John Jackson (London, Charter 88): Increasingly it is said “ We don’t want mere consultation. If we are to be involved, we want a real say on determining the outcome”.
One of the reasons for this is a suspicion that consultation (by Government) is little more than a political ploy. Its aim, to calm down those who do not like decisions which affect their daily lives being taken by people who are remote from them (and, increasingly, are even remote even from their elected representatives). Another is that consultation is used to stifle the raising of unwelcome questions. The first is probably unfair but there is surely a germ of truth in the second.
Take the current consultation on the role of the Attorney General (opens pdf). The consultative document contains a long introductory account of the history and role of the Law Officers - a statement of "fact" intended to inform those consulted. This includes the following:
The Attorney General is a Minister of the Crown. The implications of this are that the holder of the office:
- is a member of the Government
- is appointed by the Prime Minister and holds office while he or she retains his confidence
- is bound by collective responsibility
- has in the past been a more or less established member of the party in Government
- takes the party Whip in Parliament
- participates in Cabinet and Cabinet committees
These assertions are coupled with the tight wording of the six questions consultees are invited to answer in relation to the role of the Attorney General. Such a ‘consultation’ has the effect of blocking off “not asked for” opinion on some important questions.
If the Attorney General is indeed a Minister he or she will, of course, be a member of the Government and be bound by collective responsibility - in the sense that if the Government falls their appointment is terminated also. But why should they be appointed by the Prime Minister? Or hold their position at his pleasure? Or have to be a party member? Or be in Parliament at all - let alone take the party Whip or participate (other than as a giver of legal advice) in Cabinet and Cabinet committees?
Those questions go to the heart of the Attorney General’s role in our country’s affairs. They are questions that “we the people” should be allowed to raise and discuss - at the very least.
Other representative democracies have found it possible to embrace, to the notion that some Ministerial appointments should be “above” party politics and should be held by those best qualified for the job.
If this approach was applied to the post of Attorney General it would suggest some interesting answers to the questions raised above. In all probability the appointment would not be in the gift of the Prime Minister, membership of a political party would be a bar to office, the holder - although responsible to Parliament – might be barred from sitting in Parliament, or at least limited to speaking where relevant but not voting, and participation in Cabinet or Cabinet committee would be limited to the giving of legal advice.
One suspects that the main political parties would dislike this approach. They like an adversarial system in which every holder of office must be “one of us”. Do the rest of us?
