Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (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 thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, the Bill is before the House because the whole House believes that it is important that we take bribery and our international responsibilities seriously. The amendments seek to supplement the defence in Clause 12(1) by making that defence conditional on the Secretary of State’s prior authorisation of the relevant person’s conduct. The Constitution Committee of this House, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and for which all have the highest respect, put forward a similar proposition. Its first report in December argued that the use of the defence by law enforcement agencies and the intelligence services, but not by the Armed Forces, should depend on prior authorisation. The committee has today helpfully published a second report on the Bill that reiterates its concerns in this regard, but on this occasion it has argued that a prior authorisation scheme should apply to the intelligence services and the Armed Forces. The reason for this change is not immediately apparent from the report, and I listened during the debate to hear whether the reason for this change of view is to be given. Amendments 18 and 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others, would provide that no defence existed under Clause 12(1) unless the Secretary of State had given authorisation prior to the commencement of the conduct. Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who as the House knows chaired with huge skill the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, is similar in many respects but with one important difference: that the proposed authorisation scheme is confined to law enforcement agencies and the Armed Forces. However, given the government amendments in the next group, which remove the defence for law enforcement agencies, as has been said, the scheme would be restricted, as we understand it, to those who perform functions on the part of the Armed Forces.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c169
- 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_617973
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617973
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617973