Bribery Bill [HL]

My Lords, I draw the Government’s attention to the Joint Committee report. I would like them to take a step back, start again and rethink the issue. At paragraph 124, the committee quoted Mr Philip Bramwell of BAE Systems plc. He said that a formal advisory service would be, ""of immense value to companies looking for certainty about how conduct would be treated and about the efficacy of their proposed approach to compliance"." I emphasise, ""the efficacy of their proposed approach to compliance"." He continued: ""It is especially useful around mergers and acquisitions and new businesses that may have an uncertain history"." The director of the Serious Fraud Office again did not wish to mix up prosecutorial discretion with the granting of permits to people to go and commit criminal offences, quite rightly. The Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed to that. However, at paragraph 126, Professor Horder said: ""[I]f I could start from a slightly different view, were we to have in this country an anti-bribery body, a commission, a semi-official body of some sort, charged with giving this kind of advice"—" he was talking about an advisory service— ""I could well see as being appropriate […] Were we to have somebody charged with giving advice of this kind I think that would be very much of benefit both publicly and to companies and would give them reassurance"." About the ICAC and its advisory services group, the committee said: ""The lack of time available to carry out our inquiry has prevented us from exploring this body in any detail, although we understand that its services are focused on compliance procedures aimed at minimising the risk of corruption rather than the risk of a prosecution arising from prospective action"." The committee drew the distinction between advising on minimising the risk of corruption and advising on the risk of prosecution—the latter is a separate matter altogether, and my amendment is not about it. My amendment is entirely about minimising the risk of corruption. In paragraph 129, the Committee stated: ""We acknowledge that a formal advisory service similar to that provided in the United States and Hong Kong could have great benefit"," and then went on to note the differences in the criminal justice system. That is fine as far as the risk of prosecution is concerned, but giving advice to companies is a different matter. That is what the advisory group does in Hong Kong. As I indicated to your Lordships, the corruption prevention department is under the section of the ICAC, and not the prosecution department. Even within that organisation, which has powers of prosecution, there is a separate body concerned with prevention. That is what we should seriously consider. The response given by the Minister was thinking along the lines of what the DPP and the director of the SFO were thinking about. I want the Government to take a different view, and to step back and look again at the benefits that the Joint Committee did not have time to investigate. I want them to consider whether this is an idea that they should take up and provide the sort of advice to companies that they clearly want. For the moment, I ask the Government to look at that. I will return to this issue on Report and I hope that they will have had a full reconsideration. I am happy to talk to the Government at any time about this. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 17 withdrawn. Clause 9 : Consent to prosecution Amendment 18 Clause 9 : Consent to prosecution Amendment 18 Moved by