Robert Barrington, executive director of Transparency International UK: exclusive interview

By on 28/04/2016 | Updated on 06/08/2019
Robert Barrington, Executive Director of the UK chapter of Transparency International © Gary Lee/Photoshot

As the UK prepares to host an anti-corruption summit designed to break the deadlock on global action, Robert Barrington, the UK head of Transparency International tells Matt Ross that Britain could boost the summit’s chances by getting its own house in order

It’s wrong to talk about whole countries as corrupt, argues Robert Barrington; even where corruption is widespread, there are plenty of honest and public-spirited people.

“In most of the countries accused of being corrupt, the citizens themselves are the most passionate anti-corruption advocates,” he says. “They live in a society which is poorer, where the infrastructure is crumbling, where they can’t get access to health or education, where there’s no foreign investment because their rulers are corrupt – and they don’t like it any more than we would.”

“One thing that guards against corruption is having strong institutions, an effective civil service with a strong ethos about serving the public,” Barrington adds – so when civil services themselves become corrupt, the cancer of self-interest spreads ever faster through countries’ other institutions. Yet even in corruption hot spots, some civil servants always try to do the right thing ¬– “highly-principled people full of integrity, who absolutely loath the system they’re in and realise it’s bad for the country. They’re often the bravest, most courageous people you’ll ever find.”

Barrington is executive director of the UK chapter of Transparency International (TI): a global pressure group campaigning against corruption. In part, TI-UK’s work involves preventing British businesses from feeding corruption overseas – and he was closely involved in the passing of the UK’s 2010 Bribery Act, under which people with British connections can be prosecuted in the UK for giving or accepting a bribe anywhere in the world. It was the last piece of legislation passed by the 2005-10 Labour government, and Barrington praises parliamentarians in both houses.

Robert Barrington_Transparency International (5)

© Gary Lee/Photoshot

Acting on corruption

“We had distinguished legal minds in the Lords demolishing some slightly charlatan arguments that certain interests were trying to put forward in the Commons,” he recalls. “And the Commons, to their credit, maintained an all-party consensus despite fierce lobbying from some business groups.” As a result, Barrington believes, the UK probably has the best anti-bribery legislation in the world – though he criticises budget cuts at the Serious Fraud Office which, he says, help explain why the law’s produced so few prosecutions.

Does he accept that the Act – as some opponents argue – puts the UK at a competitive disadvantage when investing or trading overseas? “In most countries, if you set out to do business in a clean way then it may take longer, it might be more difficult, but you’ll find a way,” he replies. “In some countries, that’s pretty hard; so there you have to make a choice. And if you’re a Chinese company, you typically draw the line in a different place from a company governed by the Bribery Act. So you can say that UK companies are losing out.”

“On the other hand, there are lots of laws we have because they’re social goods,” he continues. “We don’t allow our companies to use child labour, even though that would make them more competitive, because we understand the damage it does. Equally, corruption is very damaging, both in economic terms and to individuals – and as a company, you probably don’t want to be complicit in that.”

The scarcity of prosecutions could suggest that the UK has very low levels of corruption: where are the greatest challenges here? “A fascinating thing about the UK is that very little is known about corruption here,” he replies. “That’s partly because nobody collates the data; there’s no bit of government whose job it is. And in TI’s view, the reason for that is that the UK government is very complacent about corruption. There’s a sense that it doesn’t really happen here, so we don’t need to do all the things that we urge other countries to do – gathering data, having good anti-corruption defences and so on.”

Robert Barrington_Transparency International (4)

© Gary Lee/Photoshot

Legalising graft

In fact, Barrington argues, the UK suffers from a “peculiarly British form of corruption” in which the establishment colludes in “the legalisation of things that look dodgy” (see also news article). People living within the ‘Westminster bubble’ at the top of politics, business and the civil service, he says, often create systems permitting activities that appear unprincipled and corrupt to the wider public. “There are some clear areas where you can see the defences [against corruption] are weak,” he comments. “In UK politics, whether it’s lobbying, the revolving door [between business and government] or party financing, there’s been a series of low-level scandals that nobody has sorted out.”

He cites the case of Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind as a “very interesting example of things that are wrong with the system that the establishment doesn’t think are wrong with the system.” After an undercover TV reporter filmed the two former foreign secretaries offering to lobby for a Chinese firm, a parliamentary investigation found that they hadn’t broken any rules – but Barrington says it’s worrying that “former British foreign secretaries can be bought by a foreign company for a relatively low amount of money.”

Similarly, 2009 leaks revealing MPs’ exorbitant expenses claims caused huge anger against politicians – yet “most MPs I talk to will not consider that it was corruption. They feel slightly hard done-by,” he points out. “Pretty much everybody else sees that as the front-centre example of corruption. So there’s a real mismatch”.

