In a Liberal Democrat opposition day debate, Vince Cable calls for increased parliamentary accountability and transparency concerning the government’s dealings with Saudi Arabia

Opening the Lib Dem opposition day debate on alleged overseas corruption, Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable explained that the BAE scandal has seriously damaged the reputation of British business and the credibility of the government’s campaign against corruption in the developing world.

Mr Cable also urged the government to cooperate fully with the United States Department of Justice inquiry into corruption allegations concerning BAE Systems. He highlighted the need for increased parliamentary accountability and transparency concerning the government’s dealings, especially with regards to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Full text of the Liberal Democrat motion

That this House notes the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) ongoing investigation into the sale by BAE Systems plc of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania and into payments made to third parties in South Africa and other arms-related inquiries; notes with concern the consequences for the role of the Attorney General of the decision to terminate the SFO investigation into BAE Systems plc and Saudi Arabia and its implications for parliamentary accountability; believes serious damage has been done to the reputation of British business and to the credibility of the Government’s campaign against corruption in the developing world; urges the Government to cooperate fully with the United States Department of Justice inquiry into corruption allegations concerning BAE Systems plc and with other international organisations; and calls for increased parliamentary accountability and transparency concerning the Government’s dealings with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Proposing it, Dr Cable said:

“The underlying theme that I wish to develop concerns the broad question of parliamentary accountability and how the new thinking that the Prime Minister has introduced, which is welcome, about greater openness in government and, specifically, greater openness about security matters should apply in this area. The key argument, to which we keep returning in the debate about the Saudi project and al-Yamamah, concerns national security interests. That argument was invoked as the reason for stopping the Serious Fraud Office inquiry, for limiting the information given to the OECD and for not proceeding with or publishing the National Audit Office investigation. It is the argument that is used for not answering most of our parliamentary questions on the subject.”

Dr Cable stressed:

“What is required is a major step forward in terms of parliamentary accountability, in which the Select Committee on Public Accounts and other Select Committees of the House are able to investigate, in a more transparent way than in the past, many of the accusations that have been made and which appear to have substance.”

Expressing his concern over the government’s attitude towards international law, Shadow Solicitor General David Howarth said:

“One of the most disturbing things to come out of the government’s statement of their case in the judicial review is that they are now saying to the court in that case that even if the treaty were to mean that the case should not have been stopped for reasons of national security in those particular circumstances, the government would still have gone ahead and stopped the prosecution, even in violation of international law. That is an extraordinary position for the government to take. It might well be that they are forced into that position by tactical considerations in the litigation, but nevertheless that is the position that they have adopted. It is not a position that the government of a civilised state should ever adopt.”

With regards to national security, Mr Howarth said:

“The question is what should a country do if there is a threat to its national security from the very people who are being investigated for illegality. I do not deny, as some people might, that the threat was real; the question is what does one do if that is the situation that one perceives.”

“The government gave way to the threat, but the other argument is that doing so helps the fight against neither terrorism nor corruption. If that is what happened in this case, it sends out a very dangerous signal. In the long run, there is a greater threat to national security in giving way to such a threat than in resisting it.”

On the current relationship between the UK and Saudi Arabia, Mr Howarth stressed:

“The implausibility is this: would a country that is our ally in the fight against terrorism take the actions that are currently being attributed to it and threaten the withdrawal of co-operation in the fight against terrorism, because of financial embarrassment? It might be true that they were persuaded that there would not be any effect on their reputation, because it was thought - perhaps on the government’s assurance - that none of this would come out.”

Mr Howarth concluded:

“The other, more disturbing possibility, however, is that the Saudis are perhaps not the principal villains of this piece, and that the government’s main concern is not to conceal wrongdoing by foreign governments or officials, but to conceal their own incompetence and wrongdoing in this country.”

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Moore confirmed that the government’s decision to halt the inquiry into the al Yamamah arms deal has caused severe damage to the reputation of the United Kingdom.

Mr Moore went on to explain:

“Perhaps more immediately, our relationships with key partners are also at stake. In this regard, we all understand the importance of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Beyond the economic significance of our links in oil, industry and services, we have common interests in the safety of the region and the development of a middle east peace plan. Nobody can deny the significance of the ties in relation to security co-operation.”

Mr Moore pointed out to MPs that cooperation with Saudi Arabia is needed since terror groups, such as al-Qaeda, are partly funded from sources within Saudi Arabia. Acknowledging that there is a “high threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia” itself, Mr Moore said:

“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.”

Concluding his speech Mr Moore said:

“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.”

Labour MPs voted against the Liberal Democrat motion and Conservative MPs abstained. As a result the motion was lost by 284 votes to 46. The government amendment was passed by 266 votes to 45, with Lib Dem MPs voting against.

Please click here to read Vince Cable’s speech in full

Please click here to read David Howarth’s speech in full

Please click here to read Michael Moore’s speech in full