My Lords, we are coming to an area where we do not share common ground. We do not believe that there should be a reference in the Bill. We will of course reflect on everything that has been said in Committee and the force with which it was said. As I quoted, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whom we look on as a considerable authority in this area, took the view that, ""it is not of great significance whether it is statutory or non-statutory guidance".—[Official Report, 9/12/09; col. 1100.]"
It is unnecessary to have something in the Bill to require the courts to take account of official guidance. We expect the courts to take account of all relevant information, including any official or industry-produced guidance, when determining whether a particular company’s procedures were adequate. With that, I again invite the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to withdraw his amendment.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 7 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c55GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:21:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605454
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605454
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605454