Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Lindsay Hoyle

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.]

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lucy Rigby and Lindsay Hoyle

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.

[David Taylor]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

I have had reports of people carrying machetes in Livingstone Walk, an area in Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead, with the Dacorum local crime unit investigating one incident of alleged robbery at knifepoint. Knife crime is not our only issue in Hemel; we have the highest rate of antisocial behaviour in the county, and we are the most dangerous town in Hertfordshire. That is a direct result of Conservative Governments taking 20,000 police off our streets nationwide, removing 60p out of every pound from local authority budgets and failing to act on antisocial behaviour. What further steps is the Solicitor General taking to ensure that violent thugs are not allowed to run riot and are brought to justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Mr Speaker, I wish you and your team a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I thank you for all your kindness to everyone in this House in the past year. I wish the Solicitor General all the best in her new role.

I share hon. Members’ concerns about knife crime, which is truly horrific. The impact it has on families is great. I have a specific question, so I am happy to receive a written answer. How many under-18s across the United Kingdom in the past 12 months have been: (a) cautioned; (b) charged; and (c) convicted of knife crime offences?

[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.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I wish you and your team, Mr Speaker, and everyone in the House a very merry Christmas, and I welcome the Solicitor General to her place. However, I am afraid that it will not be a merry Christmas for all my constituents. Rural crime in North Cornwall is on the rise, from rural theft to increased drug trafficking. County lines drug gangs are grooming and recruiting children as young as nine to traffic drugs, while elderly and vulnerable constituents have been cuckooed in their own homes by the gangs. What steps is the Solicitor General taking to work with the police to increase the number of prosecutions of the ringleaders of these ruthless gangs that blight our communities and expose our young people to violence and crime?

--- 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.

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

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench, and congratulate the former Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on her promotion to Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with this Government’s pace.

Given that the Crown court backlog stands at over 73,000 and trials are being listed for 2027, victims are awaiting justice for an unacceptably long time, with the consequence that many no longer feel able to support the process. How is the Solicitor General working, through the CPS, to ensure that victims facing a wait of between two and three years for trials stay the course?

--- 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.

[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?