Proceeding contribution from Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Bribery Bill [HL]
The noble Earl touches on the difference between our two approaches. We are not proposing to put the requirement for this guidance in the Act. Therefore, there is no legal basis on which a statutory instrument would come before Parliament. If it were part of the Act, we would obviously have to reassess that. Presently, however, it is our intention that it should be a result of our undertaking, not because it is on the face of the Bill. We will seek to persuade the House of that position.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c54GC
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Business Corruption Advisory services Crown Prosecution Service Attorney General Foreign companies Ministerial powers Prosecutions Payments Public service Overseas companies Serious Fraud Office Revenue and Customs Bribery
- Legislation
- Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:36:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605448
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605448
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605448