My Lords, the Minister asked me what I intend to do with the amendment. He knows the answer because, first, it is a probing amendment and, secondly, all amendments in this peculiar procedure are probing amendments. I shall withdraw it in due course but I wish to make one or two points before I do so.
My noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate said that no doubt the Government’s reply will be a very good one. The Government did not seem to have much support before the Minister made his reply, and every speech before that seemed to show that noble Lords had considerable difficulty with the inclusion of Clause 12(1)(a), particularly as there had not been anything like it in the draft Bill. Several Peers questioned why it was not in the draft Bill, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who chaired the Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also intervened to make that point.
The Minister replied that time was against us. However, the Government have had 10 or 12 years to think through the Bill and I cannot see why time is against us. It seemed more of a "Homer nods" defence—except that in this case it was not Homer the poet but more Homer Simpson who was nodding.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Bribery Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c94-5GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:04:41 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608379
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608379
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608379