My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising this issue in Amendment 101A and for taking the time to meet me the other day to discuss this important issue further. As he is well aware, cases linked to foreign bribery are inherently complex, and the suggestion and detail that he has provided are being given careful consideration by my officials. Given the range of departmental interests engaged, His Majesty’s Government need to give it the consideration it is owed and welcome further conversations once they have digested my noble and learned friend’s points further. I will briefly lay out the Government’s position, which I did not cover fully in Committee.
4.15 pm
His Majesty’s Government are fully committed to identifying potential victims and utilising suitable means to return money and/or compensate victims in line with international provisions, per the Government’s framework for transparent asset returns. As a signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is obligated to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, the UK also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases when it is not otherwise mandated to do so. Transparency and accountability are critical principles which the UK applies to its work under the UN Convention against Corruption and in providing redress for victims of corruption crimes under the convention. It is also right that any avenue of redress should embody those principles in the UK for victims of crimes.
His Majesty’s Government are also actively engaged with our international partners and regularly seek out opportunities to learn and share best practice with them on how to address this inherently complex issue. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier will be aware, in cases where there are overseas victims, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case and that the available legal mechanisms are used whenever appropriate to secure it. This provides the most appropriate and suitable mechanism for compensation to be considered, and it works.
Further to this, development of a new anti-corruption strategy is well under way, with publication expected shortly. The new strategy will build on progress made in the 2017 strategy and set out how the Government will go further to counter corruption. The strategy will consider steps to prevent institutions being corrupted, bring corrupt actors to justice, address the harms to victims and combat corruption internationally. His Majesty’s Government also regularly engage with and welcome the views of civil society on issues of this nature and will continue to do so.
As I have previously set out, extensive work is being undertaken to strengthen the rights of victims through legislative vehicles which are still undergoing implementation. I therefore do not believe that it is appropriate for a legislatively required review to be introduced at this time. However, my noble and learned friend has raised some excellent and well-considered points which I know my officials would welcome further discussion on. I hope that this provides him with some reassurance. I therefore respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.