Corruption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for introducing the Bill and explaining it and its background so comprehensively. As we have heard from many speakers, if not all, during this Second Reading debate, the Bill is extremely timely and the arguments in its favour are strong. I am glad that the noble Lord has given us an opportunity to debate it and I congratulate him on proposing a solution to the pressing need for a consolidation and a strengthening of our legislation against corruption. My noble friend Lord Bowness asked me to offer his apologies, as he, too, would have spoken in the Bill’s favour. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who have both spoken so forcefully today, he is on the advisory council of Transparency UK. Unfortunately, he is unable to be in his place and speak today. As we well know, there are many ways in which corruption can cause damage, both at home and abroad. On a national level, corruption, or even the perception of corruption, lowers public trust in our institutions and organisations. We have only to pick up a newspaper at random to see how the Government or a public body, such as a consumer watchdog or a quango, can be damaged by a lack of belief in their integrity. Private companies, as several noble Lords have said, are equally damaged by a loss of consumer confidence in their products and by the inefficiencies to which corruption leads. Overseas, in many cases, these problems are multiplied. We at least are fortunate in this country to have a robust justice system and vibrant non-governmental organisations to watch out for corruption and to press for further investigation. Other countries are not always so lucky. This House has heard much of the importance of ensuring that aid, for example, is actually spent on the projects for which it is intended. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, among others, said, there have been many reports of the braking effect that corruption has on an economy. So it is astonishing that we are having a Second Reading debate on a Private Member’s Bill rather than a Government Bill. The Government acknowledged the need for a Bill as long ago as 1997—it was even in the Queen’s Speech in 2002—yet so far they have been unable to achieve one. Since the Government came to power, we have had a Law Commission review, several further statements of intent from the Government and lots of consultation on draft Bills, yet we are no further forward. The Government have not only broken their promises in their well publicised press releases; they have also, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said in his opening remarks, which other noble Lords echoed, failed to fulfil their international obligations. In December 2003, the Government signed up to both the UN and the Council of Europe conventions against corruption, but the Bill that was intended to implement these commitments has been withdrawn. Why have the Government not felt it necessary to fulfil their obligation? How can we, as we should, take a lead in putting pressure on other Governments to act—indeed, often to enforce legislation that they have already enacted—if we do not have legislation in place? Turning to the Bill before us rather than what might have been, I am pleased that it aims to address the confusion and complexity of the extant corruption legislation in Clause 17 and repeal the old legislation on which we currently rely. Given that this simplification was one of the Government’s previously stated aims, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Bill properly covers all the areas of the legislation that it repeals. Other noble Lords have raised the following important points, among others. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, referred to his concerns—none of them insurmountable—such as the use of the word ““impropriety””, foreign bid-rigging and the duty to self-incriminate. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, spoke eloquently on corruption in sport; he raised concerns that I think could all be dealt with by amendment. I wish to raise a couple of specific concerns that I have. First, I do not think that Clause 6 implements the Law Commission recommendation that there be parity between public and private sector in the area of burden of proof. Accepting this recommendation becomes ever more important as the Government roll out their drive to contract out public services to non-governmental organisations and private companies. The distinction between public bodies and private organisationsor individuals is now too blurred in the provision of many public services to make the clause feasible or indeed wise. Despite the comforting words of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, I still have some concerns about the duty in Clause 11 to supervise foreign compliance with corruption law in the United Kingdom. Can we be absolutely confident that there will not be confusion over what would constitute ““reasonable steps”” to ensure that foreign contracted parties are following a corruption code that may be very different from their own national code or practice? What would be considered sufficient proof? If the foreign contracted party deliberately provided false information, to what extent would the UK entity take responsibility for checking the accuracy of that evidence? How far down the supply chain would the obligation extend? My concerns and those of other noble Lords notwithstanding, this is an important Bill. The Government would do well to take note that it cannot procrastinate much longer on this issue. Surely we have had enough discussion, consultation and draft Bills. One can find, with the click of a mouse, a draft Law Commission corruption Bill, a draft Bill from Transparency International and, of course, one from the Government, all with pages of analysis and criticism from various quarters. If this Bill does not make it to Royal Assent this Session, we shall be back where we started, with our legislation on corruption widely acknowledged to be inadequate and a Government seemingly unable to draft a Bill that achieves what even they have admitted is necessary.