Parliamentary support for the government’s decision not to split the Attorney General’s legal and political functions has attracted scathing criticism from experts.

Last Thursday, the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill published its report that, controversially, ignored the advice of the Justice Committee to split the role of Attorney General in two.

However, six of the committee’s 17 members – made up of three Conservatives and three Lib-Dems – issued a minority report that argued the proposals did not establish the office’s independence, and said the functions should be split.

Commenting on the decision, Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights policy at Justice, which gave evidence to the Joint Committee, said: ‘This is very disappointing and to a certain extent contradicts the very clear recommendations of other parties to the consultation – including the Justice Committee.

‘We will be briefing members of both Houses of Parliament,’ he added.

Professor Gary Slapper, director of the Centre of Law at the Open University, observed: ‘The draft bill does not mark a ­triumph for democracy.’

He said government worked best when the legal advice it took was ‘independent from cynical politics’, noting the advice given by Lord Goldsmith prior to the 2003 Iraq war, and the decision to halt the BAE arms sales investigation, as ‘illustrations of legal advice that looked suspicious from the public’s viewpoint’.

In its report, the Joint Committee said: ‘We have carefully considered the evidence we have received and the recommendation of the [Justice Committee]. We recognise that there are different and strongly held views on this issue.

‘On balance, however, we are not persuaded of the case for separating the Attorney General’s legal and political functions. We therefore support the current arrangement.’

The report also highlighted a ‘lack of measurable progress towards increasing diversity at all levels of the judiciary’ and called on the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to tackle the issue.

A spokesman for the JAC said: ‘We take diversity very seriously. A better way of looking at the issue is to compare the selections we make against the eligible pool of candidates.’

Proposals at a glance

The Joint Committee supported the majority of government proposals including:

  • Retaining the combined political and legal function of the Attorney General;
  • Removing the legal requirement to obtain prior authorisation to protest in vicinity of Parliament;
  • Strengthening parliamentary involvement in armed conflict decisions;
  • Making the Civil Service Commission a non-departmental public body;
  • Putting the framework for the Civil Service into legislation; and
  • Putting the procedure for allowing Parliament to scrutinise treaties – the ‘Ponsonby rule’ – into legislation.

The committee rejected proposals to remove the AG’s power to stop a prosecution (the so-called ‘nuclear option’), and was disappointed with the slow progress made in appointing judges from diverse backgrounds.