---

Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement

The Solicitor-General knows that no one on the Liberal Democrat Benches has impugned the integrity of the director of the SFO. We have said that we want the Solicitor-General to explain why the Government’s explanation has regularly changed? When the Attorney-General was asked in the debate in the other place about the phrase used in the explanation—"““balancing the rule of law against the wider public interest””—" why did he say:"““On reflection, I think that there is a risk of misunderstanding in those words … I am very happy … to make it clear … that there is no question of saying that the rule of law in general should be set aside for wider interests of expediency or political or national interest.””?——[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 381.]" That is not what we were told in December, but it is what the Attorney-General said on 1 February?