§ (1) This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and this Act may be cited together as the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1906 to 1916.
§ (2) In this Act—
- (a) the expression "consideration" has the same meaning as in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906; and
- (b) the expression "public body" has the same meaning as in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889.
§ Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, shall in its application to Scotland be read and 472 construed as if a town council, a parish council, a school board, and a district committee were specified in addition to-the councils named therein.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, after"1889,"to insert a new Sub-section:
(c)"The expression 'agent' includes any person employed by or acting for another.As these three Acts are not going to be read together, I think it is necessary to make the term "agent" include what it is made to include in the Act of 1906. You want the term "agent" to include the employé of the person who is guilty. I think this is a point which must have slipped the observation of the draftsman or of the Attorney-General.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI beg to second the-Amendment.
§ Sir F. SMITHMy own view is, though I do not pretend to be a draftsman, that these words were not necessary in the Act quoted, but the draftsman took a different view. He thought the words were a useful addition to the Act, and that the term "agent" should include any person employed by or acting for another. I doubt whether those words are necessary, but as they were so stated in the Act of 1906, and as that Act and this Bill, when it becomes an Act, are not to be read together, I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir H. DALZIELI congratulate the Government on having passed this Bill, though I do not think it is going to serve to the fullest extent the purpose for which it was intended. It may assist, but I do-not think it will go anything like so far as they anticipate. I think that better business management would probably make this Bill unnecessary. I only rise to recall to the attention of the House a question which took place on the Second Reading stage. As the House knows, the-origin of this Bill was caused by a case-which was brought before the Court in which action was taken in respect of bribery and corruption in the Army Clothing Department. When the case-was before the Court, Mr. Muir, the prosecuting counsel, made a statement that it was with the greatest difficulty he was 473 able to obtain all the necessary assistance, support, and evidence from the War Office to carry on the case, and, if possible, obtain a conviction. Mr. Muir's standing in the legal profession is very high, and when he makes a statement of that kind it naturally attracts a good deal of attention. The Attorney-General disposed of the suggestion I put forward by reading a statement made by Mr. Muir at the end of the case. I have since refreshed my memory, and I am inclined to believe that there is a good deal of substance in what Mr. Muir said. If the Attorney-General has had an opportunity of refreshing his memory, I should be glad if he can give me any further information on the subject.
§ Sir A. SPICERIt is said that you cannot make people honest by Act of Parliament. That is perfectly true, but at the same time you can, by wise legislation, remove a great deal of temptation, and I say as one who has had a fairly long experience in the City of London with a great many of the commercial representatives that the Act of 1906 has done a great deal of good to all those who are employing large numbers of those who, as agents, are going about the country obtaining business. I am quite sure that if you question the principals of firms all over the country they would say that the Act of 1906 has done a great deal of good in helping to remove temptation and in helping to prevent corruption. I am much obliged to the Government for granting us several Amendments. I am only sorry that the Attorney-General did not see his way to go quite as far as we wanted in regard to the fiat, but, having told us that the application for the fiat was never allowed to remain in his chamber longer than three days, I am quite sure he will live up to that statement in future, and, if he does so, neither he nor his successors will have much criticism from those who are trying to work this Act.
§ Mr. BOOTHI thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his references to me, and the kindly way in which he has spoken of the difference of opinion which has existed, but as expressed today I am not very far out of accord with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, certainly not at all with what he desires to accomplish. But I do not take the same view of the success of past legislation. This Bill would not have been 474 necessary if past legislation had been a success. I doubt if my statement will be challenged when I say that never has there been so much secret bribery in the history of England as there has been within the last twelve months. Soon after the War broke out I ventured to warn the Government as to what would happen when these large contracts would have to be placed. All the commercial travellers were busy asking each other, "What has to be done to get orders from So-and-so?" It was the one topic of all business men. There is no difference of opinion on this point, and man after man threw up his job rather than go down to Aldershot and Pimlico, and so on, looking for orders in these conditions. There are very many men who went into other occupations, where they received less remuneration, rather than plunge into a maelstrom of that kind. I uttered a warning note in this House, and if the Government had taken any notice of it, all this Pimlico business and these scandals would have been avoided.
