Corruption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I wonder what is sub judice. Certainly the Al Yamamah investigation is not sub judice; it has been dropped. I agree with the Minister, however, that I would have preferred the Attorney-General to have been present at this time, because I do not wish to criticise him in his absence. But he did tell us that he had personally investigated the files in that case over a number of days and had concluded that there was very little chance of success in a prosecution. We heard fromMr Wardle that he had had discussions with our ambassador in Saudi Arabia and with the Prime Minister, and yet he presents it as his decision. I agree with those noble Lords who have referred to the international reputation of this country, which is one of our greatest assets. My noble friend Lord Garden and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have referred to it; but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, summed it up extremely well when he talked about our moral authority. We should be leaders of the pack. We should be exemplars to the world. If we present ourselves as a democratic country with high standards, we should ensure that we appear in that way. As he spoke, I thought to myself of how we are celebrating the ending of the slave trade 200 years ago by a Member of this House. I thought: how do we appear in Africa, where there is so much corruption, when we ourselves have not sorted out our stance? I come to the Bill. I have already referred to Dr Reid’s statement. These were his terms of reference, which he has now sent to the Law Commission: "““The review will make recommendations that … provide coherent and clear offences that protect individuals and society and provide clarity for investigators and prosecutors … enable those convicted to be appropriately punished … are fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998; and … continue to ensure consistency with the UK’s international obligations””." That is what the Bill offers—precisely those four points. I wonder whether I might spend a moment looking at some of the Bill’s provisions. Instead of putting forward a single offence of corruption, it very properly divides corruption into a number of areas. Clause 1 deals with the offering of a bribe with the intention of influencing that person or another person to exercise a function improperly. I took on board the criticisms of that made by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his concern over having bribed a doorman on one occasion. It struck me that ““exercising a function improperly”” could be defined as including doing one’s job, but only on payment of a particular sum of money. That would be performing a function improperly. The second clause deals with corrupt transactions involving agents and covers much of the ground of existing law. The bribery of foreign public officials in Clause 3 covers very much that which was set out in the 2001 Act, and the foreign bid-rigging of course covers an area that is not at the moment clearly stated. As one of your Lordships pointed out, it is important that the criminal law is clear and has clarity, and I believe that Clause 4 does precisely that. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the corruption in sport clause, Clause 5, covers an area that has so far not been touched by any of our existing legislation or case law to any great degree. The one clause that needs a bit more scrutiny is Clause 6, on the presumption of corruption. It sets out a presumption that was abolished in the Government’s draft Bill, and I am not sure that it should be introduced in this one. But that is a matter—one hopes, if this matter goes to Committee—that we can discuss and tease out. The duty to report protects whistleblowers, and the failure to report is another protection in that way. The Bill as a whole answers the problems that the existing laws throw up. It is a vehicle that we can take forward with confidence. I commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and I offer him our full support.