Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lucy Rigby and Helen Grant(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
The Attorney General has admitted to recusing himself from certain matters; he has also maintained absolute silence about which matters those may be. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves: is that the level of transparency that our democracy demands? What safeguards exist when the Attorney General’s past clients and present duties overlap? Who, independent of the Attorney General himself, scrutinises those critical decisions on recusal, or do we face the concerning spectacle of the Government’s chief legal adviser marking his own homework?
The Solicitor General
As I have outlined, the Attorney General’s Office has rigorous and long-standing processes in place. Upon appointment, the AGO compiles a list of matters in which the Law Officer has previously been involved, by searching cases, cross-referencing with information obtained by the Law Officer’s chambers or firm and working through the list with the Law Officer themselves. The Office works with the Government Legal Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office to obtain additional information and compile the final list of conflicts and actions associated with each case. As the shadow Solicitor General knows, the Attorney General cannot publish a list of his former clients due to client confidentiality. [Interruption.] Opposition Members groan, but client confidentiality is a fundamental principle. Absolutely ridiculous.
The shadow Solicitor General mentioned recusal. The Attorney General has already indicated in the other place that he has recused himself from matters. The Law Officers’ convention prohibits me from listing those matters. No other Law Officer has ever published a list of the cases that they are recused from
Helen Grant
The Solicitor General, her predecessor and every Conservative Law Officer from the previous Administration rightly and properly understood their duty to declare previous earnings. Why does the Attorney General refuse to declare moneys received from his practice as a barrister? Why does he not acknowledge whether he continues to receive such payments when his predecessors routinely declared both? Why does this Attorney General think that there is one rule for him and another rule for everyone else?
The Solicitor General
The Attorney General is in the House of Lords, so the rules that apply are different from those that apply in the House of Commons. That is the difference between the Attorney General and the previous Solicitor General and me. Those requirements are the same for all peers, including the Attorney General, and they apply just as much to the shadow Attorney General. The Lords Commissioners for Standards said that they considered the complaints made by the shadow Justice Secretary about the peers code of conduct, and dismissed them.
Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest
Debate between Lucy Rigby and Helen Grant(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lucy Rigby and Helen Grant(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish you and the team a very happy Christmas indeed. I congratulate the Solicitor General on her position and welcome her to her place. I hope to work constructively and effectively with her on this challenging and very important part of Government.
As the Solicitor General knows, rape victims need action now, urgently, given that many rape cases take more than two years to come to trial. There has been much talk from Ministers about opening specialist fast-track rape courts, but disappointingly there has been very little detail to date. How will the Government achieve that fast-tracking if they do not use all potential court sitting days, as requested by the Lady Chief Justice but refused by the Lord Chancellor?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the shadow Solicitor General for her kind words. She brings an awful lot of experience and expertise to her role, and I look forward to working constructively with her. She raises the issue of violence against women and girls, and refers to Crown court sitting days. I said earlier that I am very pleased that an additional 2,000 Crown court sitting days were added by the Lord Chancellor yesterday. That is very important, because it will allow the fast-tracking that she refers to of the backlog in our courts.
Helen Grant
I fully support the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade, but how will the Government’s progress be measured to ensure that they deliver against their target? What assessment has been made of the definition of violence against women and girls?
The Solicitor General
Timeliness is clearly key, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to our commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. We will take urgent action, building on the urgent action we have already taken. In November, for example, pilots of the new domestic abuse protection orders began with three police forces, enabling them to provide additional protection to victims.
The hon. Lady will know that the police and the CPS have launched their domestic abuse joint justice plan. Improvements in partnership working under the plan have already led to a modest increase in referrals of domestic abuse cases from the police to the CPS, setting a strong foundation for future improvements.