Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)]

The Attorney General’s Office has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process predates the appointment of the Attorney General and sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and to actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict. Learned Members of this House will keenly appreciate the importance that all lawyers place on that obligation.

In identifying conflicts or potential conflicts, the Attorney General’s Office adopts a cautious and “beyond reproach” threshold to any conflicts or potential conflicts. My Department works with the Government Legal Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which oversees international litigation on behalf of the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office to revise and augment the list of conflicts identified.

Once the conflicts have been ascertained and a set of actions identified for each conflict, the Attorney General’s Office takes steps to ensure that the Law Officer is appropriately limited in their involvement on matters related to the relevant area of Government policy or related litigation. The list is kept under review and amended—for example, when new Government policies or litigation emerge. In situations where one Law Officer is conflicted, another Law Officer is asked to act in their place.

The Law Officers’ convention is an important principle —enshrined in “Erskine May” and the ministerial code, and upheld by successive Administrations—that preserves the ability of Government to receive full and frank legal advice from their legal advisers in confidence. I am therefore unable to comment on the specific details of legal advice provided by the Law Officers, other than to note that of course decisions on policy are taken by the relevant Secretary of State, as has been the case under successive Governments. That process sits alongside the system relating to ministerial interests, overseen by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, who was provided with the Attorney General’s list of conflicts following his appointment. I can reassure the House that the Attorney General’s Office will continue to apply the most rigorous standards in its conflicts process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Helen Grant]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

The Attorney General previously represented former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams in a damages claim brought by victims of IRA bombings. Indeed, we know that he received £30,000 for that representation. The constitutional propriety of our legal system demands absolute clarity on how conflicts of interest with former clients are managed at the very highest levels of Government. This goes far beyond individual matters of advice; it strikes at the very heart of the proper administration of justice.

Let me be absolutely clear that this is not about Lord Hermer’s career at the Bar; it is about the proper mechanisms for recusal when matters concerning former clients come before Government. The House must know what safeguards are in place to protect the public interest when such situations arise, especially regarding sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

What are the formal procedures for the Attorney General’s recusal in matters involving former clients? Has the Attorney General recused himself from any matters since taking office? What assessment has been made of potential conflicts arising from his extensive litigation against the Government? [Interruption.]

This all goes to the heart of public confidence in our legal system. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and promised this House a Government of standards and integrity. [Interruption.] The proper management of conflicts of interest at the highest levels of the Government Legal Service is not optional; it is fundamental to that promise—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, you have two minutes, not three, and we have to stick to the rules. I allowed you to go on, but I was not coughing for my health; it was to give you a hint to come to the end of your question. Have you now finished?

[Helen Grant]

I have, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I call the Solicitor General.

[The Solicitor General]

I have outlined the rigorous process that exists in the Attorney General’s Office and has existed across Administrations of all colours. The House may be aware that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has written to the Cabinet Secretary seeking clarity—the clarity to which the shadow Solicitor General refers—on that process and an investigation into it. The Cabinet Secretary has today confirmed by reply that the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous system in place to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest. He has restated that those arrangements are of long standing and part of standard practice that has applied under successive Administrations. [Interruption.] I encourage Opposition Members to take comfort from that statement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Solicitor General, when I am standing, you must sit down. Mr Mullan, whether here or elsewhere, I do not want a running commentary from you on everything we debate. Do we understand each other?

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Good, because I have certainly had enough of it.

[The Solicitor General]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The shadow Solicitor General raised the previous experience of the Attorney General. Lord Hermer is a very experienced barrister, and during his time in private practice—prior to his appointment to Government—he represented high-profile clients in a number of cases. It is a central and well-understood aspect of the British legal system, as she knows, that barristers are required to accept instructions if they are available and qualified to do so—the well-known “cab rank” principle. She will also be very aware that, put simply, barristers are not their clients. As the Bar Council states:

“Barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them.”

In recent days, the Opposition have cynically linked the Attorney General with some of his previous clients. I grew up on military bases in armed forces communities in the 1980s, and I remember what it felt like when my dad had to check underneath the car before every single journey we made. I note that because it is the backdrop against which I say that I would defend with every fibre of my being the duty of any barrister in this country, including Lord Hermer, to defend any client before any court, as we all should. I will end by restating the principle in words that I think are particularly powerful:

“Don’t judge a surgeon by their patients, a journalist by their interviewees—or a lawyer by their clients.”

Those were the words of the current Conservative shadow Attorney General.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Does the Solicitor General agree that what the shadow Solicitor General is asking her to do, in a not very subtle way, is to breach the Law Officers’ convention by the back door? If the Attorney General were to reveal whether or not he is able to advise on a particular issue, that would reveal the fact that he had been asked to advise on it. The Opposition’s intention is clear: it is to gain party advantage. The effect is to undermine the rule of law.

[The Solicitor General]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The shambolic Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy in this country with their cronyism, rule breaking and constant sleaze scandals. They even appointed as their Attorney General the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who before his appointment represented some of the world’s largest tax dodgers. The Liberal Democrats want to repair the damage that was done by the constant stream of Conservative sleaze and finally restore public trust in our politics.

I do, however, have some questions for the Solicitor General. Has the Attorney General sought independent legal advice regarding any possible conflicts of interest relating to his previous work at Matrix Chambers? Can the Solicitor General assure the House that all and any impropriety will be thoroughly looked into, and will she please introduce annual training on conflicts of interests and ethics for all Ministers and finally enshrine the ministerial code in law?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned another Member. I do not think it was critical, and that is fine, but if it was critical—[Hon. Members: “It was.”] Just let me finish. If it was critical, I am sure that he will have informed that other Member.

[Ben Maguire]

I did.

[Mr Speaker]

You did. There we go—and Members were getting all excited. I call the Solicitor General.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. I have outlined the rigorous process that exists in the Attorney General’s office and, as I said, has existed across Administrations of all colours.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon. [Interruption.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker. I am so used to being called last. [Laughter.] My humblest apologies.

My motivation is clearly justice for the innocent victims; that is what I am about. At the heart of this urgent question is Gerry Adams. When this House put in place a pension for innocent victims of the troubles and at that time excluded perpetrators from applying, Gerry Adams and his colleagues sought to block those pensions. Adams’ hands are dripping with innocent blood, not least from when he was the commander of the La Mon bombing, which killed and maimed my constituents. Will the Attorney General recuse himself from all matters relating to Adams, and will this Government ensure that Adams does not get one single penny?