Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-142)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
EDMUND HOSKER
AND MR
PIERS HARRISON
18 OCTOBER 2007
Q140 Chairman: The OECD said—and
I think it was Professor Pieth himself -that they believed that
although it was not the OECD's job to tell any Member State how
to implement it, there was a problem with the law in the UK. Their
understanding was that the British Government were pleading some
difficulty in getting legislation prepared and through. He added
the comment that he did not really see why it would take more
than six months to introduce a necessary piece of legislation.
Is there any specific anti-corruption legislation to clarify the
offences in preparation?
Mr Thomas: As I made clear in
answer to Sir Robert, one of the remaining issues of work is to
bring forward revisions to our laws on corruption. We do believe
we comply with the Convention at the moment, but we do want to
simplify the law as it stands. Members will be aware that a draft
Corruption Bill was brought before the House for pre-legislative
scrutiny and as a result of the concerns which were raised that
Bill was withdrawn. We have gone back to the Law Commission to
ask them to prepare a draft Bill to try to reflect on the lessons
from those investigations which have taken place already and indeed
the experience of other countries that have also been implementing
the Convention. As I indicated, we are expecting them to publish
their thoughts in November with a view to public consultation
in December. We are still optimistic the timescale of the draft
Bill by October 2008 is realistic and achievable.
Q141 Chairman: That is rather longer
than OECD were hoping for. I think he made the comment that it
was not really in their ability to comment on a Law Commission
proposal, they could only comment on a Government Bill and you
are saying it will be autumn 2008 before such a Bill.
Mr Thomas: That is the timescale
we are working to. I respect his view of course, but I simply
point out to the Committee the very real complexities which were
brought out in this area by the pre-legislative scrutiny of the
draft Corruption Bill back in 2003.
Q142 Chairman: Thank you for that.
The frustration we have is that the Government have put forward
a number of measures and if you look back where we were four or
five years ago, when we were under heavy criticism and we had
not ratified the Anti-corruption Convention and we had not set
up an effective policing operation, we had made no progress, all
of those things are positive and move in the right direction.
I do think that the abandonment of the Saudi case has real repercussions
which even the Financial Times described as unhealthy and
potentially self-destructive. In other words it may set a precedent
which may make other countries feel can be prayed in aid. I can
only say to you that that piece of legislation, if it helps secure
prosecutions in future cases, will help somewhat to address the
balance. A very final practical point. Which department will actually
be introducing that Bill? Will it be BERR?
Mr Thomas: No; Ministry of Justice.
Chairman: May I thank you very much for
your evidence across a fairly wide range of issues and thank you
for some of the undertakings which you have given in terms of
further evidence and indeed advice on the specifics of Alfred
Knight which we shall write to the Contact Point about. Thank
you very much.
| 
