Bribery Bill [HL]

In moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendments 19 and 20. Amendment 18 refers to who must give consent before a prosecution for an offence under the Bill can be instituted. The Bill as drafted gives that power to the DPP, the director of the Serious Fraud Office or the director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions in England and Wales. My amendment scraps that and reinstitutes the Attorney-General. Amendment 19 does that for Northern Ireland and Amendment 20 is consequential. I had been hoping to have the debate in the presence of at least two former Attorneys-General who were here earlier, but the time and circumstances today meant that they were unable to stay. I am afraid that my noble and learned friends Lord Lyell of Markyate and Lord Mayhew are not here, so this is something that we will probably have to come back to at a later stage. The Minister will not have been surprised to see these amendments, as considerable strength of feeling was expressed at Second Reading that the Government had erred in removing the Attorney-General from a decision-making role in such prosecutions. Certainly, my noble and learned friends Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Lyell of Markyate made succinct and powerful points that deserve careful consideration. Why has the role of the Attorney-General been so reduced? Is it because of criticism that a member of the Government cannot be trusted to exercise untainted discretion? It may be that the arrangement has attracted some question from partners in the OECD. However, that is simply the way our constitution is, and the Government should be legislating within our constitution and not running scared of it. The criticism that a member of the Government cannot act impartially should be proved incorrect and not acceded to. There are enough former holders of this office in the House for us to know that the very idea is anathema to them. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said, it is important that a person making decisions in this area should be accountable to Parliament as that is where the proper scrutiny, independence and accountability for such decisions lies. My noble and learned friend Lord Lyell made the very good point, which must also be borne in mind, that it is not the Government who prosecute an offence; it is the independent prosecuting authorities. However, it is important that someone who is answerable in this House or in another place should have the ultimate responsibility for that. We do not believe that the role of the Attorney-General should be downgraded in this way. I accept that this is not a universal opinion—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is scribbling away hard, will not agree—but I accept that these are points of high principle that, as the noble Lord himself said at Second Reading, are not really a matter for the Bill. In my view, even the changes which the Bill makes to the Attorney-General’s role are not appropriate. The Government have a vehicle for full debate on these and many other matters in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which is currently on the horizon, and the role of the Attorney-General should be left as it is. If the Government want to tinker further with our constitution, they should do it in a Bill on the constitution. I could say more. I will certainly come back to this at a later stage because I am sure that others, such as my noble and learned friends and former Attorneys-General of whom I have spoken, will want to address this matter; but, for the moment, I beg to move.