---

Corruption

My Lords, this Government place great emphasis on international development. When they chaired the G8 and held the presidency of the EU, that was their theme. The Make Poverty History campaign reinforced that. At the G8 in Gleneagles, they emphasised not only what the West could do, but what developing countries might do themselves. High on that agenda was tackling corruption. So when DfID published its White Paper last summer, following on from Gleneagles, its overarching theme was good governance, and the Secretary of State for International Development was made the Minister for tackling corruption. Introducing the DfID White Paper in the Commons last October, Hilary Benn said that, "““one thing is clear beyond doubt—without good governance we will not be able to defeat poverty, or climate change, or war, or famine””.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/06; col. 1737.]" He was in no doubt that corruption went both ways—the givers as well as the recipients of bribes. Again I quote: "““Bad governance can be caused or made worse by the actions of rich countries and their companies. For every bribe taken, there has to be a bribe giver; for every stolen dollar that is spirited out of a developing country, there has to be a bank account somewhere for it to go into””.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/06; col. 1739.]" The UK, he pledged, would renew its admittedly poor efforts in tackling this. Yet on 14 December the Attorney-General stated his desire to, "““balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest””.—[Official Report, 14/12/06; col. 1712.]" That balance was seemingly struck by abandoning the SFO investigation into BAE Systems. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is right about the absolute nature of the rule of law. What is the British interest here? Succumbing to foreign pressure? British companies having the reputation for bribery? The Attorney-General stated that he had consulted the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, or was it the other way around? Did the Prime Minister approach him first? But if he felt it was appropriate to consult his political colleagues,did he consult the Minister tasked with fighting international corruption? It seems that he did not.On Tuesday, I had an Answer to my Written Question on that. DfiD’s response stated that Hilary Benn’s role, "““as Minister leading on the fight against international corruption does not include being involved in decisions on individual law enforcement matters; and nor should it. This is properly a matter for the relevant investigatory and/or prosecuting authorities—the SFO in this case””.—[Official Report, 30/1/07; col. WA 29.]" Hilary Benn said in a reply to my colleague Alistair Carmichael in the Commons on 24 January that: "““It would be improper for me to be consulted because that is an operational decision and quite properly that responsibility rests with the director of the SFO and the Attorney-General. Indeed, if I had been consulted on an operational decision, the hon. Gentleman might have been the first person to complain about it””.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/01/07; col. 1410.]" So do we understand from that that the SFO is to be at arm’s length from politicians on operational matters? What of the other Ministers, even the Prime Minister? The Written Answer to me concludes by saying: "““As the Attorney-General explained, he obtained the views of the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Defence Secretaries as to the public interest considerations raised by this investigation and conveyed them to the director of the SFO””.—[ Official Report, 30/1/07; col. WA 29.]" We have heard that one of the public interest considerations related to information on terrorists. If so, and if it was appropriate to consult these Ministers, why was the Home Office not asked, or the Department of Trade and Industry on whether this decision would jeopardise the reputation of the City? Here I note that Hermes, Britain’s biggest pension fund, has said that it threatens the country’s reputation as a leading financial centre and would have a high long-term cost for business and markets. Can the Minister let us know whether he did consult the Department of Trade and Industry, and if so, what advice he received? What did the Foreign Secretary say about precedents? What will happen on Tanzania or South Africa? Might we decide to call off the SFO inquiries there because we suddenly need Tanzania’s or South Africa’s vote at the UN, perhaps on an invasion somewhere because we feel that that is in our national interest, and maybe they are siding with China, tied in with it over trade. The Saudi ambassador to the UK says that corruption must not be condoned. So is this about preserving BAE? We do not know. What does the Attorney-General think Hilary Benn should report to the Prime Minister this month on his new area of responsibility? Should he report the concern expressed by the OECD secretary-general about, "““the political will of our members””?" The Prime Minister wrote in the foreword to the DfID White Paper that, "““there will need to be an effort right across Government to put our pledges into practice””." Indeed. "““Good governance””," said Hilary Benn, "““is about ensuring the rule of law … Corruption hurts poor people and it undermines the accountability of political leaders and officials to their citizens””." Indeed. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of double standards. If we are not to assume that this is what we are facing, could the Attorney-General explain to the House how the actions that he took just before Christmas in relation to BAE and Saudi Arabia can possibly square with the apparent sentiments so clearly expressed by his colleagues?