My comments and those of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) reflect what we believe is a need for a wider debate on the role of the Attorney-General, but I must say to him that today is not the time or place for such a debate. I say to the Liberal Democrats that, just because the OECD and other states do not have an Attorney-General, or do not like the idea of having one, does not, to my mind, make the role of the Attorney-General redundant. I say to the Minister as well that, just because the Attorney-General has been there for 100 years, does not mean that the role is redundant. However, given where we are in the parliamentary timetable, we have decided not to request a Division on amendments 1 and 2, and we will be supporting the Government on amendment 7. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 7, in page 6, line 35, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
Bribery Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Jonathan Djanogly
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 April 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Bribery Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
508 c1008-9 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:01:12 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637268
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637268
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_637268