The role of the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, has come under increasing criticism from those who argue that the tension between his obligations as a legal officer and as a member of cabinet has become insurmountable. We asked some of our law panellists for their views. Here is a selection of their responses.

YES

Whether or not the Attorney-General is independent in fact, as a member of the government he is perceived as giving priority to the political over the legal. The simple solution would be the Indian, South African and Israeli route, where the Attorney-General is not a serving politician. In Israel, the government is obliged to follow the Attorney-General's advice and the Attorney-General can refuse to defend a government that fails to do so.

But the issue is more complex because even in those countries the Attorney-General is appointed by the Government (normally the Justice Minister) and is therefore still often perceived as being inclined to support the those who appointed him. There is also the problem created by the the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. That Act reformed the role of the Lord Chancellor and provided that he need not be a lawyer. If the Attorney General is de-politicised, there may no longer be any lawyer as a minister.

Does that matter? Our health minister need not be a doctor and the Chancellor need not be an economist. But there have been times when lawyers in Government have proved the sole force for the rule of law and human rights (such as Lord Irvine's resisting David Blunkett's proposals to oust the jursidiction of the court in asylum and immigration cases, and indeed Lord Goldsmith's opposition to Guantanamo Bay).

Whether or not, therefore, the Attorney-General remains as a member of one or other houses of parliament (and the balance of the argument favours de-politicising his role), legislation should stipulate that the Attorney-General's prime duty is to uphold the rule of law and judicial independence. In addition, his archaic oath of office, which presently binds his loyalties to the Queen, should be amended so that his duty is to enforce the law on behalf of the public.

Jeffrey Jowell, QC

Yes. The conflicts of interest inherent in the Attorney-General's position that is justified as manageable on the grounds of "judgment", "discretion", "experience" and so on are just those where, from their recent legislative perspective, the Government has been the first to say require different treatment. To take just one example, look at the reform of regulation of the professions, where the Government was quick - and rightly so - to say the regulator/watchdog should be independent and act transparently.

Or if the status quo is to be retained (and like anyone else, the Government must be free to take legal advice which as for anyone else should be confidential, privileged and so on), there must be better arrangements for accountability. For example, the Attorney-General serves at the Prime Minister's pleasure but is only accountable to Parliament, basically like any other MP. Again, it goes to transparency. It's a classic case of justice needing to be seen to be done as well as actually being done.

Richard Kemp

NO

I think as Lord Goldsmith, QC, has fairly pointed out, the role has always had a political element. I think that Goldsmith is more of a lawyer and less of a politician than most of his predecessors, so I'm not sure that he's really the Attorney-General to take issue with.

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