Proposed powers for the Attorney-General to halt prosecutions on national security grounds or to stop fraud investigations are condemned by an influential committee of MPs today.

The power to stop prosecutions should be for the Prime Minister, not the Govermment’s chief law officer, the Commons Justice Committee of MPs say.

They also condemn plans to allow decisions to halt prosecutions by the Attorney-General to be immune from challenge in the courts - described by one leading lawyer as “flouting constitutional principles”.

Nor should the Attorney have power to halt investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, they say.

Finally the MPs call for the Attorney-General’s role of legal adviser to the Cabinet to be split off from the role of Government minister.

The hard-hitting report says that plans to reform the 800-year old office of the Attorney-General, in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill now under Parliamentary scrutiny, are ineffective.

The proposed reforms fail to address the fundamental problem of a conflict between the Attorney-General’s legal and political roles - and will fail to bolster public confidence.

The MPs’ criticisms comes as the current Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, is due to give evidence to MPs today on the proposed reforms.

The Bill proposes putting into statute the Attorney-General’s power to halt prosecutions in the national interest.

But in a controversial move, it also proposes that such decisions could not be challenged by way of judicial review - what the MPs say is effectively an “ouster clause”, ousting the jurisdiction of the courts.

A leading constitutional lawyer, Professor Jeffrey Jowell, told the MPs in their inquiry that such a proposal flew “in the face of the fundamental constitutional principles of the rule of law and separation of powers”.

Today’s report concludes: “We see no case for the inclusion n of the ouster clause.”

The MPs also add that that there is no justification for giving the Attorney-General power to halt investigations, as opposed to prosecutions, by the Serious Fraud Office, a power not given in relation to other prosecuting authorities.

It was the furore over the halting by the SFO of its investigation into corruption allegations in connection with BAE Systems and its arms deal with Saudi Arabia that in part prompted a review of the Attorney-General’s role.

There was also the controversy over the role of the Attorney-General's role in the “cash for honours” police investigation and over his advice to the Government on the legality of the Iraq war. Lord Goldsmith, QC, held the role at the time.

The MPs say: “We see no reason to give the Attorney-General special powers to direct the SFO to discontinue investigations (as oppposed to proceedings). The work of the SFO should be placed on the same footing in this respect as the other proecution agencies.”

Sir Alan Beith, chairman of the committee, said: “The main areas that concern the public about the Attorney’s role arise from fears that a politican, sitting in Cabinet and with the traditional collective responsibility for the decisions of that Cabinet, may not be independent when acting as legal adviser on major political decisions, or making the decision about ending prosecutions, or in some cases investigations.”

The legal powers of the office - to bring or intervene in legal proceedings or as chief legal adviser to the Government - could be better performed by a non-political office holder, he added.

“This Bill has been called more of a 'constitutional retreat bill' than a constitutional renewal bill and on this issue certainly we feel that it fails to achieve the purpose given to constitutional reform by the Prime Minister.

“It gives greater power to the Executive and it does not add to transparency.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones