Until last year, Garwood led a team of 600 civil servants at the Defence Export Service Organisation at the MoD, where he worked on projects including last year’s deal to sell Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia. He was seconded to the MoD from BAE in 2002.

That secondment reinforces the suggestion that the relationship between the MoD and BAE is too close.

BAE chief executive Mike Turner and non-executive director Sir Nigel Rudd had already been issued with subpoenas.

City grandee Sir Nigel Rudd, chairman of airports operator BAA and deputy chairman of Barclays Bank, was one of the two BAE Systems executives detained briefly last week by US officials investigating allegations of corruption by the UK defence company.

Sir Nigel, a non-executive director at BAE, was issued with a subpoena by investigators from the Department of Justice (DoJ) when he arrived at New York’s Newark Airport en route to a holiday in Florida. Yesterday, The Sunday Telegraph disclosed that Mike Turner, BAE’s chief executive, had been detained at an airport in Texas, where his laptop and Blackberry were seized.

The DoJ is investigating claims that BAE paid bribes in the 1980s and 1990s to win the £20bn Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. News of the detentions will further strain relations between Washington and London over the DoJ’s probe, as Sir Nigel has been at BAE less than two years and had nothing to do with the Saudi deal.

In 2006 Britain’s Serious Fraud Office controversially dropped its own investigation into Al Yamamah, and there have been claims Whitehall is dragging its feet over requests from the DoJ for information. The detentions may be a sign of the DoJ’s determination to raise the stakes, although one source said last night: “It could equally be a sign of frustration.” …

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said yesterday reports of the detentions “illustrate that the investigation into alleged corruption over this arms deal is very far from closed.”

A review into business practices at defence firm BAE Systems has called for tougher anti-bribery measures.

The study by Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, set out 23 recommendations for the firm.

Lord Woolf said the report provided a “route map” for BAE to ensure it was a leader for its ethical standards…

The BBC’s business editor Robert Peston says that the report’s finding, that in the past BAE did not pay sufficient attention to ethical standards in the way it conducted business, is an embarrassing admission.

The newspaper provides some background information:

The SFO is probing a 2002 contract under which BAE supplied Tanzania with a military radar system, a deal that was strongly criticised by aid agencies and politicians, including the then UK International Development Secretary Clare Short.
[…]
Despite the SFO abandoning its high-profile investigation into BAE’s Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the fraud office has continued to probe several other overseas deals.

Poverty-stricken Tanzania bought a £28m military air traffic control system from BAE, when many experts said a far cheaper civil system would have done.

You can read the full story on the Telegraph website.

This follows yesterday’s ruling by the High Court that the SFO acted unlawfully when it suspended - under direction from the Labour Government - its investigation into the deal between BAE and Saudi Arabia.

Nick Clegg 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.

Here’s the letter in full:
(more…)

The judicial review case was brought by Campaigns Against Arms Trade who had said the decision to drop the inquiry was illegal under international anti-bribery agreements.

According to the BBC’s coverage, the Labour Government was concerned that the SFO’s investigation would jeopardise a deal to sell Typhoon fighters to Saudi Arabia - an economic consideration rather than the “national security” argument the Government and the SFO claimed.

We hope the SFO will now resume its investigation, and you can back our campaign for an inquiry to how the SFO came to drop its inquiry by signing the petition on the right-hand side of the page.

The ethics review into scandal-hit BAE Systems could be delayed for up to three months amid suspicions it will present a whitewash report into the activities of the controversial defence firm.

The probe into BAE’s business ethics by the independent committee, chaired by former chief justice Lord Woolf, is already almost a month overdue.And it appears Woolf - who has pocketed an estimated £500,000 in fees so far, all paid for by BAE - is in no hurry to get it finished. Sources have suggested his findings might not emerge until June.

The UK government will this week face an unprecedented investigation by the powerful Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) over its failures to comply with international anti-corruption and bribery protocols.

Over three days, starting on Tuesday, officials from the Foreign and Home Offices and the Ministry of Justice, together with the Attorney-General, senior Serious Fraud Office and police figures will be interrogated by French, Canadian and other OECD anti-corruption experts.

The agenda, seen by The Observer, will focus on why the UK government has failed to pass a modern anti-corruption law despite promising to do so for the past 10 years, and the reasons behind Britain’s failure to mount successful prosecutions in this area.

The scale of the investigation, which is divided into 114 sessions, reveals the depth of international concern at the inadequacy of the UK’s bribery and corruption laws and will embarrass Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Among witnesses will be senior business figures from BP and mining giant Anglo-American as well as MPs from all parties.

The OECD probe is known as a ‘Phase Two’ examination - a procedure that, so far, only three countries, Ireland, Luxembourg and Japan, have been subjected to. The investigation will also question the reasons behind the government’s decision to order the SFO to stop its investigation into the al-Yamamah arms deal between the Saudi government and BAE. That decision is now the subject of a judicial review.

The investigation will also seek to clarify the role of the Attorney-General in serious corruption cases - at a time when the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill is proposing to enshrine in law the right of the Attorney-General to stop bribery investigations on national security grounds if he receives a certificate from the relevant Secretary of State.

It is understood that the Paris-based OECD has come under pressure from UK officials to water down its probe, but the scale of the investigation appears to indicate that the OECD, which, as the leading grouping of advanced industrial nations, sets international benchmarks on corruption issues, has not caved in.

Lady Scotland, the current attorney general, wants the draft constitutional reform bill, to be published shortly, to spell out a statutory power for the attorney to direct the Crown Prosecution Service or Serious Fraud Office to drop a prosecution on grounds of national security or international relations.

This would be at odds with signals sent out in response to the controversy over apparent conflicts of interest while Lord Goldsmith was in the role.

Last July Gordon Brown announced: “The role of the attorney general, which combines legal and ministerial functions, needs to change.” And in the Governance of Britain consultation paper, issued shortly after Brown took office as prime minister last summer, the government pledged to “renew the role of the attorney general to ensure that the office retains the public’s confidence”…

David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, reader in law at Cambridge University and the Lib Dem spokesman on justice, said: “There’s no way a minister should have power to direct over prosecutions, even in national security or international relations. It’s outrageous.

“I don’t mind the attorney general being a minister as long as that minister has no power over prosecutions at all.”

You can read the full report in the Sunday Telegraph.