PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest - 23 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(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 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.

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

The Attorney General previously represented former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams in a damages claim brought by victims of IRA bombings. Indeed, we know that he received £30,000 for that representation. The constitutional propriety of our legal system demands absolute clarity on how conflicts of interest with former clients are managed at the very highest levels of Government. This goes far beyond individual matters of advice; it strikes at the very heart of the proper administration of justice.

Let me be absolutely clear that this is not about Lord Hermer’s career at the Bar; it is about the proper mechanisms for recusal when matters concerning former clients come before Government. The House must know what safeguards are in place to protect the public interest when such situations arise, especially regarding sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

What are the formal procedures for the Attorney General’s recusal in matters involving former clients? Has the Attorney General recused himself from any matters since taking office? What assessment has been made of potential conflicts arising from his extensive litigation against the Government? [Interruption.]

This all goes to the heart of public confidence in our legal system. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and promised this House a Government of standards and integrity. [Interruption.] The proper management of conflicts of interest at the highest levels of the Government Legal Service is not optional; it is fundamental to that promise—

Order. Please, you have two minutes, not three, and we have to stick to the rules. I allowed you to go on, but I was not coughing for my health; it was to give you a hint to come to the end of your question. Have you now finished?

I have, Mr Speaker.

Thank you. I call 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.]

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?

Good, because I have certainly had enough of it.

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.

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The shambolic Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy in this country with their cronyism, rule breaking and constant sleaze scandals. They even appointed as their Attorney General the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who before his appointment represented some of the world’s largest tax dodgers. The Liberal Democrats want to repair the damage that was done by the constant stream of Conservative sleaze and finally restore public trust in our politics.

I do, however, have some questions for the Solicitor General. Has the Attorney General sought independent legal advice regarding any possible conflicts of interest relating to his previous work at Matrix Chambers? Can the Solicitor General assure the House that all and any impropriety will be thoroughly looked into, and will she please introduce annual training on conflicts of interests and ethics for all Ministers and finally enshrine the ministerial code in law?

Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned another Member. I do not think it was critical, and that is fine, but if it was critical—[Hon. Members: “It was.”] Just let me finish. If it was critical, I am sure that he will have informed that other Member.

I did.

You did. There we go—and Members were getting all excited. I call 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.

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?

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

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?

I do not agree, I am afraid.

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?

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.

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 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.

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?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her.

I call Jim Shannon. [Interruption.]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

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?

I have already addressed that point.

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?

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.

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?

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.