at the OECD that this legislation simply doesn’t fulfill the requirements of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which your Government signed up to over ten years ago. I hope the ongoing OECD inquiry into our anti corruption safeguards will highlight any weaknesses in the law which may be making it difficult to bring prosecutions.

I would be grateful for your views on whether present legislation is sufficiently watertight to conform to the highest anti-corruption standards as required by the OECD, and confirmation that your Government is cooperating fully and openly with the OECD investigators.

Finally, could you confirm when you intend to update Parliament on the UK Government’s cooperation with the US Justice Department’s investigation into alleged bribery by BAE? It is, I hope you will agree, essential that the Government cooperates fully with the US Justice Department and does nothing to impede its investigation.

I am dismayed by the self inflicted damage being wrought by this Government’s actions on Britain’s standing in the world. It is also highly damaging to all British exporters, who depend on a reputation for probity and respect for due process to secure contracts abroad, to see such extrajudicial measures being taken by the Government to prevent any further scrutiny of the al-Yamamah arms deal. How can Britain stand up to corruption and bribery abroad if we are not spotless at home?

I would be grateful for a reply to these substantive queries as soon as possible.