Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Bribery Bill [HL].


Bribery Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to support the role that the noble and learned Lords would like to see the Attorney-General maintaining. First, I refer to the paragraph from chapter 9 of the Joint Committee’s report, on the subject of the Attorney-General. The conclusion was: ""The Attorney General’s powers of consent and direction raise complex constitutional issues that lie at the heart of ensuring parliamentary accountability for the criminal justice system. We agree with the Government that the power of direction should remain in place without being reformed by the draft Bribery Bill. Since this power will remain in place, we are satisfied that the power of consent should be transferred from the Attorney General to the Directors of the prosecuting authorities … Any broader reform of the Attorney General’s Office, including her power of direction, must await comprehensive proposals being pursued in the future"." I should say that that, like the other decisions made by the Joint Committee, was a unanimous decision taken, I think, on the last day before the report was signed and published. I specifically remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, was present at that meeting and did not argue to the contrary—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c156 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Armed forces Business Corruption Fraud Intelligence services Expenditure Gratuities GCHQ Ministerial powers National security Prosecutions Public service Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Treaties Trade Corporate hospitality Sales promotions OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Bribery
Legislation
Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk