Corruption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I should mention that I am a member of Transparency International (UK). My noble friend Lord Chidgey has done us a great service by introducing the Bill at a critical time in the battle against international corruption. We are lucky to live in a country where corruption is notvery common. We rank No. 11 in the Transparency International league table of corruption—No. 1 being the least corrupt. Half the countries that are better than us are Scandinavian, and the rest are all countries with relatively small populations. The last major corruption trial in this country was the Poulson case in the 1960s. However, the relative absence of corruption in this country owes no thanks whatever to the existing laws on corruption, which are based on the common-law offence of bribery, added to by short Acts of Parliament in 1889, 1906 and 1916. Those laws were given extraterritorial effect, but otherwise not altered, by Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Part 12 was, of course, the basis of possible charges relating to the Al Yamamah contracts. The relative absence of corruption in the United Kingdom has made us complacent about the total inadequacy of our anti-corruption laws. It ignores the fact that in many countries corruption does terrible damage, particularly in developing countries. Corruption is a poison that quite literally kills people; for example, by denying medical treatment to those who cannot pay bribes to the providers of the treatment. Corruption in the judicial system destroys the rule of law. I saw this when I served on an International Bar Association mission to Kenya in 1995 to consider the effect of corruption on the Kenyan judicial system. Without the rule of law, democracy is completely unworkable. Corruption also directs into the Swiss bank accounts of the families of a President Mobutu or Abacha money that should have strengthened the economy of a developing country. We need laws on corruption in this country that could serve as a model for other countries, not the inadequate laws that we now have. Why has nothing been done to improve our law? No Government for the past 90 years have enacted legislation to strengthen our laws against corruption. The Law Commission published a consultation paper in 1997 and a draft Bill in 1998. As happens far too often to Law Commission Bills, this Bill was put on the back burner. It took five years, until March 2003, for the Government to publish their own draft Bill, which was in essence the same as the Law Commission’s Bill of 1998. The Government referred that Bill to a Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. In July 2003, the Bill received a damning report from the Joint Committee and went no further, but it took almost another three years for the Government to publish a new consultation paper. In a Written Statement on 5 March 2007, only some 10 days ago, the Home Secretary said that, "““no consensus has emerged from the consultation as to what the scheme of new offences should look like … I regret to conclude that there is insufficient support for any one particular model to justify its being submitted to Parliament at this time””.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/07; col. 116WS.]" What does the Home Secretary do? Having failed in his duty to take a decision that could have been difficult but which was plainly necessary, he sends the subject back to the Law Commission; so 10 years on, we are back at square one. It will take at least two years to come up with a report, which is unlikely to achieve consensus, so no doubt there will be further delays while the Government prepare a new draft Bill, conduct consultations of their own, arrange more pre-legislative scrutiny, and so on. This is an intolerable situation. We need legislation and we need it now. Transparency International (UK) explained with conviction and clarity why this was needed and needed now in written evidence submitted to the Joint Committee in 2003. It said: "““We must maintain and be seen to maintain the highest standards of business integrity in business and public sector so as to underpin global public confidence in the UK’s dominance in financial and trade markets … The UK law on corruption is in urgent need of reform to meet these expectations. On the domestic front, the law enforcers have found the patchwork of century-old statutes and common law to be an ineffective means of curbing corrupt practices. Internationally, the UK has barely been able to abide by the obligations to which we have subscribed in the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. It is therefore particularly important that the reformed UK legislation is consistent with our national commitments, is comprehensible to a wide audience and should work as effectively as possible in a modern legal context, especially within the European Union””." Four years on, that memorandum from Transparency International (UK) states absolutely what is still the position. I would add only that now it is all too clear that the United Kingdom is unable to abide by its obligations under the OECD conventions. On Wednesday evening, the OECD published an extraordinary and humiliating reprimand of the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Chidgey referred to this. Again, I shall read a couple of short passages to convey the full flavour. The OECD said that, "““the 2005 Phase two report on the United Kingdom recommended, as did an earlier 2003 Working Group report, that the UK enact modern foreign bribery legislation at the earliest possible date. The Working Group is seriously concerned that this recommendation, which reflected deficiencies of UK law on foreign bribery, remains unimplemented … The recent discontinuance of a major foreign bribery investigation concerning BAE Systems plc and the Al Yamamah defence contract with the government of Saudi Arabia has further highlighted some of these concerns. The Working Group notes that the UK has stated that the discontinuance was based on national and international security considerations and that the matter is subject to judicial review in the UK. The Working Group underlines in this respect that bribery of foreign public officials is contrary to international public policy and distorts international competitive conditions. In accordance with Article Five of the Convention, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, parties to the Convention shall be mindful of their obligations and of the object and purpose of the treaty. The Working Group welcomed the additional explanations from the UK authorities and the openness of the UK delegation. Nonetheless, it maintains its serious concerns as to whether the decision was consistent with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention””." That concern is shared by many others. We cannot wait another four or five years for a corruption Act which so obviously and urgently we need. My noble friend’s Bill is available now. A great deal of expertise has gone into the content and the technical drafting. I call on the Government to give it support and time, and if necessary to amend it. If they are not willing to do this, the least they can do is get on with the drafting of their own Bill, give it scrutiny in the autumn and get it through Parliament early in the next Session. That Bill must write into our laws our obligations under the OECD convention.