Following the MPs’ expenses leak, a new and tighter system was established – and Barrington points out that such revelations often do generate concrete action. Similar leaks in other countries have brought “massed populations out on the streets protesting against corruption, and that’s had a knock-on effect in all sorts of ways,” he says. “Normal people are the biggest victims of corruption and they feel very angry about it. And the more transparency there is the angrier they feel, because they can see what’s being done to them and who’s doing it.”

© Gary Lee/Photoshot

© Gary Lee/Photoshot

Being clear on clarity

When such public anger forces reforms that squeeze out corruption, the outcome can be a good one; but Barrington urges governments to get ahead of the game. “If governments are voluntarily transparent, it’s a process that to some extent they can control,” he points out. “They can ensure that the information put in the public domain is accurate and timely, and they can take action beforehand. Whereas if they’re reactive and wait for people to hack into the system or leak documents, it’s completely out of their control.”

The recent ‘Panama papers’ leak showed again how an uncontrolled data release can threaten a government’s plans – for the UK is hosting an International Anti-Corruption Summit in London on 12 May, and the naming of UK prime minister David Cameron’s father in the papers will have raised eyebrows amongst the invitees.

“What [the PM] was caught up in personally was not corruption, as far as I can tell from what was put in the public domain, and it would be unfortunate if that came to overshadow the summit,” comments Barrington. “But the Panama papers did show a link between [the UK’s] Crown dependencies and overseas territories and the global system of corrupt capital flows; and also the role of pretty respectable firms – of lawyers and accountants and intermediaries – both in those offshore areas, and here in London and the UK, who are part of that system. That at one stage was on the agenda for the summit to address, and I think it’s a critical point; I hope it’s still on the agenda.”

“The onus is on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to show why they are a legitimate part of the global financial system, and the only way they can do that is through much greater levels of transparency,” he adds, noting that they “have fought at every turn against transparency, and that raises red flags all over the place.”

Agenda item 1: the agenda

At the time of writing, it’s not clear whether this issue remains on the summit agenda. “As far as we can gather, the negotiation over the agenda is going right down to the wire,” comments Barrington. “The early intimations are that it’s a pretty far-reaching, ambitious and potentially very high impact agenda, but the results will depend on who they get on board to sign up to the key provisions.”

That, in turn, will depend on whether any of those countries that Barrington calls the “blockers” show up. “Most anti-corruption summits fail because some of the people around the table are themselves corrupt and want the summit to fail,” he says, “but this one should be different, because it invites countries that really want the anti-corruption agenda to succeed.”

In a bid to bring together a coalition of the willing outside the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) – a global group that moves at the speed of its slowest member – UK prime minister David Cameron has confined his own invitation list to a group including the G20 countries and keen Commonwealth nations. But even within the G20 it is, as Barrington says, “pretty obvious that not everybody is a high performer on the corruption agenda.” Might the invitations received by countries such as Russia, which have a poor reputation for corruption, be less than fulsome? “I sincerely hope so!”

If Cameron’s summit generates substantive action, we may see the world’s nations divided into pioneers and laggards on the anti-corruption agenda; and Barrington sees this as a sensible way to make progress. “This will never be said by the British government, but it seems pretty clear that if UNCAC was working optimally then you wouldn’t need this kind of summit,” he comments. “It may be that you need a twin track approach; an UNCAC approach that can be seen as lowest common denominator; and a higher-aspiration group”.

A good clean race

In time, he thinks, anti-corruption high-performers – with tighter standards and effective enforcement – could enjoy the economic and social benefits of clean business and government, inspiring others to join them. And the two-speed system will help identify “the non-cooperators, the people who aren’t taking corruption seriously. And then the world community can increasingly start to take action on those who are clearly recalcitrant.” This latter group might, he speculates, end up subject to much tighter controls on activities such as trade and asset purchases.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves: Cameron must first make his International Anti-Corruption Summit a success. In part, that will rest on his credibility as an anti-corruption campaigner; and that, so far, is built more on rhetoric than delivery. The government did publish an Anti-Money Laundering Action Plan on 21 April, including a strong proposal for ‘unexplained wealth orders’ (see box) – but the action itself has yet to come: the plan is “bold and imaginative in places, but the most bold and imaginative parts are all being put out for consultation – they’re not commitments,” comments Barrington. “It’s still a matter of wait and see.”

“The question is: are other governments going to be willing to turn up at take part because the UK has the credibility to be able to talk about corruption?” says Barrington. “I think governments that are inclined to act on this will probably want the UK to go a bit further, particularly on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies – because they’re such a big weak spot.”

Without stronger commitments, he fears, Cameron the anti-corruption crusader could find the blockers exploiting chinks in his armour. “The countries that would like this whole thing to go away could find quite a few excuses to accuse the UK government of hypocrisy and to shoot this down,” he concludes. “There are only a few weeks to go until the summit – but the more our government can do to close off those avenues of criticism, the better.”

