Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1520557

registered interest
date	11/10/2022
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Howard Morrison
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the announcement of support to the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General on 28 March 2022, (a) whether Sir Howard Morrison was still employed as an advisor to the current Ukrainian Prosecutor General as of 10 October 2022, and (b) what remuneration he has received for his work each month since 1 April 2022.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	60995
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/10/2022 answer text <p>Sir Howard Morrison KC continues to act as an Independent Advisor to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General and his costs are covered by the Attorney General’s Office and FCDO in line with internal programme fund arrangements. He provides a mix of services and advice, both pro bono and at a below market rate fixed daily stipend, to ensure maximum value for taxpayer funds. Sir Howard is also reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in this work. I remain very grateful to him for taking on the role.</p> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 25/10/2022 12:18:48 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

1504981

registered interest
date	05/09/2022
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Committee of Privileges
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, whether her office was consulted on the decisions by the Cabinet Office to (a) spend public funds on obtaining the legal opinion by Lord Pannick QC and Jason Pobjoy of Blackstone Chambers relating to the proposed conduct of the House of Commons Privileges Committee and (b) place that legal opinion in the public domain.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	47398
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2022 answer text <table><tbody><tr><td><p>The decision in any case as to whether to instruct counsel, who to instruct, and whether to waive privilege in respect of that advice, lies with the instructing Government Department. When a Government Department wishes to instruct a QC, other than First Treasury Counsel or Standing Counsel, it should submit a request for a nomination to the Attorney General’s Office. This process was followed, and the request approved, in relation to the instruction of Lord Pannick QC in this case.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 08/09/2022 12:20:20 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

1503594

registered interest
date	02/09/2022
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) spent on the (a) prosecution trials brought against ENRC and (b) SFO defence against ENRC counter claims lawsuit.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
uin	45309
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2022 answer text <table><tbody><tr><td><p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has an ongoing investigation into ENRC. There are no prosecutions, and therefore no associated costs, at this stage. The ENRC have brought two civil actions for alleged misfeasance against the SFO. This matter remains ongoing and as such the final costs are not yet determined.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 08/09/2022 11:57:47 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1503595

registered interest
date	02/09/2022
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much her Department spent on the (a) Calvert-Smith review and (b) Altman review of the Serious Fraud Office.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
uin	45319
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2022 answer text <p>The costs of Sir David Calvert-Smith’s independent review into the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) handling of the Unaoil case (<em>R. v Akle &amp; Anor</em>), which was commissioned by the Attorney General, are still being finalised. The costs to date to the Attorney General’s Office are £84,571.90. There are some costs outstanding, but it is anticipated these will not increase the overall cost of the review significantly. The total costs will be recovered from the SFO.</p><p> </p><p>The cost of Brian Altman QC’s independent review of the collapse of <em>R v. Woods &amp; Marshall</em>, which was commissioned by the Director of the SFO, was £359,442.37. This was paid for by the SFO.</p><p> </p><p>Both reviews presented valuable recommendations and the implementation of these remain a priority for the Law Officers and the Director of the SFO.</p> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 08/09/2022 12:00:36 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1503596

registered interest
date	02/09/2022
answering body	Attorney General
answering dept id	88
answering dept short name	Attorney General
answering dept sort name	Attorney General
hansard heading	Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much the Serious Fraud Office spent on the (a) Employment Tribunal and (b) subsequent appeal brought by a former ENRC case-controller who was dismissed.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
uin	45321
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2022 answer text <table><tbody><tr><td><p>An Employment Tribunal has not been brought by a former ENRC case-controller against the Serious Fraud Office.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 08/09/2022 12:17:17 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter