Deception in High Places by Gilby Nicholas;

Author:Gilby, Nicholas;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Pluto Press

Britain is Isolated in International Discussions

By the summer of 1977, the Working Group had met four times, and produced an early draft of an agreement to ‘prevent and eliminate illicit payments’.50 The Americans lobbied for a Diplomatic Conference to finalise it. British officials worried that their passive approach was unsustainable as they would eventually have to decide whether or not to support the agreement.51 One wrote ‘the UK’s position will be bearly credable [sic] if we can support only an agreement which goes no further than the provisions of existing domestic law’.

At the third G7 summit in early May 1977, the leaders of Britain, America, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada agreed52 that ‘irregular practices and improper conduct should be eliminated from international trade, banking and commerce’. However, shortly afterwards senior Ministers met at Chequers to discuss the Daily Mail allegations about British Leyland. Callaghan said53 that ‘given the heavy reliance of the British economy on exports, it might be more difficult for us to accept as high standards in this matter as, for instance, the Americans’.

At the 1977 meeting of ECOSOC,54 the Working Group was given until mid 1978 to finalise an agreement. British officials anticipated becoming full members of the Working Group. Now the British Leyland affair had raised the political temperature, Dell told officials55 to ‘play a more active part’ and ‘consider positive initiatives’. Ministers agreed56 that ‘strong efforts should be made to achieve effective international action’.

The Americans agreed to drop their proposal that companies should disclose agents’ commissions (now absent from the bill going through Congress).57 But Ministers still had to decide whether to propose to Parliament a change in Britain’s corruption laws so they would apply to British nationals and companies when overseas. Generally, the law in England and Wales is ‘territorial’, following the long-accepted convention that each state regulates by law the conduct of those within its own territory and no other. It is much easier and quicker to obtain evidence and deal with cases if they are tried in the country where the crime was committed. In 1977, it was accepted that a British national or company paying a bribe while overseas could not be prosecuted in Britain, nor could someone in Britain who attempted, aided, abetted or procured an offence of bribery committed overseas be prosecuted in Britain.58 But British citizens taking or paying a bribe in Britain (like David Randel and Frank Nurdin) could be prosecuted.

Dell told Callaghan59 he did not want any extension of British jurisdiction overseas or change in Britain’s corruption laws. Officials thought prosecuting British nationals or companies would be unfair if the bribe recipients were not prosecuted too. Dell also opposed the disclosure of commissions. So that Britain had something positive to say, he suggested advocating the negotiation of bilateral agreements with individual countries to deal with corruption.

When the Ministerial Group on Improper Trade Practices met in late October 1977, Silkin and Industry Secretary Eric Varley thought60 that the American proposal might be politically necessary before long.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.