Serious Fraud Office

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) on securing this important debate on fraud and economic crime and the work of the Serious Fraud Office in combating those threats. The debate has been thoughtful and considered, covering different types of fraud and plenty of personal stories and experiences.

Fraud, bribery and corruption undermine economic security and prosperity, and undermine the very significant majority of people in this country who play by the rules. That is why the Government are so determined to stamp out such crimes and to support the SFO in its core mission. That is how we will protect our economic security and prosperity, as well as the reputation and integrity of the UK as a leading international financial centre. It is also how we will protect working people from the pernicious types of fraud that have been so aptly described today.

As my hon. Friend said, the economic crime landscape has been fundamentally transformed by rapid technological advancement. Criminals now exploit new and powerful tools, from cryptoassets that enable money laundering to AI-generated audio or images, that have fundamentally changed how we traditionally tackle fraud. Those new types of intricate scams acquire new victims, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) mentioned. As has been covered already, the human suffering is heartbreaking.

Those changes in technology also bring us great opportunities to fight such crimes, as well as tools to do so more quickly and effectively. The environment demands constant innovation and growth, and I see that exemplified by the Serious Fraud Office, with the organisation’s ambition to be bolder and more pragmatic as it continues and succeeds in tackling complex fraud, bribery and corruption.

As has rightly been acknowledged, the Serious Fraud Office is a highly specialist agency. It does crucial work to investigate and prosecute the most serious and complex cases of fraud, bribery and corruption, and it is the only agency in the country to follow criminal investigations from cradle to grave—police, prosecutor and proceeds of crime, all under one roof. The SFO has a complex and challenging caseload, reflecting both the highly specialised work it does and the difficulty of accessing meaningful intelligence on some of the world’s most sophisticated criminals. Its investigations are typically high profile and high risk, and they are invariably cross border, requiring sophisticated expertise and co-ordination.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), I am heartened to see a refreshed SFO that is taking significant positive steps forward under the strong leadership of the director, Nick Ephgrave. He is committed to a focus on using new tools, enhancing the SFO’s intelligence capacity, and working with domestic and international partners—all furthering the SFO’s ambition to be bolder and more pragmatic. During his tenure, the SFO has charged 16 defendants on 43 counts of fraud, bribery and corruption; announced 10 overt investigations; and arrested and questioned 22 individuals. Since 2020, the SFO has returned more than £1 billion to the UK taxpayer in penalties, demonstrating the impressive financial contribution it makes relative to its small running costs.

The organisation currently has 35 active criminal cases, in addition to civil cases, proceeds of crime cases and mutual legal assistance cases, which bring its total caseload to about 150. Earlier today we saw an example of the SFO’s crucial work as it announced an investigation into Rockfire Investment Finance plc, relating to an alleged £400 million fraud against Thurrock council between 2016 and 2020. I saw the SFO’s work at first hand when I accompanied it on an early morning raid as it searched five properties and made three arrests in relation to a new multimillion-pound international bribery investigation.

As I noted, recovering ill-gotten gains and returning money to victims and the taxpayer is a crucial part of the SFO’s role. It is highly skilled at recovering funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: it recovered £160 million between March 2021 and March 2024. In January, it successfully secured its first unexplained wealth order as it seeks to recover a Lake district property believed to have been purchased with the proceeds of a £100 million fraud—demonstrating that, wherever criminal assets have been hidden or dispersed, the SFO will explore new methods to recover funds for victims and the public purse.

It is vital that the SFO continues to adapt to the increasing pace of change and technological innovation. Part of that drive is being put into action with faster case progression, stricter case discipline, and the creation of capacity for more investigations through the SFO’s “sharper, faster casework” initiative, as demonstrated by the fact that charges were brought in the Axiom Ince case only 15 months after the investigation was launched.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater spoke about financially incentivising whistleblowers. It is absolutely right that, in this environment, the SFO examines new and potentially transformative tools in the fight against fraud and economic crime, including the financial incentivisation of whistleblowers. That is clearly a priority issue for the director, and I note that Jonathan Fisher KC will be considering such incentivisation as part of his independent review of fraud.

As has been widely covered, fraud does not stop at national borders, and it is therefore vital that enforcement activities do not either—that is to say that, when criminals do not observe national boundaries, nor will enforcement. That is why the SFO makes co-operation with international partners a priority. It recently launched a new international anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce with Swiss and French partner agencies that will strengthen the existing ties with those countries and lead to greater joint working on cases, as well as a greater sharing of insights and expertise.

