Sussex’s reputation as a thriving academic hub of anti-corruption analysis was further
enhanced on 29th May as academics, practitioners and students met in the Jubilee
Building to talk about the impact of the 2011 UK Bribery Act (UKBA). The UKBA might
sound like a relatively obscure piece of legislation, but in many ways it is ground-breaking,
placing Britain in the vanguard of states that are trying to stamp out bribery as a way of
doing business. Until 2011 private bribery was not, for example, criminalised in the UK,
whilst the Act also took on the particularly thorny issue of ‘facilitation payments’ (effectively
small bribes paid to officials get things done) and corporate compliance procedures. No
company that does business in or from the UK can now blame a rogue trader for
committing bribery without them knowing; all employees have to be trained and educated
in what is and isn’t acceptable. Given its potentially significant impact on the way business
works, the UKBA has subsequently came in for quite a lot of scrutiny in the media, both at
home and abroad.
Academics at the Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption (SCSC) subsequently felt it
was high time that an attempt was made to assess the impact of the Act as well as
possible areas where it made need updating. And, as quickly became clear, there were
indeed a significant number of those. Roderick Macaulay from the Ministry of Justice
opened up proceedings by outlining that when he and his colleagues were drafting the
legislation they consulted (very) widely. Yet, the more people they spoke with, the more
difficult it became to find a consensus on what exactly bribery is (let alone what should be
done about it). For some, it was simple. For others, and particularly those looking to do
business in tougher parts of the world, it was anything other than clear.
Monty Raphael QC (Peters and Peters) energetically took up the challenge of critiquing
the Act’s effectiveness, noting that only three convictions had been achieved (and even
they were for relatively low level offences) and that the UK government itself seems to
undermine the Act by publishing guidance on how to get round it. For Raphael, the Act
was a noble attempt at cleaning up the business world, but it was ultimately an ineffective
tool in really getting to the core of the problem. Robert Barrington, Head of Transparency
International UK, wasn’t quite as downbeat as Raphael, stressing that the Act certainly
was fit for purpose and was subsequently a significant improvement on the legislation that
existed before. However, even Barrington was less than enthusiastic about the guidance
offered on getting around the Act, and he argued that if the Act was going to work in
practice then a sea-change in attitudes to doing business abroad would have to take
place.
SCSC Director Dan Hough was very pleased with how the day went. “Sussex is now firmly
on the map as a place where issues of corruption and anti-corruption are discussed
seriously”. In terms of the UK Bribery Act, Hough stressed that we were never likely to see
a raft of quick convictions. “The Act” he noted “has made business leaders think and quite
possibly change at least some aspects of business practice in ways that aren’t
immediately quantifiable”.
He further noted that “no one wants us to return to the pre-
2011 era, and that alone says something”.
The SCSC will be producing a briefing paper on the conference and this will be able on the
SCSC’s website by the end of June. The SCSC is now also looking forward to the 9 th
September, and the 2nd Annual SCSC conference that will again take place at Clifford
Chance’s offices in Canary Wharf. Do keep an eye on the SCSC website for further
details.