Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The parliamentary joint committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (CRB) will soon begin taking evidence. I will be posting regularly about some of the debates and issues it should be taking into account, starting with the role of the Attorney General. Unfortunately the proposed legislation does not fully address and in some senses would worsen the very issues that brought reform of this office onto the agenda in the first place. Controversy has arisen in recent years over the role of the Attorney General that combines significant legal duties with government and party roles. In two major cases, there has been justifiable suspicion over Lord Goldsmith's revision of his advice on the legality of the Iraq War and government resistance to publishing that advice; and his part in putting pressure on the Serious Fraud Office to get it to drop the Al-Yamamah arms deal investigation. In both cases, it seems that he might have been leant on. Finally, there was considerable doubt about his potential role in deciding whether to prosecute over the 'cash for honours' investigation.
The proposals put forward by the government in its 'Constitutional Renewal' programme leave most of the basic problems with the role of the Attorney General intact. The holder of the post will continue to be a party politician, drawn from Parliament and appointed by the Prime Minister; with responsibility for criminal justice policy, acting as senior legal adviser to the government and supervising the prosecuting authorities. And the Attorney General will now possess an explicit right to discontinue investigations by the Serious Fraud Office (which was previously achieved through a nod and a wink) on national security grounds. Given this plan, future decisions of the Al-Yamamah variety may be even more likely - despite the halting of this inquiry recently having been ruled illegal by the High Court. Under such circumstances confidence in the legal system may, with a degree of justification, continue to be undermined.
Finally, the Attorney General's legal advice to government will continue to be confidential. There is a case for this in circumstances where legal issues are yet to be resolved, but not in cases of high public policy, such as going to war. Democratic Audit and other democracy organisations have long argued that Parliament itself should have a legal adviser of its own.
