Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour) 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 would not dream of gainsaying the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in his recollection of the report. Nevertheless, we believe that the Joint Committee took that view. We are certainly clear that we are of that view. Moreover, it is difficult to see how much comfort such an advisory service could provide to businesses. The proposed new clause itself acknowledges this in the caveat in subsection (2). The amendment fails to recognise that advice given in isolation may be of little practical value. When a prosecutor or court considers the adequacy of procedures in an individual case, the exercise will be conducted by reference to the circumstances of the organisation, the facts that constitute the original offence committed by the person associated with the organisation, and all surrounding circumstances. It would not, therefore, be possible—even if it were appropriate to do so—to offer with any certainty any assessment of the adequacy of particular procedures in isolation from all the relevant facts. Quite apart from our belief that it would be wrong in principle for a government department to provide such advice, any advice that could be offered would—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c150-1 
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