All 1 Debates between Dominic Grieve and Gerry Sutcliffe

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Gerry Sutcliffe
Tuesday 15th November 2011

(12 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvonne Fovargue Portrait Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

3. What recent discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on its procedures for investigating cases of bribery and corruption.

Gerry Sutcliffe Portrait Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office on its procedures for investigating cases of bribery and corruption.

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
- Hansard - -

I hold monthly meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss all aspects of the SFO’s work, including what it is doing to counter bribery and corruption. The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011, and the SFO was well prepared for that. The SFO website provides detailed information, including joint prosecution guidance from the director of the SFO and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

--- Later in debate ---
Gerry Sutcliffe Portrait Mr Sutcliffe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is the Attorney-General not a little complacent, because the Bribery Act is a new measure that came into force in 2011? There is concern around the world about the way in which global markets have operated, so the SFO should at least have a look at changes that might need to be made to the law.

Dominic Grieve Portrait The Attorney-General
- Hansard - -

The law on bribery and corruption has been looked at extensively by the House, and new legislation has been enacted. I believe—and I think that this view is shared across the House—that the legislation is fit for purpose. It has been applied in one case domestically, and no doubt it will be applied in cases concerning global finance, too. As I said in response to the previous question, unfortunately, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I have seen nothing in my routine business meetings with the Serious Fraud Office to make me think that this is an area—I understand that it is of concern to the House—that has in some way been overlooked.