Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Bribery Bill [HL]
My Lords, I support these amendments and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart. One of the matters that influenced the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is that the Joint Committee noted at paragraph 195 of its report that the evidence that it had received from the police and the Serious Fraud Office on the defence for the intelligence services did not suggest that the police and the SFO themselves believe that they need any such defence for their own activities. It is therefore surprising, to put it mildly, that the Government have come forward with an amendment to the draft Bill which confers such a broad power on law enforcement agencies, themselves so broadly defined in Clause 12. Can the Minister tell us whether there is evidence to suggest that the absence to date of a power as would be contained in Clause 12(1)(a), were it to be enacted, has hindered in any way the effective performance of law enforcement functions to date?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c86GC
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Armed forces Corruption Intelligence services GCHQ National security Police Public interest Public service MI6 MI5 Bribery
- Legislation
- Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:42:03 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608355
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608355
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608355