The Government themselves are largely to blame for a lot of the corruption which has gone on in Government Departments; not consciously or wickedly, but by the way they have treated any hon. Member in this House when he wants to bring things before their notice. Prom whatever quarter he comes he is not looked upon with favour. He is looked upon as a man who is causing trouble. Look at the impudent answer which I got today. I put down a question about facts which came to my knowledge accidentally. I received certain information as to a company which, instead of being wound up, was increasing its business, and I got an answer which was intended to influence me against coming forward again. Of course it will have the opposite effect, because these understrappers of the Government are unable to gauge the quality of a man. I have brought this matter of corruption forward again and again. I did it very reluctantly and only after a great deal of anxious bought, because I did not like to be the first man in the House to suggest that bribes were being paid and a large amount of corruption was going on when we were just beginning a European War, and I had to ask myself what would be the effect on our Allies and our enemy and on recruiting if I brought these things to the notice of the House. But when, from a sense of duty, I did do so, there was not the 475 slightest bit of thanks or encouragement from any Government Department, or from the supporters of the Government. They are largely to blame because of their attitude when a man gets some information on all these matters which ought to be changed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir A. Spicer) is wrong about the effects of legislation. I believe that he would spare no time and no trouble in order to purify the commercial life of this country from secret bribery. If we could do it by legislation so much the better. I am a believer in education and in a right spirit permeating the country. The Government ought to set the first example. If they are slack, most of the private people and private firms who during this War come into touch more with Government Departments—except the Ministry of Munitions, which is largely run by business men—are slightly deteriorated as a result of the contact. They find that the code of honour with regard to careful expenditure is not so high in Government Departments as it is, say, on the Manchester Exchange. I am sorry to have to say these things, but if attention is not paid to them, if the members of the Government are not careful there will be many more ugly scandals to come. I ventured to warn them that there was far more jobbery going on, about ten times as much, as during the Boer War under the Unionist Government. I knew the action of my party when that War was on, and therefore I thought that it was my duty as a Liberal Member, rather than to leave it to the other side, to warn them that there was far greater jobbery and corruption going on under the Liberal Government conducting this War than under the Unionist Government conducting the Boer War. Not a single member of the Government chose to give a single moment to ask what foundation I had for this. I had a lot of material, but I got nothing but frowns from even my own party leaders, and from the understrappers as well. At that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law), after I had made this point, said that he agreed with me that he and his party were taking careful note of very many things which were reported to them, but that they would not deal with them during the War, but would do so after the War.
476 I was one of the first to suggest the change which led to his joining the Government, and now that he has joined the Government I hope that he will induce his colleagues to attend to this matter. We do not want these things stored up and kept until after the War, in order to get at some person, or body of persons. We want them put right as we go on, because the taxpayers are entitled to have their interests looked after. I hope that this Bill will be a success. I have no faith in it whatever until there is a better spirit in the Government, and, to a certain extent, in this House. Not merely was I discouraged by the Government when I brought some of these points forward. I put questions upon the Paper with regard to huts and all kinds of contracts, when I knew that jobbery was going on all over the country. Information was supplied to me by clergymen, magistrates, workmen, trade union leaders, and men of all kinds. I began to put questions on the Paper, and not only did the Government show no anxiety to have this corruption, which has led them to bring in this Bill, stopped, but members of my party came to me individually every day and begged me not to take these things, but to leave them to Conservative members. I do not see why we should not speak of these things because Liberal members are in power. If I were to be challenged on a point like this, I could bring the testi-money of dozens of men. I know my colleagues too well to think that they would challenge me and stand the risk of revelation. That attitude still continues, and it existed at the beginning of the War. Therefore, I appeal to the Government in a matter of this kind that, if we are vigorous in one thing, we should be vigorous in all, and I ask them to be vigorous not only against Germany, but against corruption in this country. But I have no faith that this will be done until I see a different spirit on that bench.
