| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Yeo: I welcome the fact that the Minister has made an unreserved apology, and I was interested to hear his explanation of the circumstances. The facts are these: a policy document was in preparation for months; the timing of its release was entirely under his control; and he chose to give it to four outside organisations a full day before it was available to Parliament--presumably in order to try to buy off criticism in advance.
Does the Minister accept that he should have made a statement about the policy here in the House, so that hon. Members, including those who, like myself, are opposed to his policy, could question him on it? Does he agree that this is further proof of how power has gone to the heads of Ministers? From the Prime Minister--who, characteristically, has not waited in the Chamber to hear this exchange--downwards, Ministers refuse to answer questions in the House, they decline to debate issues in the House, and they refuse even to meet hon. Members to discuss issues of concern to our constituents.
Spin doctors and soundbites may be what the Government depend on, but parliamentary debate is what democracy depends on. Parliamentary traditions have been centuries in the making. Men and women have given their lives for them, yet they are now being consigned to the gutter by the Labour Government. Does the Minister understand that his behaviour is an insult not only to the House of Commons, but to every one of the men and women who elected us?
Madam Speaker:
Order. We need order in the House for these exchanges.
Mr. Meacher:
I have already made it clear that I apologise to the House, and I have to say that, in that rant, the hon. Gentleman has completely overreached himself. The fact is that it is not a policy document; it is a consultation document. In addition, I have already answered a written parliamentary question today.
I should also point out that the previous Government routinely made major policy statements without any recourse to Parliament. One example was the basic pensions-plus document just before the election. It was leaked to the press overnight and published on 5 March at a Government press conference in Downing street, and Ministers refused to make a statement in the Commons. If there is a desire on the part of the House to have a further debate on this document, we shall be pleased to do so.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on doing the honourable thing and coming directly to the House to make his apology? Will he simply confirm that it has long been the practice of Governments to release not only consultation documents, but policy documents on an embargoed basis to interested organisations and the press--including that lot opposite, when they were in government?
Mr. Meacher:
I have made my position clear on that. It is certainly the case that the previous Government on many occasions did exactly what my hon. Friend has said. If I am to be condemned, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and other persons on the Opposition Front Bench should also apologise to the House.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West):
Given, as the Minister said in his statement, that it was perfectly proper that the request for the private notice question should have been made and then granted by you, Madam Speaker, does he acknowledge that most of us will probably think of the common-sense advice our parents tend to give us when we are growing up--that there are occasions when one should apologise, but there are also occasions when one should, with grace, accept an apology? This afternoon is a good example of that.
Going back to a question by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) during Prime Minister's questions, could not this issue and other countryside concerns be addressed by a royal commission, which would enable all
the groups to make their input more openly? It would certainly enable the House to consider and reflect on any legislation which may come forward in due course. It would also give the parliamentary Conservative party the chance to make a more considered response to the document than it managed this afternoon.
Mr. Meacher:
I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, with which I fully agree. The whole point of a consultation period is that there should be open and genuine consultation of all the relevant parties. I expect the Country Landowners Association, the Moorland Association, the National Farmers Union and the Ramblers Association to discuss the matters fully. They will certainly be listened to with great care before we come to our decision.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Following some of the requests from the Opposition in the past few weeks as they have launched a campaign against members of the Government for making statements outside this House, I decided to do some research in advance of this statement. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have already counted 41 occasions during the 18 years of Tory government when requests were made for statements, but the Tory Government had made them on the media? That is 41, and still counting.
Mr. Meacher:
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. He is a diligent Member of this House, and is well known for his research. The hon. Member for South Suffolk may, in due course, rather regret raising this point.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
The whole House will have noted with approval the handsome apology made by the Minister. Although what he did was wrong, his coming to the House has been the right thing to do. Does he agree that the House should establish a rule whereby Ministers and Departments are forbidden under
Mr. Meacher:
I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his earlier comments. His proposal could be considered, but it is a matter for the House as a whole.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
The Minister has come to the House with a total and unreserved apology, and the House should accept it. Would you, Madam Speaker, protect the integrity of this House and give guidance to Government--of whichever party--about this practice, and express your view that it should be deplored?
Mr. Meacher:
That is a matter for you, Madam Speaker, rather than for me.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
While we welcome the unreserved apology from the Minister, did we not hear him on "Today" this morning, discussing this matter? He said that, unless landowners entered voluntary agreements, there would be legislation. We heard today that there would be full and open consultation of a genuine nature. Which is the truth? Is the former Government policy? If it is, is it not remarkably like bullying?
Mr. Meacher:
The two matters are entirely consistent. I would expect someone with the legal and logical mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be able to see that.
Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned that the instance of disrespect for the House that we have just heard is not isolated. When the primary school class sizes money was announced, the information was given to Labour Members the day before other hon. Members, together with a press release for them to send out, and a suggestion that they go to a primary school in their constituency to get the credit for that spending of public money. Do you share my view that that is not in order, and not an appropriate way for the House to proceed?
Madam Speaker:
It is a party political matter. It is nothing to do with the Speaker of this House.
Mr. Hugh Bayley (City of York):
I beg to move,
Not only is bribery legal, as long as the act of bribery takes place offshore, but in some instances it is still a tax-deductible activity. A year ago, I introduced to the House the Overseas Development Co-operation Bill, which sought to target more of our British aid on poor people in poor countries, and to end the scandalous misuse of aid as a sweetener for arms sales, such as that which took place in the case of the Pergau dam.
Now those principles have been reflected in the Department for International Development White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century", and, since the 1997 general election, both the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with support from our Labour Government, have adopted conventions against international bribery. This Bill seeks to incorporate those conventions into UK law.
There is a comforting but fictitious belief that bribery is not a serious problem in Britain--that only in the third world is it a way of life. Well, it takes two to tango. The British business man who pays a 20 per cent. commission without asking too clearly where the money goes, is as guilty as the third-world politician or general who pockets the money.
Bribery is a global problem. Only four years ago, Gordon Foxley, a Ministry of Defence civil servant in this country, was gaoled for accepting £1.3 million in bribes.
There is rapid inflation in the currency of bribery. Last year's Mr. Five Per Cent. is this year's Mr. Fifteen Per Cent. or Mr. Twenty-five Per Cent.
In the past, British business has been fairly relaxed about bribery, but no longer. Adair Turner, on behalf of the Confederation of British Industry, told the Los Angeles Times:
The sums of money are enormous. In the 1980s, Zaire's foreign debt rose to $5 billion, but the personal wealth of President Mobutu, the country's President, exceeded $4 billion. What was true of Mobutu was true of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines or Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic.
The problem in some developing countries is not a shortage of capital but the fact that the capital is owned by a tiny elite and held offshore. That money ends up being invested in European and north American property markets and stock markets, instead of in the economic development of those Presidents' own countries.
Bribes--I mean big bribes--are always paid in hard currency, usually directly to an offshore bank account, which robs the developing country of the foreign exchange it needs to promote its development.
The cost of bribes falls primarily on the poor. When a corrupt contractor from this or some other rich country pays a 15 per cent. bribe, he adds that to the price of his contract. His power station or irrigation scheme will cost more, and the little people--those who buy the electricity or the water to irrigate their crops--will pay the price of that bribe. Bribery is a direct transfer of money from the poor to the rich.
According to the EC representative in Kenya, the French contractor who was awarded the contract to build the Turkwel gorge dam--there was no international competition for the project--charged 2.4 times the cost of a comparable dam and power station on the Tana river in Kenya. The Kenyan officials charged with monitoring the contract did not complain because they gained, in the words of the EC official, "high personal advantage".
When bribery takes root, people start buying things that they do not need. Last year, the chief of naval staff in Pakistan resigned amid allegations of bribery in connection with a £580 million purchase of submarines. To Pakistan's credit, the Government have since launched an "Accountability, Accountability, Accountability" campaign--I am glad to see that the rhetoric of new Labour has a global application--designed to root out corruption, and some 85 officials have already been suspended. The Pakistan President estimates that corruption in that country costs the Government 2 billion rupees a day. Many other developing countries--such as Botswana, Uganda and South Africa--take the problem of bribery very seriously.
The International Monetary Fund, which has been the unwitting financier of many big bribes in the past, is now taking a tough line. A "not for public use" document produced in September last year states:
In 1977, the United States took the lead in combating corruption when President Carter's Administration secured the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is still the only legislation in the world that makes international bribery an offence. The Act has worked well. It has been used, and it has led to convictions and prison sentences. It has changed the culture of American business.
3.44 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create offences of international bribery and corruption; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would make it a criminal offence for a United Kingdom resident or a United Kingdom company to bribe, or attempt to bribe, a public official in another country. It is a serious crime to bribe someone in the United Kingdom, but it may surprise some hon. Members to know that, under British law, it is perfectly legal to bribe someone abroad. It is a case of one law for the United Kingdom and another for the rest of the world.
"Most British companies support the OECD goals."
He also said:
"Corruption's become a big issue because it just costs business so much these days."
However, the consequences of international bribery are most serious in developing countries. Corruption can go right to the top. Two former Presidents of the Republic of Korea have been prosecuted and indicted for bribery. A President of Brazil has been impeached on corruption charges.
"Conditionality will be attached to . . . safeguard the use of Fund resources."
That may explain why the IMF decided last week not to restore loans to Kenya, because of continuing concerns about the failure of Daniel arap Moi's Government to stamp out corruption.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |