---

Law Officers

My Lords, forgive me. I should say that in 1992 the Attorney-General—now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate—needed to say of the Maastricht Treaty that he was ““independently and dispassionately”” giving legal advice to the Government, a statement which did not end the argument. The legality of the use of force against Iraq has been and remains a major issue causing problems for the present Attorney-General. On 1 March this year, the   noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, again asked the Government to publish the full text of the Attorney-General’s opinion. This arose from a recent claim in the Guardian newspaper that the Government had manipulated the legal justification for war and put pressure on the Attorney-General. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, declined, saying three times that,"““my own, genuinely-held, independent view””,—[Official Report, 1/3/05; col. 112.]" Was that military action was lawful. Inevitably, that will not be the end of the matter. On a different matter, the noble and learned Lord wrote to the Independent on 22 October—seven weeks ago—about an allegation that he had bowed to political pressure not to prosecute a tragic shooting. In that he drew on what he called the classic statement made by the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in 1951 about the independent role of the senior law officer. Those are only a few among a long list of occasions when the dual role of the Attorney-General of the day led to a challenge or provoked a political dispute. I am not saying, except in the case of Sir Patrick Hastings, that over the years the Attorney-General has abused his position. I do not know. I have the highest regard for those Attorney-Generals and other law officers I have known personally in either House. The fact remains that all too often doubt lingers in the minds of other politicians, the public and the press. It would be far better for the law officers to be happily outside government as they are in a number of countries. A visitor from, say, a former Soviet republic somewhere in the Caucasus is brought by the British Council to Westminster to learn about democracy. ““Please tell me””, he respectfully asks, ““about the role of the Attorney-General””. ““His job””, his host replies, giving him lunch in the House of Lords, ““is to give his genuinely held, independent, legal advice to the Prime Minister of the day””. ““Then he must be a neutral figure, expert in law and above politics?””. ““Well, not exactly, he is a senior member of the government of the day, attending Cabinet and dealing with the sometimes irresponsible Opposition””. The visitor is now looking a little puzzled. He says, ““But who hires this talented man, looking both ways; is it Her Majesty or the Lord Chief Justice?””““Er . . . no, it is the Prime Minister””. ““But, forgive me, then who sacks him?””““The Prime Minister””, says the host, ““but occasionally he promotes him””. ““Thank you”” says the visitor, taking a second glass of claret. ““Your British democracy is reassuringly familiar””. I beg to move for Papers.