Corruption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on presenting this Bill. It is a very important Bill, but sad that it is necessary. To some extent, that is because of the apparent failure of the Government to comply with the commitments that they gave to the OECD. I also congratulate my old friend Jeremy Carver and Transparency International on all their hard work in providing us with information and for working so hard against corruption. I recall that in 1997 the Labour Government had an ethical foreign policy, which, sadly from my point of view, did not last all that long, presumably because the arms manufacturers and the oil lobby got the best of my colleagues. So, to some extent, we are back in the good old days of corruption—perhaps more so than was the case 20 years ago. I am a civil engineer. I am nothing like as eminent as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, but I spent a few decades in the business. When tendering for projects overseas, a percentage was always added—the noble Lord quoted 50 per cent; I never got that high—with the name of a suitable agent in whichever country one was in. It was usually a man with a Swiss bank account number. There was also export credit support. So, effectively, several major member states and other countries, including Japan, were using taxpayers’ money in a fight to see who could make the biggest bribe in the country concerned. We all thought that was pretty stupid. I was remarkably unsuccessful in that regard, which was probably a good thing, but it indicated how bad the situation had become. If the Serious Fraud Office is allowed to complete any of its current investigations, we might see more of that. It is fantastic, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, that over the past 10 years the anti-corruption movement has increased its pressure and achieved a great deal. The OECD agreement mentioned by the noble Lord—it took place nine years ago if I have calculated it right—was a real landmark, even if we are running a bit behind in this country. But for the private sector and the construction industry, which I know in particular, to have agreed on anything was a great piece of work, because the bribery taking place in other countries was endemic and they probably thought they would not get any more contracts without it. So, for the construction industry, the mechanical engineers and everyone else mentioned by the noble Lord to have got together, made these statements and tried to turn the agreement into reality was a real achievement. It seems that there is growing acceptance in the sector that action must be taken by all the relevant parties, of which there are an awful lot. But there have to be incentives and penalties and, if everyone complies and works to the guidelines and rules, we will be on the brink of a major change. This is one occasion when the private sector has led, and it is rather sad that our Government have not seen fit to do their necessary part in introducing proper anti-corruption legislation, as contained in the Bill. One could argue that there has been vacillation for the past nine years, and it really is time that this whole situation was dealt with. A statement was made yesterday by the OECD working group, which, as the noble Lord said, has ordered a special review of the UK’s progress in enacting new foreign bribery law. A number of international lawyers and other people involved have commented on the investigation into systemic problems and everything concerning on-site visits. Let us hope that there is a good report at the end of it. However, they are saying that no one can recall such criticism being made of a major member of the OECD. I hope that the Government will take this seriously, work closely with the Law Commission and those involved, and accept the Bill. When it was announced that, on the grounds of national interest, the Government had instructed the Serious Fraud Office to stop investigating the allegations that British Aerospace and the Saudi Arabian Government might have been up to something nasty, I thought that it was frankly quite incomprehensible. It demonstrated the sacrifice of an ethical policy in a move to support, for example, arms exports for oil. In conclusion, I hope that my noble friend and the rest of the Government will welcome the Bill. It could mean that the Government’s legislation would then be fully compliant with their international obligations, and that never again is the excuse of national interest used in issuing such instructions to the SFO and others.