Bribery Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful for Amendment 5, which has put into statutory form the objection that I made when the matter was before us. I am pleased to see that that is there. My criticism of Clause 13, however, remains. I said before that it would be very difficult for a person who is a member of the intelligence services and charged with an offence to prove his defence, on the basis that he would not have access to the necessary documentation and information and, in the case of the Armed Forces, to witnesses who could assist him in proving his case. I thought, and think now, that the burden of proving that defence is impossible. But it is even more impossible with the amendments that have now been introduced, particularly Amendment 4, which states: ""The head of each intelligence service must ensure that the service has in place arrangements designed to ensure that any conduct of a member of the service which would otherwise be a relevant bribery offence is necessary"." So the offence can arise only if the person has ignored a direction or where there is no direction from the intelligence service or the defence counsel in question. In those circumstances, one simply cannot conceive of it ever happening and consequently Clause 13, this alleged defence, is otiose. It is perhaps not surprising that it involves the security services, because it has been a feature of this Government—and here we are at their very end—to defer to them on things such as intercept evidence and on other legislation that has passed over the last 10 or 12 years. But there it is; I have made my objections. I welcome the Government’s attempt to improve upon what was in the Bill before.