Bribery Bill [HL]

It certainly does not make that clear. I have no doubt that the Joint Committee was acting on the assumption that the "authorisation" was the authorisation of the act of bribery, which puts an entirely different picture around it. While I am not in a position to say whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, considered this point when the amendment was being drafted, there are real grounds for saying that if bribery is to remain within the power of the security services, there must be authorisation before the act of bribery. That would of course eliminate any need for a trial. It might get the Secretary of State into trouble if the Secretary of State had authorised something that was regarded as improper, but it would mean that the individual who was responsible for the payment of the bribe was not facing a prosecution. It seems to me that that is a much better system. It is not right to leave this decision to someone in the front line, so to speak, of the security services, who may not, for example, be in a position to get legal advice. This is something that I hope the Government will reconsider.