Bribery Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have not so far participated in the proceedings on this Bill but I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I do so on grounds not of high principle but of practical commercial activity and the fact that this provision envisages at least three routes by which a prosecution can be launched. The danger therefore is of different thresholds of prosecution. Of course, the lawyers will say that the legal grounds are there and that they are statutory, but those in the real commercial world know that interpretations can vary greatly. When we have the additional words "with the consent of", that means that yet other people may wish to bring prosecutions and obtain the consent of the three bodies listed. Those of us who have been involved in commercial activity will know of companies that have got across some of the bodies listed—in particular, HMRC. There may be a situation where a firm has done something with which HMRC disagrees and it may even have brought a prosecution and failed in its endeavours, but that means that that firm will then be marked by HMRC as a body whose future activity should be considered carefully. There is a real danger that in these circumstances people will find themselves being lifted up the scale for consideration for prosecution in connection with the activities considered under the Bill. In the debate on the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talked about certainty and efficacy. I think that my noble friend is saying—and I certainly support it—that it is a question not of being indifferent to bribery but of practical commercial activities, and the Attorney-General, who is of high principle, should be the person through whom a prosecution is launched without having many alternatives.