This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6340101.stm

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Goldsmith hits back in Harman row Goldsmith attacks party critics
(about 1 hour later)
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has hit back at justice minister's Harriet Harman's criticisms of his role. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has hit back at criticisms of his role by Labour party colleagues.
He told MPs he "did not agree" with Ms Harman's call for legal advice - on issues such as the legality of military action - to be published. He told MPs he "did not agree" with Constitutional Affairs minister Harriet Harman's call for his legal advice to be routinely published.
He said it should be "up to the prime minister of the day" to decide how to ensure the public and MPs were informed about such decisions. He said the decision should be "up to the prime minister of the day".
Ms Harman said public confidence in the attorney's role was being undermined. He also rejected Lord Falconer's claim that the attorney general should no longer be a Cabinet role, saying it was vital for "accountability".
Lord Goldsmith has come under pressure to publish his advice on the legality of the Iraq war and the decision to drop a fraud inquiry into a BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
My duty is to the law, not to party politics or party loyalties Lord Goldsmith
Giving evidence to the constitutional affairs committee, he agreed to publish the section of the BAE advice "that relates to the decision not to prosecute".
But he rejected Ms Harman's call, in a speech last week, for all such advice to be made public, saying it should be up to "the prime minister of the day".
He insisted there was no contradiction between his role as a member of the Labour government and an impartial law officer.
'Accountable' politician
He said there were occasions when he had to make decisions which were not covered by "collective Cabinet responsibility".
And it was important that the attorney general remained a politician and not "some civil servant" so that he or she would be "accountable" to Parliament and be able to be cross-examined by MPs.
He also hit back at claims public confidence in his role had been damaged by criticism over legal advice in the run up to the Iraq war, cash-for-honours inquiry and the BAE systems row.
He said he did not agree with comments by Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who has said the role of the attorney general in government is not constitutionally sustainable.
Duty
He said he had taken decisions which colleagues had not agreed with and added: "My duty is to the law, not to party politics or party loyalties".
On BAE Systems, he insisted the decision to drop the inquiry had been by the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who had been told it would harm national security.
He said he had reached the same conclusion after carrying out a national interest test.
But he also revealed a national interest test carried out a year earlier had focused on whether BAE would lose contracts if the investigation continued.
It had ruled the investigation could not be dropped on those grounds without breaking the terms of an anti-corruption treaty Britain had signed up to.
"Which is why the investigation went on," said Lord Goldsmith.
And he confirmed International Development Secretary Hilary Benn had not been among the ministers consulted on the decision to drop the inquiry.
Harman's criticism
"He could have told us that we have a commitment to fight corruption, but I know that and I know there was public interest in it," Lord Goldsmith said.
Ms Harman, who is also campaigning to become Labour's deputy leader, called last week in a speech for "greater transparency'' from Lord Goldsmith and future holders of the office.
"It is not enough for government ministers to say, 'We are advised that it is lawful' ,'' she said.
"Backbenchers, let alone the wider public, want to see for themselves what the arguments are.''