News & what's on - Written by on Thursday, March 14, 2013 15:27 - 1 Comment

Parliament report calls for Bribery Act review: Our opinion – Junk in. Junk Out.

Print Friendly

In a recent report “Roads to Success: SME Exports” the House of Lords committee on small and medium-sized enterprises called for urgent scrutiny of the Bribery Act by a parliamentary select committee claiming that the Bribery Act has met with “confusion and uncertainty.”

Some small businesses told the committee that the Bribery Act had put the UK at a disadvantage,

Some of the arguments in support of the proposed review include claims that the Bribery Act prevents people from taking others to dinner.

Obvious rubbish. None the less it is disappointing that there are still people peddling this line.

We have extracted the relevant piece of the report below.  It’s worth a read:

Extract follows:

10.1.  The Bribery Act 2010 came into force in July 2011. Its purpose was to modernise domestic and foreign offences of bribery. Its enactment led to a flurry of concern that SMEs would be particularly harshly affected. Mr Simon of UKTI agreed that the Act had “provoked a bit of anxiety” and said that “it is possible that [the UK] have lost some business”.

10.2.  It was not surprising, therefore, that whilst several witnesses recognised it as having enhanced the reputation of the UK in terms of business ethical standards, some expressed concern that the Act had given rise to uncertainty and put the UK at a trading disadvantage. Deltex Medical Ltd, for example, said:

“The Bribery Act is a concern because it creates an imbalance with other markets. We support appropriate measures to uphold industry best practice and ethical business practices. However, the terms of the Bribery Act itself potentially restrict trading opportunities—for example in countries such as China and Brazil that do not conform to the same code of practice as the UK. In our experience, we have had to pay to review potential overseas distributors in China. Many Directors of SMEs are rightly concerned about being able to expand export markets whilst conforming to the Bribery Act.”

10.3.  He went on:

“BRIC countries especially raise challenging questions around the Bribery Act. My fellow directors and I have concerns over how we operate correctly under the Bribery Act within those countries. We have taken legal advice. We have made changes to our contracts. All of those areas have ways of trading that are different from those that we have in the UK, and different standards. It is difficult for any company to go in and follow the recommendations.”

10.4.  Tony Shepherd of Alderley plc expressed his views robustly:

“The existing Act is virtually impossible to operate as far as a UK company is concerned. You cannot really take someone out to dinner without committing a crime. I am very strongly in favour of trying to eliminate bribery, but to have a situation where we are subject to a law that is much more severe than anywhere else in the world is not good.” Our emphasis [ED: We’d like to meet Tony, who does not appear to have read the Ministry of Justice Guidance or]

10.5.  ADS also recognised the value of the Act but asked for “clearer guidance … on its practical application and its implications, particularly the responsibility on SMEs for local ‘agents'”. They also thought it “essential that the UK pursues a global level playing field in bribery rules so UK companies are not disadvantaged”. LMK Thermosafe Ltd similarly understood the purpose of the Act but said that adhering to the Act restricted their ability to sell successfully and, as a result of Act, they preferred to “work in markets where honesty is appreciated”. Mr Ehmann of the IoD described the Bribery Act 2012 as a “counterproductive” measure that has “held us back”. It had had, he said, “a significant impact” on his members, especially for those trading with BRIC countries and developing economies.

Current Government action

10.6.  The Government explained to us what action they had taken to help SMEs to understand the implications of the Bribery Act 2010. The Ministry of Justice has published guidance on the Act and has run a programme of awareness-raising, prioritising UK industrial sectors most exposed to corruption risks. There is an online Business Anti-Corruption Portal which is specially targeted at SMEs and provides a comprehensive and practical business tool to help them avoid and fight corruption, with specific advice on 62 countries. Commercial Awareness training for FCO staff aims to equip them with the knowledge and skills to be able to provide suitable support to businesses, including advice on this issue. Mr Simon referred also to an initiative being considered by UKTI, “a potential signposting opportunity to people who can give specific guidance to companies as to how directors can take appropriate levels of care to ensure they do not infringe the Bribery Act”. He suggested that the “most dangerous thing” was not “the legislation per se” but “a lack of confidence”.

10.7.  As with intellectual property issues, we exhort the Government to make efforts to promote the international harmonisation of standards, and also to raise awareness amongst SMEs about the application of the Bribery Act 2010 and explain exactly how it will be applied in practice.

10.8.  Mr Simon suggested that “there is a desire that the Bribery Act be tested by the Crown Prosecution Service, because then the community as a whole will have a better sense of where it stands”.We do not agree. It is not satisfactory to wait for elaborate court cases to define the actual workings of the Bribery Act 2010 in case law.

10.9.  Whilst we acknowledge the importance of the example of high ethical standards being set by the UK, application of the Bribery Act 2010 has been met with confusion and uncertainty. We recommend, therefore, that, at the earliest opportunity, the Act should be the subject of post-legislative scrutiny by a Parliamentary select committee.

Our Opinion

There is plenty of free guidance out there on the application of the Bribery Act.  We cannot think of a piece of legislation which has sparked much more commentary, advisory, much of it on line and completely free, including our own eponymous website.

Complaints about a lack of information and desire for more guidance ring hollow – especially when a centerpiece propping up the claim is the concern that taking someone to dinner is a criminal offence.  The calls for a review need to be seen in context.  Junk in.  Junk out.

And, Tony from Alderly PLC, if you’re reading feel free to give us a call.  We can help you.

Share Button

1 Comment

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

They are back, although they never really left, guys | FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog
Apr 12, 2013 0:02

[…] 14 – Parliament report calls for Bribery Act review: Our opinion – Junk in. Junk Out. With typical British tact, the guys skewer a claim presented in the House of Lords committee that […]

Brought to you by...

Barry Vitou &
Richard Kovalevsky Q.C.

The views expressed on this website are those of Barry Vitou & Richard Kovalevsky QC and/or our guest authors from time to time. Please see our terms of use