PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Attorney General's Office: Transparency and Conflicts of Interest - 6 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts and potential conflicts that arise from Law Officers’ former practice. As part of that process, the AGO adopts a cautious and beyond reproach threshold to any conflicts or potential conflicts. These arrangements are long-standing and part of a standard practice that has applied across successive Administrations.

Three former Law Officers have criticised the Attorney General for not declaring his earnings, labelling it as “irregular” and a break from “normal practice”. Who is in the wrong: the three former Law Officers or the Attorney General?

The hon. Member will know that the Attorney General ceased all private practice following his appointment. The hon. Member refers to fee agreements, and he will know that there are different arrangements and requirements for declarations for Members of the House of Lords and for Members of the House of Commons. It does not matter which type of fee agreement is in place between a lawyer and their client, because the entirety of those agreements—whether a conditional fee agreement, a damages-based agreement, on a fully paid basis or when acting pro bono—will always be caught by the conflicts process. The requirements for the purposes of the House of Lords are the same for all peers and they apply just as much to the shadow Attorney General as to the Attorney General.

Does the Solicitor General agree with the recent Policy Exchange research paper “Conflicts of Interest and the Law Officers’ Convention” authored by Dr Conor Casey, a senior lecturer at Surrey law school, and supported by three former Ministers who are all KCs, that invoking the Law Officers’ convention on questions about the potential conflict of interest relating to the work of the Attorney General would be an error, as such questions do not fall within the scope of the convention?

As I have said, the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts and potential conflicts that arise from the Law Officers’ former practice. The Law Officers’ convention, to which the right hon. Member referred, exists for very good reason, which is to enable the Government of this country to receive full and frank advice. In any event, the Attorney General has been clear that he does not agree with that report. In particular, he does not agree that a Law Officer would indicate whether they have recused themselves from a particular matter, because that in itself would breach the Law Officers’ convention.

My constituents in Central Suffolk and North Ipswich are decent, tolerant and thoughtful people, but they are left wondering how the Prime Minister has appointed an Attorney General who is a friend and a Labour party donor as well as someone who has represented Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum and Hamas and clearly has questions to answer regarding outside earnings. Does the Solicitor General think that the AG was an appropriate appointment?

Again, unfortunately the Opposition are falling into the trap of believing that barristers are their clients. That is a deliberate conflation of representation and endorsement. As the hon. Member will be fully aware, barristers are not their clients in the same way that surgeons are not their patients. That is a foundational principle of the British legal and judicial systems, and Opposition Members ought not to undermine that.

Does the Solicitor General agree that the UK legal system is the envy of the world and a key engine for growth in our economy, and that the Conservative party risks undermining a fundamental principle of our legal system that everyone has the right to representation and that lawyers can represent their clients without fear or favour?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party would do better to talk up our excellent British legal and judicial systems rather than consistently seeking to undermine the foundational principles to which he referred.

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

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?

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

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 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.

Order. It is past 10.30 am and we need to get through some more questions.