| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 May 2006 : Column 1331
The impact of corruption goes far further than the money lost. It creates a blight on investment and private sector development, and it holds back economic growth. Corruption funds and facilitates organised crime and terrorism. The proceeds flow into money-laundering structures, and the UK is involved because of the importance of the City of London and some UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories as international financial centres. To their credit, the UK Government led the international donor community last year in doubling aid to Africa, but the UK needs to take a similar leadership role in tackling the supply side of international corruption.
The current law on corruption rests on a confusing mix of common law and statutes—principally the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1889, 1906 and 1916. The Law Commission published proposals for reform in March 1998. The proposals were taken forward in a draft Bill published by the Government in 2003, and referred for scrutiny to an all-party Joint Committee. The Bill tried to define corrupt activity by using an artificially extended concept of agency, which was of byzantine complexity. The Joint Committee’s report on the Bill was clear, unanimous and trenchant. It concluded that the Government's approach would not be understood by police, prosecutors, jurors or the public—including, especially, the business and public sector communities and their advisers, both here and abroad. The Committee suggested a more straightforward way to define corrupt activity. That was initially rejected by the Government in December 2003, but last December the Home Office reopened its proposals to consultation.
The all-party Africa group, and an all-party panel of Members campaigning against corruption, submitted evidence calling for a wholly new Bill to address contemporary problems and to replace the existing legislation, which is 100 years old. To take that idea forwards, Transparency International (UK), with funding from the York-based Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, drafted a corruption Bill, which, with some minor amendments, I am introducing today.
The key objective of the Bill is to reform the law of bribery in a way that will be readily intelligible, responsive to contemporary problems and fully compliant with the OECD and UN conventions. That would improve the prospects for successful prosecutions and help the Government to develop a coherent anti-corruption strategy. A clear new law is in the national interest. By enacting the Bill, the UK will demonstrate its willingness to assume a leading role in fighting corruption worldwide. That will reinforce the leading role of the City of London as the marketplace for world trade, finance and investment, and strengthen the UK’s role in the international campaigns against terrorism and organised crime.
The fight against corruption is not anti-business. Promoting high standards of business integrity will
maintain confidence in the UK’s equities and securities markets, and tough laws outlawing corrupt practices strengthen business and markets, because they remove unacceptable levels of risk and anti-competitive conduct. The Bill defines bribery by reference to the improper conduct that is intended to result from the bribe. It defines corruption in law in the way that most people think of corruption and bribery. It is much clearer than the 2003 draft Bill.
My Bill also includes several new features of anti-corruption law. There is an offence of bribery of foreign public officials that corresponds precisely with the requirements of the OECD and UN conventions. There is a new offence of foreign bid rigging in competitive tendering. That problem was identified by the Joint Committee and does not fall easily within normal definitions of bribery. There is a new offence designed to safeguard the integrity of sporting events by criminalising the fixing of a race or match. That activity is frequently rooted in betting and linked to organised crime. With London hosting the 2012 Olympics, the creation of such an offence would send out an important message.
The Bill includes two new duties to be enforced through criminal sanctions. One requires UK companies to take steps to ensure that subsidiary companies and other contractually related parties do not commit corruption offences. The other requires public servants to report offers of bribes, or reasonable suspicions of corrupt practices. The Bill would remove the pointless and embarrassing requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General for any prosecution for corruption. It would empower the Serious Fraud Office to prosecute corruption cases without having to show that fraud is involved.
The Bill is worthy of a leading G8 nation that has ratified the international anti-corruption conventions, including the UN convention now in force. It would destroy the myth that there is competitive advantage for UK companies and nationals in being free to bribe abroad—a behaviour that few businesses would contemplate in this country. It is a timely and necessary Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Hugh Bayley, Mr. John Denham, Mike Gapes, Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Chris Mullin, John Bercow, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Gary Streeter, Tony Baldry, James Duddridge, Norman Lamb and Mr. Tom Clarke.
Corruption
Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about corruption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 185].
Education and Inspections Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of 15(th) March 2006 (Education and Inspections Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows—
1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
3. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day or, if later, six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. —[Jim Knight.]
3.43 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I do not intend to detain the House on the programme motion. We support the broad principles of the Bill because it will make it easier for parent groups and other non-profit organisations to establish new schools and the new trust school concept will enable
schools to have greater independence in their day-to-day running. We also support the Bill because it will make it easier to close bad schools and will put the disciplinary powers of teachers on a statutory basis.
However, we want the Bill to be debated in full, not least because we are less than happy with several of its elements. We thought that the programme motion moved after Second Reading provided insufficient time in Committee. In the end, the Government had to add an extra eight hours of Committee time, with two extended evening sittings and an extra day’s sitting. Even with that, several clauses were not debated because they were lost to the knife.
Given the amount of interest in the Bill, it is likely that some groups of amendments, such as those on false allegations against teachers and the new clauses on the teaching of reading and the welfare of vulnerable pupils, are unlikely to be reached. However, we are keen for the good elements of the Bill to pass swiftly on to the statute book, so we will not oppose the motion.
