---

Corruption

My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lester, especially as I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. I speak in this debate only to draw attention to a particular phrase that passed the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General's lips in the debate on14 December, when he cited the following statement of the Serious Fraud Office: "““It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest””." Does the Attorney-General accept that formulation? He has certainly not repudiated it. Indeed, he has endorsed the idea of a balance. In the same debate, he said: "““The short statement from the SFO makes that clear by saying that it has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest””. —[Official Report, 14/12/06; col. 1712, 1715.]" I find the proposition about the need to balance the rule of law against the wider public interest unacceptable. In my simple understanding, you either have a rule of law or you do not. It cannot be left to the discretion of government or a statutory agency to decide the circumstances under which a particular law applies. That gives the Government licence to break the law whenever they want. I am not convinced by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that government’s accountability to Parliament gives sufficient protection for the rule of law, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Lester: Parliament will never be given enough information to decide the matter. If a Government feel that they need greater powers to protect the national interest or to defend national security, their proper course is to apply to Parliament for those powers, which could include the specific right to take the public interest into account in applying the law in that particular case. The OECD convention against corruption, as accepted by the United Kingdom, did not allow the UK to vary the law to take into account either, "““the national economic interest or the potential effect upon relations with another state””." I therefore repeat my question: does the Attorney-General accept the doctrine that the rule of law needs to be balanced against the wider national security? If not, I ask him to repudiate it. If he does, I suggest that there is an ominous and dangerous future for the rule of law in this country.