Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Mackay of Clashfern (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, your Lordships will understand that, having put my name to these amendments, I support them and support them strongly. Subsection (11) in our Amendment 30 was included on my initiative. I had intended that it would be an amendment to the amendment so that it would be an optional matter to consider separately. Of course, I cannot excuse myself on the basis of inexperience. I regret that it has come to be included as part of Amendment 30 but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has indicated a way of correcting that. The Security Service Act, which was the first Act to acknowledge the existence of the security services, contained an authorisation, and the Intelligence Services Act continued that. I do not know, although I may be corrected, of any provisions in an Act concerning the security services or the intelligence services generally that are contrary to the general law and the subject of a defence without an authorisation of the Secretary of State. I also think that this was the Government’s idea first. They had an authorisation procedure in the draft—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c162 
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