§ Mr. KINGI desire to refer to a few points in connection with this Bill which are really the points underlying the Amendments that I had on the Paper. This is emergency legislation. I have always objected in this House to emergency legislation being brought forward here for the purposes of the War and yet being permanent after the War. We are now amending the law of corruption, so that it will continue in this form after 477 the War. What is the result of acting on that principle? We carry through Amendments hastily, I will even say sloppily, and there they remain as monuments of our legislation after the War. The time will come when we shall find the loopholes, deficiencies, and faults in this legislation, but then we shall be occupied with new difficulties and we shall not be able to remedy them. My point is that a little more care, a little more time given now, would save a great deal of the trouble that will come afterwards. I have the highest opinion of the ability of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. I know that I could put this Bill in a better form with an hour or two's work. I am quite certain that they could do so in a minute or two, and if only they would put their hearts into future legislation and give a little more time and a few more minutes to it the result would be much more satisfactory.
There are one or two points as to which, I believe, there are serious loopholes in the Bill. First of all there is the fact that corruption must be corruption through the passing of money. If, for instance, a man who has a big factory and who is selling goods to the Government says to the inspector, "You are passing my goods, and if your son or any nominee of yours wants to get a position in my factory he shall do so on advantageous terms." That would not be corruption under this Bill, and yet it is just this sort of thing that may very likely occur. Another point is that the offence must be committed within the United Kingdom. A number of these houses have agencies or branches in Paris or even in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Corruption which had been actually done in these places would not be corruption under the Act. Therefore, if a man says, "I have an office in Paris. If you call at my office there they will be very glad to see you," and a bribe is offered there. No offence is committed under this Act, because it was done outside the United Kingdom. I think that that is a very serious defect which might be of detriment to the public interest. There is one other point. When a Government contract passes through the hands of an agent, a man who is not a British subject, apparently, under the Bill as I read it, corruption would not be an offence for which a man might be indicted. Those are three points to which the Government should devote a few 478 minutes' consideration, and in respect of which right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench might amend the Bill and make it very much better. That is why I have attempted to intervene in this matter. I confess freely that I had the assistance of a man very much abler and of very much greater experience than myself. I hope that this Bill will be a success. I believe that I could make it better than it is, but that even as it is it may be useful.
§ Sir F. SMITHI have heard the compliments which the hon. Gentleman and others have addressed to this Bill, and. still more to the Government, and also the criticisms, and in spite of these I do not gather that anybody really entertains any doubt that this Bill, even in, its present form, is a most desirable Bill, and a Bill which attains objects which have not previously been attained. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has formed, I am afraid, a very unfavourable view of the Bill on its technical side, and he tells us, not as I gather as a result of his study of it, but as a result of the study of this anonymous gentleman on whose behalf he speaks, and who, he says, is a far abler man than himself, that it is a very bad Bill, and the hon. Gentleman more specifically says that we have accepted sloppy Amendments to a sloppy Bill. I think that that is rather ungrateful, because the only Amendment which I have accepted to-day is the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman himself.
§ Mr. KINGI did not say that the Amendment was sloppy in any way. I said that the result was that legislation passed in this form was liable to become sloppy.
