Debates between Lord Bellingham and Dominic Grieve during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Bellingham and Dominic Grieve
Tuesday 20th November 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham Portrait Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
- Hansard - -

10. What plans he has to improve the efficiency of the Serious Fraud Office.

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

I have appointed a new director to the Serious Fraud Office who started work in April. David Green QC has restructured the office, made high-profile appointments and built in layers of quality control. He has clearly restated the intent and purpose of the SFO, and I am confident that, as a result, we will see improved efficiency and performance. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses the report of the inspection of the SFO by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, which I requested. I thank the chief inspector and his team for that helpful report, and confirm that the new director of the SFO has accepted all its recommendations and is already implementing them.

Lord Bellingham Portrait Mr Bellingham
- Hansard - -

I thank the Attorney-General for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the SFO has a vital role to play in the drive against crime linked to corruption and bribery, but that UK exporters must know where they stand and be treated fairly? Can he confirm that the current guidelines are fit for purpose and that no major or fundamental changes will be made to them?

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Bribery and corruption are serious offences. Guidelines have been published to help companies in that respect, and I have every confidence that no company will be prosecuted unless it has committed a serious offence. I cannot, however, give an undertaking that the guidelines will not be subject to review. The guidelines will evolve over time, and they are just that—guidelines. Ultimately, it is for the director of the SFO and the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision based on an evidential test and the public interest.