Read our news article for more on Robert Barrington’s views on corruption in the UK; or watch his five thoughts for better government below

The Global Government Forum: Five Thoughts for Better Government

Robert Barrington on learning from overseas

To help our readers get the best out of Global Government Forum, we’ve started asking interviewees five standard questions – four seeking practical advice and opinions, and one to reveal something a little more personal. This is an edited version of Robert Barrington’s answers – click below to watch his full answers in a GGF video.

Can you name one lesson or idea from abroad that’s helped you address corruption in the UK?

“I think a big one is that people increasingly understand that there are victims of corruption and it’s not some general economic malaise that has a marginal effect on people’s lives. We hear increasing stories about how it affects individuals in their daily lives. Let me take an example from Zimbabwe; a tragic story of a young girl who was raped by somebody who she knew. She and her parents took the case to the police and the rapist had got there first and paid a bribe, so he wasn’t initially investigated or prosecuted. Thankfully that story had a more positive outcome, but stories like that illustrate to policymakers in the UK that this isn’t some general theoretical concept; this is real people, real lives.”

Are there any projects or innovations in the UK that might be valuable in helping to tackle corruption elsewhere?

“The UK is coming up with some quite interesting and imaginative ideas at the moment. The recent Anti-Money Laundering Action Plan came up with the concept of ‘Unexplained Wealth Orders.’ That would mean that if you’re an individual with corrupt money and you use it for example to buy property in the UK, the property could be seized whilst you explain the origin of your wealth. That sort of thing could be enormously powerful.”

How can we improve the ways in which senior public officials work with civil society to address corruption, in the UK and overseas?

“There’s a really patchy story around the world of how civil society and public officials work together. In some jurisdictions it’s very good; in some, it’s a mixture of mistrust and dislike. So I think something that could be really beneficial from the public officials’ point of view is to be open-minded about dealing with civil society, understanding what civil society’s objectives are, what they’re trying to achieve.

“And from civil society’s point of view, having much more sympathy with the position that public officials find themselves in. Often they’re not the really critical decision-makers. The politicians who enact legislation are a critical part of this, and public officials should be the friends of civil society.”

What are the biggest global challenges in addressing corruption over the next five years?

‘I’d say two things. First of all, we have quite good global legislation, global frameworks at the moment – things like the OECD anti bribery convention – yet enforcement is very poor. There’s a culture of impunity at the moment in many governments, and that needs to be tackled.

“The second thing, and this is much more difficult, is that not everybody in world leadership is really part of the fight against corruption; some people are corrupt and don’t want this global system to work. So the world needs to work out how to deal with people who are corrupt and in power, as well as how to use power against the corrupt when governments are willing.”

What’s your favourite book?

“My favourite book is by Patrick O’Brien. It’s called Master and Commander.”


“I’m a historian by background; I have a PhD in a very obscure subject in 16th century Anglo-Venetian relations. And though Master and Commander is set in the Napoleonic wars, it’s a fascinating recreation of those times. It also talks a lot about the interplay between big powers – France and Britain at that time. And it talks about corruption, both within the Royal Navy, and in global and national politics.”

For up to date government news and international best practice follow us on Twitter @globegov

See also:

Anti-corruption campaigner: “establishment corruption” threatens UK’s image overseas

Loosening Defence Equipment & Support pay controls has brought down salary bills, says Jon Thompson, UK’s outgoing MoD perm sec

Looking after number one: prioritisation in government

Tom Scholar appointed new permanent secretary of UK Treasury

Interview: John Manzoni, chief executive, UK Civil Service

Colin MacDonald, CIO for the government of New Zealand: Exclusive Interview

Andrew Hampton to lead New Zealand national security agency

Managing the EU Migration Crisis

Mike Bracken, former head of the Government Digital Service (GDS): Exclusive interview

Una O’Brien, permanent secretary, UK Department of Health: Exclusive Interview

Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary, HM Treasury, UK: Exclusive Interview

About Matt Ross

Matt is Global Government Forum's Contributing Editor, providing direction and support on topics, products and audience interests across GGF’s editorial, events and research operations. He has been a journalist and editor since 1995, beginning in motoring and travel journalism – and combining the two in a 30-month, 30-country 4x4 expedition funded by magazine photo-journalism. Between 2002 and 2008 he was Features Editor of Haymarket news magazine Regeneration & Renewal, covering urban regeneration, economic growth and community development; and from 2008 to 2014 he was the Editor of UK magazine and website Civil Service World, then Editorial Director for Public Sector – both at political publishing house Dods. He has also worked as Director of Communications at think tank the Institute for Government.

One Comment

  1. Alexander Kozhevnikov says:

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    let me express one thought about this topic.
    The “fighting” against corruption is meaningless and it never will have a victory. Why? Because people DO NOT WANT TO OBEY COMMAND FROM “ABOVE” – “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR as yourself” Until hatred exists among human beings corruption could not be defeated (eliminated).
    Most of people love money “as themselves”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *