Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Bribery Bill [HL].
Bribery Bill [HL]
My Lords, with the agreement of the House and of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, perhaps I may move Amendment 3. Each of the amendments in this group seeks to improve on the wording of Clause 13, the better to implement the objectives—which I believe are shared across the House—of ensuring that acts of bribery are carried out on behalf of the state only when necessary, and that officers of state are given as much assistance as possible in advance in order to know when it is permissible to carry out such an act. Clause 13 is deficient in relying on a criminal prosecution after the event, with the onus of proof on the defendant as sufficient protection of the public interest. I continue to hold the view that I expressed in more detail on Report, which is that it is important for there to be an authorisation procedure for acts of bribery by the state. That is essential to ensure that if acts of bribery are to be carried out by the state, it is done only when truly necessary and to ensure that officers carrying out such acts have proper protection from prosecution. Indeed, without an authorisation procedure, I would be surprised if officers would be willing to conduct acts of bribery and to take the risk of later prosecution. Amendment 3 does not require prior authorisation; it simply recognises that where the Secretary of State gives prior authorisation, a prosecution should not take place thereafter. I add that I have put my name to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why the Government object to the modest requirement in Amendment 6 to issue guidance simply to ensure that proper records are kept of acts of bribery by the state, or why the Government object to reporting to Parliament in that context, particularly when Amendment 6 expressly recognises the operational needs of the services. The guidance would only require records to be kept, "““so far as is practical””," and so far as it does not impede ““the proper exercise”” of intelligence and Army functions. I therefore hope that, even at this late stage, there will be some movement on this important matter. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c482-3
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal proceedings Courts Armed forces Corruption Intelligence services Ministerial powers National security Bribery
- Legislation
- Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:56:43 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620178
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620178
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620178