§ Sir F. SMITHThe only Amendment I consented to accept was an Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, which, in my humble judgment, was not necessary to-the Bill, and which has no artistic importance. The hon. Gentleman added the observation that he could have put the Bill in a very much better shape. Here, again, if he means that himself and his more learned adviser could have put the Bill in a better shape, all I can say is that on Committee stage and Report stage we ask nothing more than to have Amendments relating to this Bill which would improve it. The hon. Member has had every opportunity of putting down such Amendments both on the Committee stage and Report stage. The hon. Member did 479 not take the opportunity on the Committee stage, perhaps because at that time he was preoccupied with another matter. But on the Report stage it was clearly open to him to put down Amendments, of which I would gladly have availed myself, if they would have improved the Bill. I think the hon. Gentleman has not sufficiently read the Bill, for he said that this measure only deals with corruption where the inducement is money. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill he would not have laboured under that delusion. The hon. Member is apparently of opinion that if anyone in connection with a Government contract takes the matter to the Isle of Man, the business can be done there with impunity, and he could come back and defy the law. I would only remark that if the hon. Member knows anybody who contemplates that method of evading the law he will do that person a service if he gives him a caution.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) I quite recognise took a great interest in these matters long before the occasion of the second Bill was disclosed. He has read the Government a lecture on their many shortcomings. We who sit on these benches receive so many homilies relating to the public service that we have perhaps become a little more hardened than we should be. The hon. Member said, I forget the exact limitation which he put, but I think he stated that since the beginning of the War the extent of the corruption which went on had not been paralleled before. That, of course, involves a general charge, but I think it is one the hon. Gentleman would not have put forward on his responsibility except with knowledge of particular instances. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not have said that there existed a degree of general corruption in the public service of which we have had no similar experience.
§ Mr. BOOTHI did not say that. I was referring to the previous Act having been passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, who thought it would do a great deal of good; but the prevailing opinion among business men is that there has never been so much secret bribery and corruption in the history of England as in the last twelve months, although the previous Act had been passed. I did not give instances that cross-examiners could deal with, but I gave 480 what I was entitled to give, namely, what was the opinion prevalent among business men.
§ Sir F. SMITHIt really comes to this: that as the result of reports made by business people, the hon. Gentleman states that there has never been so much corruption in the public service.
§ Sir F. SMITHIf it is not the public service there is a little difficulty in seeing how precisely the hen. Member justifies the very grave picture which he drew. I certainly understood him to say that.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am sure the OFFICIAL REPORT will bear me out that what I said was—and I distinctly limited it to that—that there has been more bribery and corruption during the last twelve months than ever existed before.
§ Sir F. SMITHAs a public official I am anxious to deal with charges of this kind, but to say that there is an immense amount of private corruption is a general and a vague charge. I do not wish to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman said, but what he meant was that there was unexampled corruption, and I understood his general suggestion to the House to mean that he had made complaints to Government Departments, that he had been repelled, and that no desire had been shown to inquire into individual cases which were placed before one or other of my colleagues.
§ Mr. BOOTHI was very specific in what I said. I said that, as the result of continual information which I received, I put questions on the Paper of this House, and, as for instance to-day, I was discouraged by the answers given to me from putting them on the Paper again. I put questions down time after time in relation to the question of huts, clothing, and a number of matters, and I got only discouraging answers, which convinced me that the Departments never wished to make inquiry.
§ Sir F. SMITHI do not know where really my hon. Friend stands now. Am I right or wrong in understanding my hon. Friend to say that in the first two years of the War there was unexampled corruption as having relation to the public Departments?
§ Mr. BOOTHThat is not what I said. I said that there was ten times more corruption going on in this War than there was in the Boer War, and I adhere to that.
§ Sir F. SMITHThere is ten times more hostilities going on than ever before, and I suppose the hon. Gentleman means that there is ten times more corruption going on. But that is a general charge.
§ Sir F. SMITHThe meaning of the Bill is to deal with corrupt practices, and what is the point of the hon. Gentleman's observations?
