UK Parliament / Open data

Bribery Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 April 2010. It occurred during Debate on bills on Bribery Bill [Lords].
I, too, very much welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is right to say that it has taken a long time to reach this stage, although he is not right to say that the Bill has been particularly rushed, given the vast amount of discussion about previous versions of the reform, both in the Joint Committee of both Houses and in the other place. Although some Bills in the wash-up have been ill-served by the process, I am not particularly concerned about the amount of scrutiny that this Bill has had. We have come out with a good Bill. The hon. Gentleman is also right that the most important purpose of the Bill is to restore this country's reputation, which was affected badly by some recent bribery cases. It remains to be seen whether the Government—whichever Government we have after the election—will still be fully committed to the fight against bribery. Using the tools that the Bill provides, it will be easier for prosecutors to build their cases, but they will be able to do so only if the Government—whoever they are—provide them with the resources that they need. However, it remains the case that the Government currently do not fund the SFO directly for its corruption work. Rather, the SFO is using resources from other parts of its funding to take that work forward. That must change. Equally, it is not right for the SFO to have to ask the Government for case-by-case funding—that is a constitutional matter that needs to be changed—although the underlying fact is that there will be an improvement for the SFO under the terms of the Bill. The old law was extremely confusing. The idea that, in some circumstances, possibly—it was never entirely clear—a principal agent relationship needed to be established before a bribery offence could be proven always seemed entirely unjustified to people in the field. In fact, that is why there were many cases in which it was stated that that relationship was not required. The Bill makes it entirely clear that the old law relating to principal and agent has gone, whatever doubts there might have been about it, and that new, clear definitions of bribery have now been included in the law. That is the first good thing that the Bill does. The second is to introduce an offence of bribing a foreign official, which this country—unlike many others around the world—has hitherto lacked. The provision is drafted in such a way as to make it clear that it is the standards of this country that count. Under the terms of the Bill, it will not be possible to say that we can bribe people because it is okay to do so in another culture. That will not be allowed. The standards that will apply are not vague cultural standards; they will be the written law of another state. There was some debate in Committee about whether businesses would be able to follow this part of the Bill, but I am sure that they will be able to do so. It will be their responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the law of the other state, with whose public officials they are dealing. I very much welcome the Bill. In some of the debates, I was dismayed by the stance being taken by businesses. I understand their worries, but, in the interests of the reputation of this country and of British business, it would not be right—or even profitable—to question this country's position on the fight against bribery. In the relationship between the next Government, whoever they are, and business, I hope that the people in power will make it absolutely clear to business that its position will not be tolerated if it is likely to undermine the provisions of the Bill, which I am glad to support.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
508 c1012-3 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top