Bribery Bill [HL]

My Lords, thinking back to my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate’s earlier definitions of impropriety, I hope it is not now improper for me to intervene at this stage on a Thursday afternoon. In doing so, I hesitate after so many interventions from distinguished members of the Select Committee that examined the draft Bill under the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The Opposition are very grateful for all the Select Committee’s work in looking into the Bill and for the report that it produced. I am sure the Government will echo this. Briefly, I have considerable sympathy for what my noble and learned friend has said in arguing that the offences in Clauses 1 and 2 would benefit from redrafting to include elements of dishonesty or corrupt intent in the Bill. I think he was particularly arguing for corrupt intent and less for dishonesty. My noble and learned friend is not alone in that assessment. I think it was the Bar Council that suggested that the proposed offences are technical and exhibit complex features which are likely to inhibit efficient investigation and prosecution. Having said that—again, I refer to the work of the Select Committee—I am aware that other members of it were not fully in agreement with my noble and learned friend’s arguments, if I can put it as simply as that. They were supportive of the Government’s drafting. On balance, therefore, they may be right. I will listen to the defence that the Minister puts forward for his Bill and we will then weigh that against the arguments that my noble and learned friend has put forward. No doubt he will, if necessary, come back to this at a later stage. At this stage we want to hear the Government’s arguments.