My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 13. Again, these are probing amendments which I hope are simple in the extreme. They are designed simply to elicit a fuller meaning of the language used in Clause 7(5)(a) and (b), which give the meaning of a relevant commercial business. In paragraph (a) there are apparently two limbs to the definition. A commercial organisation must be incorporated under UK law and carry on a business, although the second limb is contained in parentheses. I am sure that there is a very straightforward explanation for this drafting which will not detain the noble Lord for long, but I confess that I am a little puzzled. If the body is not carrying on a business, how can it be relevant to a business-related act of bribery, and so why is the provision there? Is there likely to be any confusion over whether an organisation is conducting a business or not—and, if so, how is that to be determined, and what for that matter is "part of a business", as raised by Amendment 13 to paragraph (b)?
These might be trifling points but, on first reading through this section, I did not feel that the drafting was quite as clear as it might be. I ask the noble Lord to enlighten me. I beg to move.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
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 c60GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:35:52 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605464
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605464
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_605464