Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) 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]

The Minister mentioned the word "authorisation" but said nothing about ministerial authorisation, a point raised by the Constitution Committee. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the practice over a long period, a conviction for bribery or corruption required one to do something corruptly. In the Bill, it has been decided not to require corruption as part of the offence of bribery. It would be in strange circumstances that law enforcement authorities bribed someone corruptly but if that did happen—and one can see that it could—it would be very corrupt indeed. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about payments to informants for good reason, and perhaps the Minister will reflect on that more fully when he considers the broad width of the present definition of "bribery".


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c94GC 
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