Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Bribery Bill [HL].


Bribery Bill [HL]

My Lords, I do not know whether other noble Lords will intervene before the Minister replies, as we are at Report. Many of those who served on the Select Committee will probably have strong views about my noble and learned friend’s amendment. I appreciate that it is merely a probing amendment, and my noble and learned friend may wish to come back to it later. He also made it clear that he supports the Bill, as I think that most of us do—I reiterate my support for the Bill. We simply hope that we get it right on the night, if I can put it that way. I am sure that we are doing just that. I have some sympathy with the arguments that my noble and learned friend put forward, which he argued powerfully in Committee in the Moses Room and again today: that the bribery offences could be better defined if they included some reference to corrupt intent. As I said, I have some sympathy, but regret that I cannot fully agree with him. In our earlier debates, the Minister argued that "acting corruptly" is a vague and inherently difficult concept—I think that I quote him correctly. On this occasion, I agree with the Minister's argument over that of my noble and learned friend. I can see, and am persuaded by, the case that corruption will in effect be a description of the behaviour made into offences by the Bill. To determine whether an offence has been committed under the Bill, we will look to Clauses 1 and 2 to see whether the behaviour when involving payments or other advantage has been improper. The test, therefore, as recommended by the Law Commission and endorsed by the Joint Committee as a whole, is one of impropriety. I have tabled some further amendments, which we will come to shortly, to explore why the test of impropriety should not also extend to the offence in Clause 6. However, the test of impropriety is the one that we shall employ, and that is the one that I wish to examine when we get to Clause 6. I am sorry that I cannot support my noble and learned friend, but no doubt he and I both look forward to hearing the Minister's response.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c119-20 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Armed forces Business Corruption Fraud Intelligence services Expenditure Gratuities GCHQ Ministerial powers National security Prosecutions Public service Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Treaties Trade Corporate hospitality Sales promotions OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Bribery
Legislation
Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk