Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) 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]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 13. Again, these are probing amendments which I hope are simple in the extreme. They are designed simply to elicit a fuller meaning of the language used in Clause 7(5)(a) and (b), which give the meaning of a relevant commercial business. In paragraph (a) there are apparently two limbs to the definition. A commercial organisation must be incorporated under UK law and carry on a business, although the second limb is contained in parentheses. I am sure that there is a very straightforward explanation for this drafting which will not detain the noble Lord for long, but I confess that I am a little puzzled. If the body is not carrying on a business, how can it be relevant to a business-related act of bribery, and so why is the provision there? Is there likely to be any confusion over whether an organisation is conducting a business or not—and, if so, how is that to be determined, and what for that matter is "part of a business", as raised by Amendment 13 to paragraph (b)? These might be trifling points but, on first reading through this section, I did not feel that the drafting was quite as clear as it might be. I ask the noble Lord to enlighten me. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c60GC 
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