3.44 pm
Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State, and congratulating him on his new role? A reshuffle in the middle of Committee stage is hardly a dream, but I am sure that he will dazzle us with his mastery of his brief. I look forward to debating with him in the months ahead.
In common with Conservative spokesmen, we are concerned that the programme motion provides inadequate time to debate our concerns. In particular, we are worried that we will not reach the new clauses on vulnerable pupils that we tabled in Committee; indeed, we did not have enough time to reach them then. We do not wish to waste the time of the House, so we will not oppose the programme motion. Nevertheless, we wish to place on the record our concern that inadequate time has been provided.
3.45 pm
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I do not want to delay the business either, as this is an important Bill that we wish to scrutinise carefully. Like other contributors, I fear that there is not enough time under the timetabling motion. I am particularly disturbed that the National Union of Teachers is running a campaign to influence hon. Members, as I have received two or three standard letters asking us to use this opportunity to vote down all selection by aptitude or ability. Two very fine grammar schools serve my constituency. The majority of my constituents and I want to sustain them so that they can flourish, and I am not sure that there is adequate time under the programme motion to debate that crucial point and remain in order. I hope that the Government will join us in saying that fine grammar schools that are well supported by local communities have every right to life and should not be threatened. I am not sure why the NUT think that we can vote today or tomorrow to stop that practice, but it is important to tell people outside the House about its campaign to destroy fine grammar schools, and to put on the record our staunch support for those schools.
Orders of the Day
Education and Inspections Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
[Relevant documents: The Eighteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Ninth Progress Report, HC 1098, and the letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the Chairman of the Committee, dated 22nd May 2006.]
‘(1) A local education authority may by virtue of subsection (5)(b)(ii) of section 7 publish proposals under that section for the establishment of a community or community special school—
(a) only if at a prescribed time prescribed conditions are met in relation to the authority, and
(b) except where further prescribed conditions are also met in relation to the authority at that time, only with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(2) The conditions prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b) must include conditions relating to the standards achieved by the authority in performing the functions to which Chapter 4 of Part 8 (inspection and review of local authorities in England) applies.
(3) The other conditions that may be prescribed for those purposes are conditions relating to either or both of the following—
(a) the standards of performance achieved by any relevant school, and
(b) the extent of diversity among relevant schools.
(4) The matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in determining whether to give consent under subsection (1)(b) include standards of the kind mentioned in subsections (2) and (3)(a) and the extent of diversity among relevant schools.
(5) The power by virtue of subsection (2) or (3)(a) to prescribe standards includes power to prescribe them by reference to the opinion of the Chief Inspector or by reference to any rating awarded by the Chief Inspector following an inspection or review under any enactment.
“Chief Inspector” means Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills;
“maintained school” does not include a maintained nursery school;
“relevant school”, in relation to a local education authority, means a maintained school maintained by the authority or an Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts in the area of the authority.'. — [Alan Johnson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.47 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Alan Johnson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16— Ballot of parents on change of category from community school to foundation school—
‘(1) A proposal for a prescribed alteration involving a change of category from community school to foundation school may be implemented only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending the school to which the proposal relates.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).'.
New clause 17— Ballot of parents before publication of proposals under section 7—
‘(1) The local education authority may publish a proposal under section 7 only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending schools which, in the opinion of the local education authority, may be affected by the proposal.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a proposal under section 7(5)(b)(ii) for the establishment of a community or community special school.'.
New clause 18— Duty to establish new school where current provision is inadequate—
(a) fewer than 15 per cent. of schools in the area of a local education authority are foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, or an Academy, or
(b) more than 15 per cent. of schools in the area of a local authority are in Ofsted category 4,
the local authority must publish a notice under section 7 inviting proposals for a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school.'.
New clause 19— Duty to establish new school when supported in adequate numbers—
‘(1) Where a local education authority in England receive representations from parents of 100 or more qualifying children demanding the establishment of a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school, the authority must publish a notice under section 7.
(2) In this section “qualifying child”, in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.
New clause 21— Establishment of community schools—
‘Where the Secretary of State is asked to grant consent for the proposal of a new community school under section 7 or 9, he shall act with a view to encouraging all schools to become foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, and to acquire a foundation.'.
New clause 22— Assistance for proposals for new schools—
‘(1) A local education authority in England shall provide advice and assistance to parents of children in the area of the authority in connection with developing a proposal for the establishment of a new school under sections 7 and 9.
(2) In particular, the authority shall provide support, which shall include dedicated consultancy support, to parents to ensure that any proposals brought forward are viable.
(3) In exercising its functions under this section, the authority shall act with a view to ensuring the development of viable proposals by parents.
(4) An authority may not refuse to assist a parent solely on the grounds that the original proposal is underdeveloped, unworkable or in practical respects substandard.'.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |