Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Cash for peerages - A clarification?

On the way home from work I heard that Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General had yet again insisted that he will not stand aside in the decision making process as he thinks his consent is needed for a prosecution under the Honours, Prevention of Abuses Act 1925.

However when I got home I read this on the BBC news website, according to which Lord Goldsmith has written to his shadow Dominic Grieve to say that he need not be involved in those decisions but his consent may be needed as a matter of law in some corruption cases.

Meanwhile Guido appears to have unearthed Lord "Cheerful Charlie" Falconer saying that Lord Goldsmith would stand aside in evidence to a select committee back in April. You can read his article here.

Well, it's so very unlike Lord Goldsmith to change his legal tune when pressed isn't it? He's never done that before.


Gracchi said...

I'm not sure about this. Having read Guido did Falconer actually say it would not be neccessary to consult the Attorney. And now the Attorney is saying that if they consult him he will take outside advice. Is that contradictory or have I misunderstood.

Benedict White said...

Gracchi, I think everyone is shooting from the hip on this one. If you think you have misunderstood, that is because I do not think anyone else understands either.

The Attorney Generals reported position keeps changing. So we don't know whether thats him changing his mind or the reporters talking rubbish.

Lord Falconer seems to be saying that of course the Attorney general would not interfere. That does not say whether or not he needs to be consulted.

We only know that he has said he is going to take advice from reporters who also seem a bit scetchy on detail. Unfortunately its a 30 mile round trip for me to look up the act.