Female Genital Mutilation

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General mentioned the NHS and also FGM protection orders. The facts are these: in the first quarter of this year alone, the NHS reported over 2,000 patients who were the victims of FGM, of whom 970 were newly recorded victims. In the same quarter, the Ministry of Justice tells us there were only 21 female genital mutilation protection orders made. For over 20 years, health professionals and teachers have been under a mandatory legal duty to report FGM, so that sisters and cousins can be protected. Will the noble and learned Lord tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure this mandatory duty is enforced in practice? When will we see an increase in the number of young girls actually receiving the legal protection they deserve?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

It is going to be fatal to the young girls that we all want to protect if we turn this into a political issue—I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was doing that. He has given the most recent figures, and he is right to do so because those are the figures that we need to focus on, but I am not going to go through the figures for the past 14 years because we need to focus on outcomes. Work is going on across the board, including at the CPS, where we are updating guidance, training and cross-co-ordination with other agencies, and I am due shortly to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss what more we can do. Again, I stress that this not a problem purely for the criminal justice system; it is a problem that needs to be addressed across government.

Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place, the Solicitor-General said that there was a rigorous system for managing conflicts of interest, but she did not say what she meant by a conflict of interest or who decided when one existed; nor did she say whether, because of his work for previous clients, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has in fact recused himself from personally giving advice to the Government on any current issue. Policy Exchange’s paper has comprehensively shown that none of this involves any breach either of legal privilege or of convention, so please may we have some answers to these questions? What precise definition of an actual or potential conflict of interest is used by the Attorney-General’s Office and who decides when one exists? On what matters has the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General recused himself from personally advising Ministers?

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is vital that the public are reassured that the highest standards of propriety are applied by my department, and I welcome the opportunity to answer questions today. As the House will be aware, I am constrained by the law officers’ convention, which prohibits me identifying particular instances in which law officer advice has been sought, even by implication. But I hope that reassurance can be found in the description of the rigorous system for managing conflicts provided by the Solicitor-General in the other place.

May I make it plain that if ever there is or will be reasonable doubt as to whether a law officer should be recused, my department will always err on the side of caution. Compliance with that process has led me to recuse myself from certain matters. As I said, the convention precludes me identifying in those instances, because to do so would inevitably reveal the issues on which advice has been sought. I can assure the House that recusals have no material impact on my department’s work. Where one law officer is conflicted, another is asked to act instead, and I am fortunate to have the support of a Solicitor-General and an Advocate-General for Scotland with highly successful careers in law.