[P1international]

Corruption in UK.
The guardian. Tuesday 28 February 2012 10.30 GMT

Yesterday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers suggested to the Leveson inquiry that some sections of the press have been making regular payments to a network of corrupted public officials.

In the past, it may have been easy for British citizens to pretend corruption is a problem that only exists overseas. However, Akers's revelations now leave no room for denying the UK has its own corruption problem. It may not be as widespread as in some other countries where the problem is entrenched, but any level of corruption in our public institutions is too much.

Last year, Transparency International's study found that the growing threat of corruption is often met with complacency, and that key institutions are refusing to confront the problem. Of particular concern are prisons, political parties, parliament and sport – where the response to the increasing corruption risk is often incoherent and uncoordinated. Today's revelations only add to the mounting evidence of the problem. Corruption creates a welcome environment for organised criminal activity.

Our report revealed that the tentacles of organised crime increasingly extend to sectors such as prisons and sport where criminal activity and corruption are inextricably linked, affecting businesses, communities, the economy, and society's most vulnerable groups. There are an estimated 1,000 corrupt prison officers working in the UK, many of whom smuggle mobile phones to those in prison in exchange for good behaviour, therefore helping to facilitate organised crime both inside and outside the prison walls. In sport, the recent conviction of Mervyn Westfield for spot-fixing has shown that even British county cricket is not immune.

Akers said there was "a culture at the Sun of illegal payments" and mentioned that the police are investigating "frequent and sometimes significant sums of money" paid by some journalists to officers.

The argument has been made by some that bribery is occasionally necessary to obtain stories that are in the public interest. However, if bribes were paid as alleged, this was illegal under British law even before the UK Bribery Act came into force last year. Bribery would give certain news outlets unfair advantage over their competitors for stories, which – as was pointed out today – are often about "salacious gossip" rather than being in the public interest. The fact that some assert bribes are justified in order to sell news is itself a very sad commentary on ethical standards in sections of the media.

Weaknesses within the political system have also emerged. Practices that have been taken for granted for many years are still awaiting change, such as the willingness of politicians to accept corporate and media hospitality, and "revolving door" employment between major media companies, political offices and the police. Scandals – such as the post-government employment of Geoff Hoon and the 2006 cash for peerage controversy – continue to undermine public trust in government and democracy.

There must be a zero-tolerance approach to corruption in all circumstances. Most importantly, the government needs to take the problem more seriously. There should be no place in the UK for a culture in which powerful people or organisations involved in corruption do not face the consequences of their actions.

Ironically, the government has appointed an "overseas anti-corruption champion". But who oversees the fight against corruption within the UK? Nobody.

Even worse, some of the oversight structures that safeguard against corruption, such as the Audit Commission, are being hastily dismantled with no real thought as to the consequences.

Unless it is rooted out swiftly, corruption will increasingly threaten key pillars of the UK's society and democracy. What we need is strong, clear and coordinated leadership from the government and parliament. Complacency is no longer an option.