The SFO will continue to strengthen its key international partnerships to ensure continued, robust enforcement against international bribery and corruption, because it is firmly in our national interests to do so.

[Joe Powell]

Obviously, there has been some concern about the US Administration’s recent shift on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Will the Minister assure us that the SFO is looking at the impact of that, where there is international bribery across jurisdictions? I am not expecting a political judgment about whether that is the right or wrong thing to do, but we must keep our eye on the impacts, particularly in developing countries.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that key point, and I can confirm that the SFO is keeping a close eye on it in the context of its other international partnerships.

Hon. Members rightly highlighted disclosure, which is another key area in which the SFO is driving forward change. Managing increasing volumes of data and complying with disclosure obligations have become increasingly challenging in the data-heavy cases that the SFO handles. In 2023, 25% of the SFO’s operational budget was spent on delivering disclosure operations. The SFO is harnessing machine learning technology to enhance the efficiency of its disclosure exercises. Technology-assisted review has been successfully trialled on a live SFO case that is going through the courts, and it will be rolled out by operational divisions.

Given the importance of the SFO’s work, I was delighted that in October the Government were able to confirm additional funding of £9.3 million for it, giving it a strong foundation to push ahead with work to deliver organisational objectives. I have talked about the SFO’s role and performance in tackling fraud, bribery and corruption, but I also want to detail the action that the Government are taking more broadly to tackle the threats of fraud and economic crime. We of course take the threat of corruption, alongside illicit finance and kleptocracy, extremely seriously. As a nation with the utmost respect for the rule of law, and indeed for the importance of our security, the UK is leading the fight in addressing corruption.

That is precisely why the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor announced that the Government will publish a new anti-corruption strategy this year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said. The Government are also developing an expanded fraud strategy, covering themes including enhanced data sharing, monitoring AI, tackling the impact of fraud on businesses and growth, and improving victim support and public awareness. We currently aim to publish that strategy, which is being developed by the Home Office, by the end of the year.

The Government have also published guidance to support organisations in understanding the new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent fraud. The SFO is committed to making full use of the offence once it comes into force in September.

Lastly, I will make three very brief points in response to issues raised by Members during the debate. First, I will explicitly note the Government’s action to better protect taxpayers when it comes to public sector fraud in the form of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which it is estimated will save the taxpayer £1.5 billion over the next five years.

Secondly, with regard to the overseas territories, it is vital that we work closely with them to combat fraud, financial crime and money laundering, and on the enforcement of UK financial sanctions. We need to see greater transparency when it comes to company ownership, assets and real estate, which will be taken into account in the forthcoming anti-corruption strategy. Thirdly, I am more than happy to take forward the co-operation with Northern Ireland that was mentioned to deal with the very human side of fraud that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised.

In conclusion, it is clear that the world of fraud and economic crime continues to evolve rapidly, both in the UK and globally. It is vital that we adapt at the same pace to effectively crack down on this persistent threat to our economy and our prosperity, and that is something that the Government are 100% committed to doing.

Crown Prosecution Service: Contingencies Fund Advance

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)]

The Crown Prosecution Service requires a Contingencies Fund advance of £60 million to cover urgent payments of resource departmental expenditure limit expenditures, such as February payroll, and to pay suppliers’ invoices. Due to the uplift in funding sought at the supplementary estimate, this has led to the CPS requiring a Contingencies Fund advance to ensure it has the cash required ahead of the parliamentary approval of the supplementary estimate.

Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £60 million will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Crown Prosecution Service. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £60 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS433]

Serious Fraud Office (Contingencies Fund Advance)

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)]

I would like to inform the House that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Serious Fraud Office.

The advance is required to cover costs relating to the investigation and prosecution of very large and complex cases pending parliamentary approval of the 2024-25 supplementary estimate. Part of the SFO’s supplementary estimate will seek an increase in both its resource departmental expenditure limit and net cash requirement to cover the cost of very large and complex fraud, bribery, and corruption cases.

The SFO supplementary estimate includes additional funding for high cost casework with a small amount allocated for office improvement works as agreed through phase 1 of the spending review 2025.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £15,000,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the SFO. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £15,000,000 will be met by a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.

The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.

[HCWS414]

Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the management of conflicts of interest in the Attorney General’s Office.

[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.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Justice Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s position fundamentally misunderstands the role of lawyers in our justice system? The Attorney General also represented victims of the tragedy in Grenfell Tower. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Attorney General has followed the same processes as his predecessors in managing any potential conflicts, and that what we are faced with is just another example of the Opposition trying to undermine our legal institutions merely for political gain?

[The Solicitor General]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The undermining of this foundational principle of our legal system has been extremely cynical.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act enjoyed unanimous support in both this House and the other place. It is the Government’s choice to repeal those sections that has raised the question before us today and opened up the possibility of compensating Gerry Adams, isn’t it?

[The Solicitor General]

I do not agree, I am afraid.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Does the Attorney General’s experience, having served both as a distinguished advocate and now as a Law Officer, not make him uniquely qualified to uphold the rule of law and advise the Government appropriately?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and it will be no surprise to hear that I very much agree with her. Lord Hermer is an extraordinarily experienced barrister, and he brings that experience to his role as Attorney General.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I understand that the Solicitor General wants to maintain the confidentiality of the Law Officers’ office, but the issue before us is whether there is a conflict of interest. For example, the Attorney General has advocated in relation to the policies of the Israeli Government, and then we have had a change of policy by the Government that has been directly influenced by the legal advice that has been given. The challenge is whether that advice has been given on the basis of prejudicial views held prior to entering the Attorney General’s Office. I do not expect the Solicitor General to unveil the details, but she must understand that that is the impression being given. Every aspect of transparency and democracy requires that the advice given by the Attorney General to the Government is impartial, correct and not prejudiced.

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member will know that the Law Officers’ convention means that I cannot confirm that the Attorney General has advised or whether his advice has been sought on any matter.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

We are seeing some extraordinary and absolutely shameless attacks, because not only is the Attorney General a barrister of international standing, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) said, he represented the victims of Grenfell Tower. Does the Solicitor General agree with me that Conservative Members would do well to remember that when they attack the Attorney General about his former clients?

[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?

[The Solicitor General]

As I have already stated, the Law Officers’ convention does not permit me to reveal when the Attorney General has been asked for advice or when he has advised.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Bar.

It seems that Conservative Members are deliberately feigning ignorance about our constitution to make an empty political point. The truth is that lawyers in this country represent clients without fear or favour. We do not in this country associate the views of our clients or the clients with the views of their lawyers, and there is the concept of the cab rank rule. Does the Solicitor General agree with me that the Law Officers’ convention and existing processes, which, as she says, have been in place for many years under successive Governments, can be left to regulate conflicts of interest, as they always have done? If the Conservatives genuinely had a problem with that, they would have changed it when they were in government.

[The Solicitor General]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for making that point. As I said earlier, barristers are quite simply not their clients, and I have quoted the words of the current Conservative shadow Attorney General.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The current Attorney General has a track record of taking up multiple cases against the British Government. Given his previous work with regards to both Gerry Adams and the families of those making claims against UK special forces, on which matters will the Attorney General recuse himself from advising Ministers owing to clear conflicts of interest? If he is not able to fulfil the full scope of his role owing to his prior career, is his position even tenable?

[The Solicitor General]

I am afraid I could not be more clear: I have already said that where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

As someone who grew up in Warrington and who was friends with Tim Parry who was murdered by the IRA, I subsequently had to do public affairs engagement work in Northern Ireland, so I am well aware of some of the difficulties that can come from the outcome, shall we say, of some of the violence suffered in Northern Ireland. Does the Solicitor General agree that

“A lawyer should not be identified personally with the cause for which they are arguing”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2022; Vol. 822, c. 1597.]

Those are not my words; they belong to the distinguished commercial barrister, the Conservative shadow Attorney General. Does the Solicitor General agree with me about those words?

[The Solicitor General]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Under the ministerial code, every Minister has a responsibility to address a conflict of interest or a perception of such an interest. Will the Solicitor General be open with the House about whether, when the Attorney General was appointed, he chose or was required to recuse himself from advising on issues relating to his previously representing clients such as Gerry Adams?

[The Solicitor General]

I have already addressed that point.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the Law Officers’ convention does not extend to questions of recusal or conflicts of interest, and that the House and the British people have the right to have questions on those matters answered transparently?

[The Solicitor General]

I have been abundantly clear on this: where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself. The Law Officers’ convention does not permit me to say in relation to which matters he has recused himself, because in doing so I would reveal the matters that the Law Officers have been asked to advise on, or indeed have advised on.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Like the Solicitor General I also practise as a solicitor. She must know that the questions that are being put are not calling into question a barrister’s right to represent clients. This is about a barrister who is now the Attorney General. Does she accept that the Law Officers’ convention is being extended in the interests of the Attorney General not answering legitimate questions about recusal and conflict of interest, and that nobody should seek to extend that principle beyond its intention in order to remain silent?

[The Solicitor General]

I do not accept that the Law Officers’ convention is being extended at all. As I have said, I could not be more clear: where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.