§ Sir F. SMITHWhen my hon. Friend says this degree of corruption exists, is it meant as a criticism of the Government? I understood him to say that he has given information to the Government, and that he had received no indication of any willingness to inquire into specine cases. I have only been a Law Officer of the Crown for some twelve months, and during those twelve months, if any Members had brought cases to my notice, I am quite certain that they would have received a sufficient answer. I would point out that the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under my instructions, and I am responsible in this House and elsewhere. If my hon. Friend has really cases which would tend to show in any particular instance that there has been corruption of this kind, not only public corruption, but private corruption, I snail have them inquired into, and I extend to my hon. Friend this unmistakable invitation: If he will call my attention, not to hundreds of cases, which must be present in general or partial knowledge to his mind, that will support his charge that there has been corruption, private or public, during the first eighteen months of this War—if he will give me twenty cases, if he will give me ten cases, if he will give me five, if he will give me one, I shall cause inquiry to be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe illustration I gave in my speech was not an imaginary charge of corruption against Departments; it was that the Government had been slack in dealing with things brought to their notice—in dealing with matters of jobbery in connection with contracts. What was 482 the attitude of the Government on the timber contracts? What about the huts scandals?
§ Sir F. SMITHIf that is all the hon. Gentleman intended to suggest, I really do not think the House will acquit him of flinging about serious and reckless charges. If all he was thinking about was such things as these contracts, let me say that we are dealing with quite a different subject. We are dealing with a Bill aimed at corruption, and yet the hon. Gentleman on the Third Reading makes a very serious reflection and brings very grave charges as to the extent of corruption. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let him withdraw them!"] I do not think it is necessary for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them. He has made statements which to the House it is perfectly clear have no meaning whatever. I repeat that if the hon. Gentleman still persists in the charge that corruption exists to such an extent, I, as the representative of the Departments charged with the exposure and punishment of this offence, challenge him to give one single case, and I undertake, if he does so, I will have it inquired into, and if there is sufficient evidence I further undertake that a prosecution shall take place.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy recalled the attention of the House to a discussion which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill in reference to observations made by learned counsel (Mr. Muir) who prosecuted in the case which, as the House knows, led to the present Bill. My right hon. Friend pointed out that in that debate Mr. Muir, in opening the case, stated to the jury that the prosecution had not been enthusiastically received in the Army Clothing Department. My right hon. Friend said, and I agree with him, that such a remark coming from counsel who himself represented the Crown, coming from a man of great experience and moderation of language, was one which demanded some inquiry. I agreed at the time with what my right hon. Friend said. He has asked me, to-day whether I am able to make any further statement to the House on that subject. I am not in a position to make a complete statement, but I can make a statement which will show to the House that in the limited time at my disposal the matter has not been neglected. I asked Mr. Muir to come and see me, and I discussed with him the statement he had made and inquired as to what justification there was for it. I also saw Lord Rother- 483 mere, who, as the House knows, is the head of this Department, and, as a result of the interview, I invited Mr. Muir to reduce into writing the specific facts on which he relied in justification for his general reflection on the Department. I should not be dealing candidly with the House if I did not make it quite clear that Mr. Muir adhered to what he had said, and, under these circumstances, the proper course was to require him to reduce into a formal statement the charges or statement which he made with details and the names of the various persons concerned. I received that document from Mr. Muir, and I forwarded it to Lord Rothermere yesterday or the day before, with a request to him to be good enough to submit it to his Department and let me hear from him the reply in detail to the statements made by Mr. Muir. In the time I had at my disposal I could not do more. I shall be glad to communicate the result to my right hon. Friend.
I do not claim, and I do not think anyone in the Government claims, that this Bill is going to end corruption. Our claim is very modest. We claim only that the law would be strengthened in these matters if it is amended in the direction which the Bill suggests. That is the principle underlying this Bill, and dealing with these matters as I do with great knowledge, I assure the House that the Government does not need, on this subject, any warning to the effect that the result of this Bill will not be to end corruption. We are well aware
How small of all that human hearts endureThat part which laws or kings can cause or cure!Ours is an extremely modest claim. It is that this Bill will make it more costly and more disgraceful for those who choose to break the law of this country.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.