The Attorney-General has defended his independence before a parliamentary committee scrutinising his role.


Lord Goldsmith told the constitutional affairs select committee last week that 'it is really important to make it clear that my duty is to the law and not to party politics'.



One committee member suggested there had been a 'collapse in confidence' in the Attorney-General's role following the controversy over his advice on the Iraq war and the recent decision not to proceed with a prosecution against BAE Systems for alleged corruption.



Lord Goldsmith said the BAE prosecution decision had been made by the director of the Serious Fraud Office, although he had agreed with it. He added that, having sought advice, he had doubts over whether the prosecution would have succeeded in any case.



On Iraq, he said that, in the event of any future need for military action, it would be 'for the Prime Minister of the day' to determine whether the Attorney-General's advice should be made available to Parliament.



Lord Goldsmith said he did not agree with remarks made by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, which questioned the accountability of the Attorney-General role. He said: 'There are difficulties about what you cannot reveal at times, but leaving that aside I think I am accountable for all that I do. There are aspects of what I do that are controversial, and that will always be the case.'



Lord Goldsmith suggested that his own role could be bolstered if any future Lord Chancellor did not come from a legal background. He said: 'If we were to move to a situation where the Lord Chancellor were not a lawyer, I freely confess that it would be important that there remain a senior lawyer at the heart of government, and the only other candidate for that would be the Attorney-General.'



Rachel Rothwell