Sports Calendar

The nub of the issue is whether particular decisions should be taken with or without a political angle or the perception of a political angle: it is easy for lawyers outside Government to disparage any political angle, but any individual advising Government on legal issues must think of the political angle, just as a good business lawyer thinks about the client's business interests and good divorce lawyers think about non-legal aspects of the divorce for their clients .

I suggest that there is clearly a role for a lawyer in Government who seeks to bridge to an extent the divide between politician and independent lawyer. It is misconceived to think Government cannot receive independent legal advice (as some at least have suggested) given the Attorney-General's role: Government receives such advice from the Attorney-General if he is competent, from the Government legal service (which in my experience of working closely with DTI lawyers for many years, tries to give honest advice on the law), and in many cases from external lawyers. The Government also wants certain decisions and advice to rest with someone with a role which to an extent is a hybrid: that's not the end of the world or, it seems to me at least, a mistake. If they are Governmental decisions he takes, they are subject to judicial review like any other. If they are decisions to seek injunctions, it's worth recalling that a judge has to approve his applications, so he's hardly unleashed irresponsibly.

I hope that lawyers will not fall into the trap that politicians more frequently tumble into, which is disliking or disagreeing with a particular decision or outcome (such as the advice on Iraq or BAE or a decision to seek injunctions in relation to police inquiries) and concluding that the system should be changed. The fault is not usually with the system and the idea that a system exists which avoids these tensions between a legal role and a political role, seems to me misplaced. Government decisions on legal issues cannot be wholly de-politicised: one relies on the integrity of the decider in the context of the specific responsibilities and duties relevant to the particular circumstances. In addition, if the Attorney-General became a non-political appointee, would his advice be sought on an issue such as the Iraq war or would the role be re-cast?

All in all, I think the Attorney-General has done quite a good job of justifying his own tightrope balance, whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of particular decisions.

James Palmer

I vote no to reform. The reality is that Goldsmith is doing a decent job. The objection is to the look of the thing and I think that this is the time to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Attorney-General’s job is always going to require access to the government. We only think he is compromised because we are prepared to think the worst of everyone. The answer lies in adjusting peoples’ perceptions and accepting that we may just have to trust someone. Reform means always having to say we’re untrustworthy and in the end no one will be able to do any job involving competing arguments.

Simon Myerson, QC

My personal view is that the role has not changed and the dual political/legal role has a long history and has not obviously historically given rise to problems. It is not unusual for the equivalent in other countries to be explicitly a political appointee, such as in the US - unlike the role of the Lord Chancellor, which raised different issues as he was the head of the judiciary. From a purist separation of functions point of view, I recognise the concerns, but one has to ask whether yet more reform is justified on a cost benefit basis - and I am unpersuaded on this.

Jonathan Herbst

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers