Since we are in Committee, I may be permitted to speak in support of the Government’s approach. Bribery and corruption in this country has been underprosecuted in the past. One reason for that is that it has not been clear. Let me take the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, a step further and refer to a case that I have referred to before. It is clear in my own mind what happened on this occasion. A property developer paid money to the local authority official. When arrested by the police, he was most indignant, asking why they were arresting him for paying over £1,000 to the official. He said that it cost him £10,000 a year to do his job. He did not think that he was acting dishonestly; he thought that it was the price to pay and that he was in a force majeure situation. However, he was prosecuted for bribery. The great issue in the case—which is why it is in Archbold—was whether the words, "It costs me £10,000 a year to do my job" were admissible in that case. In fact, they were excluded, although I shall not bore your Lordships with that, and he was acquitted in due course. But that just shows that you can start by paying a facilitation payment for your boarding ticket and end up paying an official to grant you planning permission.
In certain areas that culture has spread widely. There have been very famous cases, such as the Newcastle case—without naming names—of that culture, supported by the nature of the law at that time, which was not clear enough. It was not simply a question of evidence; there was more to it than that. In my experience, over many years at the Bar and as a solicitor, bribery cases have been very few and far between. I do not think that we live in a corrupt society, but there have been areas of corruption that have not been properly tackled. That is my first reason for saying that bribery has been insufficiently prosecuted in this country.
My second reason is the amusement and disdain shown by the officials of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in Hong Kong, with which I have had a lot of dealings—on the opposite side, I must say—about the way in which bribery is not stepped on in this country. Hong Kong is third in the Transparency International tables for non-corruption, while we are 17th and China is 45th. That gives some idea how an organisation like that clamps down on bribery and corruption; it brings many cases and has altered the climate within a community of some 7 million or 8 million people. This Bill is designed to prevent corruption, and not simply to assist in prosecution but to make it obvious to everybody that the simple act of becoming a party to an official corruptly receiving a sum of money or advantage of some sort is in itself a criminal offence, even though force majeure operates in that situation. We are changing the climate with this Bill, which is why I support the Government’s position.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c37-8GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:00:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605414
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605414
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605414