Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Rigby

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Rigby

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)]

Mr Speaker, I will start by taking this opportunity to wish you, your team and Members across the House a very merry Christmas.

Every single victim of knife crime is one too many, and this Christmas there will be some constituents, including my own, facing the heartbreaking reality of a loved one who is no longer with them due to knife crime. That is why, as part of our plan for change, the Government are 100% committed to tackling knife crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the Solicitor General to the Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Good luck with that one!

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. He will appreciate that I do not have those statistics to hand, but I am more than happy to write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I can give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman calls this kind of crime low level. I know from experiences in my constituency that these issues can affect daily life and really blight communities, so yes he has my assurance.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I am very sorry to hear of the incident in the right hon. Member’s constituency; that is indeed appalling. It is vital for this type of conduct to be taken seriously, and policing is key to that. We need more police officers and police community support officers, which is why, as part of our plan for change, we have promised to put 13,000 more police officers and PCSOs back on the beat with a named officer for every neighbourhood. We also need to improve the experiences of victims within our criminal justice system, and that includes better communication between victims and the CPS.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are strengthening the law and the criminal justice system to improve prosecutions for violence against women and girls, and to better support victims.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—welcome.