Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-314)
ROBERT WARDLE
27 JUNE 2007
Q300 Keith Vaz: And then he came
to his conclusion.
Robert Wardle: No, he himself
had reservations about the amount of evidence we could obtain
and whether that could lead to a prosecution in any event—forget
the public interest aspect of it—and I fully accept that
there are difficulties with that. Remember that we are still investigating,
we have not completed the investigation. My own view was that
that should have continued in any other case where public interest
considerations had not arisen, but here they did because it was
the very fact of the continuation of the investigation which was
causing the problem, not the prosecution.
Q301 Keith Vaz: You did not fly out
to Saudi Arabia at any time?
Robert Wardle: No.
Q302 Keith Vaz: What was the cost
of the whole investigation?
Robert Wardle: At that stage,
I think we put it at about 1.3 million, plus some staff costs,
and that does not include the costs of Ministry of Defence police.
I think it is in that region, but I would have to check that.
Q303 Keith Vaz: And at end of all
that expenditure you still did not have anyone to prosecute?
Robert Wardle: That is right.
Q304 Keith Vaz: So, in any other
case you would probably have brought it to a conclusion anyway,
having spent that money. Have you spent that kind of money on
other investigations?
Robert Wardle: Certainly.
Q305 Keith Vaz: You have?
Robert Wardle: Yes.
Q306 Keith Vaz: So you have spent
more?
Robert Wardle: On other investigations,
yes.
Q307 Keith Vaz: And not found anyone
to prosecute?
Robert Wardle: I think that does
from time to time happen. I cannot think of any at the moment.
The cost of an SFO investigation is, typically, about a million
pounds.
Q308 Keith Vaz: In terms of accountability,
are you happy with the way in which this has occurred?
Robert Wardle: Yes.
Q309 Keith Vaz: The accountability
to Parliament being—
Robert Wardle: I think I am. I
think the fact that the Attorney is able to go to Parliament and
account for it is important, because it is a place where it can
be debated, it can be looked at, it can be examined and, indeed,
before this Committee.
Q310 Keith Vaz: And no regrets?
Robert Wardle: I think that is
putting it—
Q311 Keith Vaz: There is a long pause!
Robert Wardle: It is putting it
a bit high to say no regrets. If you lived with one of these investigations,
you see the commitment that our people put into it, the huge amount
of work, the huge amount of work from the MoD police. Of course
one regrets it has ended up where it has.
Q312 Keith Vaz: Do you think it has
damaged the reputation of the SFO, which in recent years has actually
been enhanced and now people feel, "Gosh, make some representations
to the Prime Minister, get on to an ambassador in a foreign country,
speak to the Attorney General and it is going to be discontinued".
Have they all gone round you and left you in the middle and damaged
your reputation?
Robert Wardle: I do not think
they have done that—gone round me and left me in the middle.
Q313 Keith Vaz: The Saudis did not
approach you, did they?
Robert Wardle: No, of course not,
and I would not expect them to do so. Did it damage the SFO? Has
it damaged our reputation for dealing with corruption? I think
perhaps it has, of course it has, but it was an exceptional case,
exceptional circumstances. I think what now is important is that
we continue to pursue investigations, not only into BAE but into
the other cases. Remember, the SFO has only recently, in the last
couple of years, taken over responsibility for this sort of work
and it is particularly difficult work. We have been supported,
particularly by the Attorney, and indeed by the Treasury, in relation
to the Iraqi investigations.
Keith Vaz: Thank you very much.
Q314 Chairman: Mr Wardle, thank you
very much indeed for coming this morning and for the clarity and
frankness of the evidence you have given. We very much appreciate
it.
Robert Wardle: Thank you very
much.
| 
