Proceeding contribution from Lord Neill of Bladen (Crossbench) 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 have one observation to add, coming new to this debate. The best system must be prior authorisation where the Minister applies his mind to known facts and says that a bribe can or cannot be paid. I am much more troubled by the debate on a condition that applies broadly to the future. How are those conditions going to be written? In practice, how narrowly and carefully will they be followed? I believe that more thought needs to be given to future condition as opposed to specific authorisation in the light of known facts. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that serious thought will be given to dealing with this situation. If there are real problems about conditions of the sort that I and other noble Lords have indicated, we can hear about them at the next stage. For the time being, I put my money on specific authorisation in advance.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c168-9
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:47:51 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617972
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617972
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617972