Corruption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on bringing forward the Bill. I join others, too, in thanking Transparency International for the role it has played in this. I also thank it more broadly for the work it does in encouraging good governance and transparency. I was the Prime Minister’s personal representative, or Sherpa, for the G8 summits in 2005 and 2006, including the preparations for the summit at Gleneagles, in which Africa was one of the main subjects on the agenda and corruption an important part of the debates we had. There were two aspects to that. The first was to encourage African countries to tackle corruption seriously as part of good governance. In the chairman’s statement after Gleneagles, we agreed, "““to give enhanced support for greater democracy, effective governance and transparency, and to help fight corruption””." The second aspect of our debate on this point was to put our own G8 house in order, without which we recognised that we would not have the moral authority to persuade others in the developing world to do so. The G8 Africa Action Plan states that we will: "““Reduce bribery by … rigorously enforcing laws against the bribery of foreign public officials, including prosecuting those engaged in bribery””." I have no doubt that our ability to persuade others to accept those commitments was due in good part to our own strong reputation in countering corruption. I have no doubt at all that the strengthening of good governance, including action against bribery and corruption, is hugely in our interests and the interests of this country. I have no doubts either that it is hugely in the interests of our country that we should be seen to be in the lead at the front of the pack in ensuring that that happens. That is true not just so that we can exert moral suasion on others, important though that is; nor just the effect that it has on poverty in the developing world, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and others have eloquently set out—hugely important though that is, too; but also because a reputation for a tough stance on bribery and corruption will help other British interests nearer to home. It will help us to fight international crime and terrorism. It will strengthen the role and reputation of the City of London and, indeed, our financial system more generally. Those are two just examples—other noble Lords have given others—as to why a robust approach to bribery, corruption and other malpractice is so much in our interest and why we have a strong interest in leading the way internationally. I ask myself two questions. Does Britain now have the necessary legislation and the reputation to ensure that it is at the front of the pack and therefore can advance its interests? If not, how can we take the necessary steps to ensure that we do get there? The answer to the two parts of the first question is that we do not have the right legislation at present and that there are concerns about our reputation. I do not want to exaggerate that second point. Britain’s basic reputation for democracy, openness and probity is immensely strong, and rightly so. However, I believe that there is a problem in this narrower field of action against bribery and corruption. There are, as other noble Lords have said, two aspects to that: the need to bring our legislation into line with the requirements of the OECD convention and the repercussions of the decision not to proceed with the investigation into the Al Yamamah case. To take the second point first, I do not pretend to know the details of the case, and I do not wish to comment on the details of the case. In a real sense, the details of the case are not the point here. What matters is the perception that that decision shows a less than full commitment to counter bribery and corruption. That is what needs to be put right. As for the first point, it is now getting on for 10 years since the UK ratified the OECD convention. However, our legislation is still held not to be compliant despite the recommendations, in 2003 and 2005, from the OECD and the Law Commission that it is the Government’s duty to update and modernise their laws. Those two aspects came together in the conclusions earlier this week from the OECD’s working group on bribery and with a proposal to carry out a supplementary review of the UK’s present stance in relation both to the state of our laws on bribery and to the discontinuance of the Al Yamamah investigation. As it happens, I was at the OECD earlier this week at the time of the examination of Britain and I had discussions with senior officials, including the Secretary-General of the OECD. As one can imagine, this was the talk of the town. But one of the main sentiments of those conversations was a kind of puzzlement at how Britain had got itself into this position. Fortunately, however, there is a way to get us out of that position. That solution lies with the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I am usually hesitant in supporting or proposing new legislation. I am inclined to think that the time and resources devoted to drafting and piloting new legislation through Parliament could often better be spent ensuring the implementation of and compliance with existing legislation. However, this is one of those occasions where legislation is necessary and desirable, for the reasons I have explained. I do not wish to comment in detail on the Bill as that is for Committee stage, but I believe that the Bill is professionally and impressively drafted. The subject matter is complex and will need debate at the proper time. What is clear, however, is that the timetable presently envisaged by the Government—with further reference to the Law Commission for further detailed consideration of the issue, with a Bill to be proposed in 18 months or two years—is simply too slow given the situation that we are now in. Much detailed work has already been done. Would it not be better for the Government to agree to work quickly now, on the basis of the Bill before us, to pass the necessary legislation and avoid the growing sense that the United Kingdom is not sufficiently serious about an issue that really does matter to the furtherance of our important interests both at home and overseas? I hope the Minister will be able to say that the Government will at least seriously consider that course of action. Meanwhile, I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on bringing forward the Bill and I support its Second Reading.