Andy Slaughter
Main Page: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)Department Debates - View all Andy Slaughter's debates with the Attorney General
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We are determined to make the UK a more hostile environment for all forms of economic crime, including fraud. In the last financial year, the Crown Prosecution Service completed more than 8,000 fraud and forgery prosecutions—an increase of about 10% on the year before—and we are not stopping there. In June, the CPS launched its new serious economic and organised crime strategy, which is modernising its response and strengthening capability to address increasingly sophisticated crime.
Ian Sollom
Fraud is growing, and artificial intelligence is making it easier for it to be committed at scale. While cases can be complex, all too often victims tell me that they feel abandoned by the system. The CPS strategy folds fraud into organised crime and national security issues, and none of its seven priorities is actually about victims; in that regard, it differs from the previous economic crime strategy. How will the Solicitor General ensure that fraud victims are not lost in the CPS’s new approach?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, organised crime is an important part of fraud, and the two go hand in hand. The Serious Fraud Office investigates the most serious types of fraud and bribery, and other matters. However, we are very conscious of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals—our constituents—are affected, and that will be central to this aim.
Can the Solicitor General update the House on whether he believes that there are sufficient asset recovery powers to ensure that crime does not pay, and can he explain how those powers are being used?
We have taken considerable steps along that route. As well as securing convictions, prosecutors can use confiscation and asset recovery powers to seize the proceeds of offending. Between 2020 and 2025, the CPS recovered more than £530 million through confiscation orders, of which £102 million was paid to victims in compensation.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Whistleblowers can reveal criminal activity that would otherwise go undiscovered, help unravel complex cases, speed up investigations and deliver justice for victims more quickly, but we believe that more can be done. On Monday, the Government launched a consultation on the whistleblowing framework, which will involve seeking views on a proposed scheme to reward financially whistleblowers who report economic crime to the Serious Fraud Office.
Tom Collins
I am working with a constituent who has been subject to bullying and prejudice in high-level amateur sport. Current whistleblowing protections apply only to employees of an organisation, but sports people often have just as much, if not more, to lose if a sporting organisation turns against them. Does the Solicitor General agree that whistleblowing protections are important for good governance, safety and safeguarding in organisations across sectors?
Yes, and I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I encourage him and his constituent to share that experience in the whistleblowing consultation that I mentioned. Whistleblowers can dramatically cut the time and resource that it takes to get to the heart of a case by providing the necessary information to focus investigations, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to feed into the consultation.
Far too often, whistleblowers are protected when they initially blow the whistle on fraud, economic crime and the like, but are eased out of organisations unfairly later. What further protection can the Solicitor General offer people who do the right thing and blow the whistle on crime?
The consultation that I mentioned is the widest consultation on the most comprehensive Government review of the whistleblowing framework since its introduction in 1999. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will feed into it, so that we can make a sea change in the way that whistleblowers are dealt with.
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to Simon and his family. It is right to say that the Financial Conduct Authority is conducting an investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing, and I therefore do not think it would be right for me to comment in detail at this time. I know that concerns have been raised about the inquiry, but it is being conducted by a new non-exec director. It will report, and the chief executive of the FCA has said that she will have carte blanche to look across the piece at the dealings between Simon and the FCA. In the first instance, I think we should wait to see the outcome of the inquiry before going any further.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Government inherited a justice system on the brink. The record backlogs mean that victims are facing devastating delays for justice. This Government continues to invest in our courts, but vital reforms are needed too. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have rightly listened to the strength of feeling from victims and this House and have decided not to establish the Crown court bench division, but we will now act more quickly to implement the rest of our vital reforms, delivering swifter justice for victims, whom the Opposition appear to have forgotten about entirely.
The Government have finally performed another U-turn, rightly retaining trial by jury following widespread concern in this House. However, the Government still intend to allow judge-only courts for complex cases, yet they have not defined what complex means. That risks mission creep and has attracted significant concern from organisations including the Criminal Bar Association. Why does the Attorney General believe that this lack of clarity is still acceptable?
It seems to me that the Opposition oppose every one of Lord Leveson’s recommendations. The Conservatives are the party that created the Crown court backlog, and yet they oppose every measure that we devise to deal with it. When are they going to come up with proposals of their own? Why do they continue to oppose for opposition’s sake?
Having spent many months arguing for the abolition of most jury trials, can the Attorney General explain to the House how she now thinks that they are indispensable? Does she accept that, while jury trials are indispensable, an Attorney General forced to perform such a spectacular U-turn may not be?
This will be complete news to the Opposition, but we do occasionally listen to what this House and the professions have said. We are going forward with proposals that will tackle the backlog. The Opposition never want to talk about the backlog because they caused it. We are looking for solutions to that; they are welcome to put forward their suggestions.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)