Examination of Witnesses (Questions 554
- 559)
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 2009
RT HON
JACK STRAW,
MR MICHAEL
DES TOMBE
AND MR
RODERICK MACAULEY
Q554 Chairman: Can I welcome you
and your team, Mr Straw. Would you like to introduce your colleagues?
Mr Straw: Yes,
Roderick Macauley, who is the Bribery Bill Manager, and Michael
des Tombe, who is the Legal Adviser on this Bill.
Q555 Chairman:
You have the list of questions we have provided for you, and I
know you have got to go at half past four. Before we get on to
the list, may I ask you a question about the timetable which you
envisage for this Bill? There has been a lot of pressure from
the international community and others to get a Bill on this subject
onto the statute book. We are not going to report until the end
of July before the Houses rise. How do you see this legislation
getting through? Presumably, you want to get it through before
the General Election?
Mr Straw: I am determined to get
it through before the General Election and, provided there is
a fair wind from all the parties (and so far there are indications
that there are), there is no reason why it should not go through
by then. There is an issue about whether it could be introduced
in the so-called "spill-over" session in middle/late
October, as a carry-over Bill, and I have not got clearance from
the business managers about that but that would certainly be my
intention. That would give perfectly adequate time. It is not
a big Bill (especially, if I may say, my Lord Chairman, since
you and your Committee will have done your work and better informed
the debate about this), and I think that it is possible to generate
a fair wind behind this and get it through. I absolutely share
your view about the urgency of this.
Q556 Chairman: The trouble is there
is going to be a great pressure for amendments of one sort or
another, and the parliamentary timetable is going to be quite
important.
Mr Straw: All Bills are amended
and, if you are managing the Bill in an active way on the floor
of, certainly, the Commons, and upstairs in Committee, you make
sensible judgments about which amendments you should accept—because
I have certainly never sponsored a Bill which has been in perfect
form when it began its journey through Parliament—and then
those which would just throw out the works. There may well come
a moment when I would have to say to colleagues: "Well, don't
make the best the enemy of the good". I am sure, my Lord
Chairman, you and your Committee may well have received proposals
for amendments, and what I would certainly be encouraging both
your Committee and, also, outside groups is to come forward with
suggestions at this stage if they feel there should be amendments,
and so we can consider them now. One of the things I have done
is held a round table with business groups and with two of the
major NGOs as well to encourage them to come forward if they have
particular proposals.
Q557 Chairman: I do not think we
want any more consultation; we have got enough material on the
record from the witnesses already. No doubt we can incorporate
some. I really wanted to get a feel about how much of the discussion
about possible amendments you would like to have in the report.
Mr Straw: If there are thoughts
about possible amendments, my Lord Chairman, I would much rather
have them in your report so we can consider them than they emerge
later on.
Q558 Chairman: That is what I wanted
to know. Thank you very much.
Mr Straw: I greatly welcome the
report. As I say, there is no single truth about how you draft
a Bribery Bill, as is illustrated by the fact that this Bill is
quite different in many respects from the 2003 Bill.
Q559 Chairman: Can I turn to the
list of questions. The first one relates to the framework of the
Bill and the terminology involved: "expectation", "good
faith", "impartiality" and "trust". Is
it all sufficiently clear, as some of our witnesses have said
it is, particularly prosecution witnesses, or is there going to
be a need for any further guidance in respect of what these mean—"pathways",
for instance, which we have already got, and terms which may or
may not catch conduct which should not be criminal? What about
the general concept of corruptness, which of course has gone now?
Mr Straw: It is, first of all,
worth bearing in mind that, in the end, it is going to be a jury
which will decide on guilt or innocence, and they will come to
their view in the round as juries applying their own sense (obviously
with guidance from the trial judge) about whether the aggregate
of the conduct before them added up to an offence of bribery;
they will have a sense in their heads of what bribery will mean.
Secondly, in terms of the specific elements, we think it is clear.
Will there be a need for guidance? One thing I am pretty categorical
about is that it is not for the Secretary of State for Justice,
nor for my department, to issue a gloss on the criminal law. There
could be a case for the DPP or the Attorney General issuing guidance
which is published to prosecutors. That is a matter for them.
For certain, my Lord Chairman, over the years, some of the words
and phrases which are in the final Bribery Act will be the subject
of debate in the higher courts about their exact definition. It
was ever thus.
|
