Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Bribery Bill [HL].
Bribery Bill [HL]
I think that prior authorisation is behind the amendment. If there is prior authorisation to carry out the necessary functions of the secret service by bribing someone, how could the DPP afterwards say, in the face of a written authorisation from the Secretary of State, that he or she is going to prosecute that person? It is not possible.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c172
- 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 19:47:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617980
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617980
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617980