Bribery Bill [HL]

I shall speak briefly because almost everything has been said. I support these amendments certainly as strong probing amendments and await the Minister’s reply to the questions that have been put. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I sit on your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution and I was on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on the Constitution raised a number of questions, one of which was why the safeguard of there being a Minister responsible for overseeing the use of these powers had been removed. To quote it, the removal in the Bill of the safeguard of there being a Minister responsible is of itself a matter of constitutional concern. I see that the Minister is looking at me quizzically, but I await his reply. No doubt, it will be a very good one if he has grounds for being quizzical on this. The report of the Constitution Committee goes on to say that, ""it is not self-evident that such a defence should extend also to the Services’ statutory function ‘to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom’"." There may be an answer to that; it seems a proper question to raise. Likewise, ""it is not self-evident that GCHQ requires the same statutory protection"," as other parts of the security services. There are important questions to be raised. We do not want the law enforcement authorities to bribe unless there is a powerful reason for doing so. I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew indicated in this respect.