All 4 Debates between Dominic Grieve and Grahame Morris

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Grahame Morris
Tuesday 9th July 2013

(11 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General
- Hansard - -

I certainly acknowledge that the hon. Lady is right, and the consequence of the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station case was that a review was carried out by Sir Christopher Rose, and the CPS took the issues in that very seriously, but any question of a wider inquiry or review does not lie within the remit of my Department.

Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the feasibility of introducing an offence of reckless management of a financial institution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Grahame Morris
Tuesday 8th January 2013

(11 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

3. What steps he is taking to recover payments made to former senior staff at the Serious Fraud Office which were not authorised by the Cabinet Office or Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
- Hansard - -

As set out in my statement to the House on 4 December 2012, on learning of these agreements and payments, the new director of the Serious Fraud Office sought legal advice on whether the arrangements might be reopened and on whether money might be recovered. The advice he received is that the agreements, although entered into without the necessary approvals, are binding on the Serious Fraud Office.

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General
- Hansard - -

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s disquiet about what has happened. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who is the accounting officer in this context, to take legal advice and to observe it when he receives it, and the legal advice he has received is quite clear. It is perhaps worth making one further point. The vast majority of the sums paid out would have been in line with the civil service compensation scheme. In my judgment, some payments may well not have been in line with the scheme, but the majority were—I would stress the totality of the sums involved. Should there be any further developments, I will inform the House of them. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not consider the matter to be satisfactory—it causes me disquiet, and the Public Accounts Committee may well wish to look into it.

Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Attorney-General for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). In that spirit of openness, will he publish the findings of the independent investigation into the payouts commissioned by the current director of the Serious Fraud Office? Will he also indicate whether any legal or disciplinary action will be taken against the individuals responsible?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Grahame Morris
Tuesday 22nd May 2012

(12 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General
- Hansard - -

I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the right hon. Lady those details, but I will see whether subsequently I can supply her with further information. I entirely agree that the case revealed some very worrying features indeed, and I can assure her that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes those aspects very seriously and wishes to get to the bottom of them. I have no doubt that we will be better informed when we have those reports.

Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office about the future of that organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Grahame Morris
Tuesday 26th October 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

1. What his policy is on prosecution of victims of human trafficking who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence.

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
- Hansard - -

The policy of the Crown Prosecution Service is to consider the extent to which the suspects who might be victims of trafficking were compelled to undertake the unlawful activity alleged. That is compatible with our common law defence of duress. Where there is clear evidence of duress, the case should be discontinued on evidential grounds. Where it is not clear whether the suspect was acting under duress, consideration will be given to whether the suspect was in a coerced situation. In such circumstances, there will be a strong public interest to stop the prosecution.

Grahame Morris Portrait Grahame M. Morris
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Attorney-General explain the coalition Government’s strategy to contain the growing criminal and completely abhorrent practice of human trafficking, particularly with regard to the trafficking of prostitutes and press reports that human traffickers aim to exploit opportunities presented by the 2012 Olympic games and the large number of people coming to London for them?

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General
- Hansard - -

The Crown Prosecution Service works closely with the police and other related organisations to try to improve its ability to prosecute human trafficking cases. It has, for example, only very recently sent a senior prosecutor to Vietnam to discuss the issue of child trafficking into this country from that country. In addition, we are adherent to the EU directive on trafficking, which we ratified and implemented. It provided that all member states should, in accordance with the basic principles of its legal system, provide for the possibility, as I have just said, of not imposing penalties on victims for their involvement in unlawful activities. One of the reasons for that is to facilitate their coming forward so that a prosecution of the traffickers can take place.