Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could get your assistance. How can I, first, correct the record and, secondly, force the Foreign Secretary to withdraw his thoroughly misleading comments about the Leader of the Opposition’s commitment to NATO? He has never spoken about withdrawing from NATO. Our support for the NATO alliance is absolute and we are committed to spending the 2%. The shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), was as outraged as I was to hear the silly, partisan comments that were being made, and indeed we have been together to see NATO and discuss how Labour would work in future with NATO.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the shadow Foreign Secretary has found her own salvation in the sense that she has made her point with force and alacrity and it is on the record. As for the question of forcing the Foreign Secretary to withdraw, I do not have a list of statements that have been made by particular Members at given times, and therefore I am not in a position to say whether a withdrawal is required. The Foreign Secretary is a cerebral intellectual type—that is his normal approach—but today I could tell that he wanted to mix it. Now, mixing it is a matter of taste really rather than a matter of order, so I think that I have to leave it to the Foreign Secretary, who seems to be resolutely seated, to judge whether he needs to correct the record, but whether he does or not, the right hon. Lady, in her mellifluous tone, has put the record straight as far as she is concerned, and I hope that that is a source of some succour to her as she goes about her daily business.

Imprisonment of Catalan Leaders

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for securing it.

As a former lawyer—although I suppose some would say “once a lawyer, always a lawyer”—I am always loth to criticise the courts. I am afraid, though, that what we saw yesterday was the judicial equivalent of what we saw from the Spanish police on the streets of Catalonia two years ago: unnecessary, heavy-handed and entirely counterproductive. In an effort to crush the Catalan independence movement, these incredibly harsh sentences have simply given it fuel. They will serve not just to radicalise what has hitherto been a peaceful pro-independence movement, but to drive many Catalans who were not previously part of that movement to join the cause. As one of the banners carried at yesterday’s protest so pithily put it, “I’m not pro-independence but I’m not an idiot.” That same sentiment will be shared by many—not just in Catalonia, but across Spain—who see in these sentences a basic injustice being committed, which is unworthy of any nation, let alone a member of the European Union.

But I believe that there is hope, and that hope is the approach being taken by the freshly elected socialist Government in Spain. This is a crisis that they inherited, not one that they created. Even in these court cases, the state prosecutor urged leniency in sentencing. This is reflective of an approach that the Spanish Socialist Workers’ party Government have taken and that Labour—its sister party—supports. That approach is that the only way past this ongoing crisis is through peaceful dialogue and the eventual agreement of a political solution drawn up in accordance with the Spanish constitution. If the answer instead is a further escalation of division and confrontation, the radicalisation of the pro-independence movement and more heavy-handed action by the Spanish police or the Spanish courts, then that is not an answer at all, and all the parties of good will must resist it.

I hear what the Minister says about this being a matter for Spain, but I wonder if he can perhaps help us with this. Given the sentences handed down by the Spanish courts and the ongoing threat that hangs over the former Catalan leader, Carles Puigdemont, can he confirm that that gentleman would be free to visit Britain and speak to supporters, universities, the media and politicians without any risk of being arrested for extradition for Spain?

[Mr Speaker]

He could speak here. He could come and speak in the Palace of Westminster and would be extremely welcome. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We need to speed up, because progress is slow.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the Foreign Secretary understand the frustration we feel in this House when time and again over the last four years, including on Jamal Khashoggi, we get the same response from the Government? They regret what happened, they want a proper investigation by the Saudis, they promise real consequences and nothing ever happens. There is no investigation, there are no consequences and bin Salman carries on with complete impunity.

I ask the Foreign Secretary yet again what it will take for this Government finally to tell bin Salman that he cannot keep getting away with murder.

Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

A few days ago, Dr Tarek Loubani came to see me. He is a Canadian who last year was volunteering in Gaza. When the protests began—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At this stage, the shadow Foreign Secretary simply asks for a statement from the Minister—just a sentence.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker. Everything is so topsy-turvy at the moment; I seem to have lost myself.

[Mr Speaker]

Just blurt it out—ask the question. One sentence, for the record.

[Emily Thornberry]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council this morning.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We have all been in the right hon. Lady’s position; I appreciate the question and am happy to respond.

The Government remain deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza. The violence over the past year has been and continues to be shocking, and the loss of life and large number of injured Palestinians are devastating. Since 30 March 2018, more than 23,000 Palestinians have been injured and 187 killed.

We have been clear that the UK fully supports the need for an independent and transparent investigation into last year’s events in Gaza. Our Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the former Foreign Secretary, made that position clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu last year, and we continue to urge the Israeli authorities to look into the Israel Defense Forces’ contact at the perimeter fence.

We have repeatedly made clear to Israel our long-standing concerns about the manner in which the IDF policed non-violent protests and the border areas, including the use of live ammunition. We call on Israel to adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality when defending its legitimate security interests. It is totally unacceptable that Hamas and its operatives have been cynically exploiting the protests for their own benefit. Hamas and other terrorist groups must cease all actions that proactively encourage violence or put civilian lives at risk.

We welcome the fact that the Israeli Military Advocate General has recently ordered five criminal investigations that relate to 11 separate instances of Palestinian fatalities during the Gaza border protests. Those investigations are ongoing. Given the importance of accountability, it is vital that the investigations are independent and transparent, that their findings are made public, and that, if wrongdoing is found, those responsible are held to account.

In May 2018, the United Kingdom abstained on the UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for a commission of inquiry on the basis that the substance of a resolution must be impartial and balanced. We could not support an international investigation that refused to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas. This morning, the UK abstained on the item 2 accountability resolution at the 2019 Human Rights Council, which included references to the commission of inquiry report. Although the report looks into Israel’s actions, it is highly regrettable that it did not look comprehensively at the actions of non-state actors such as Hamas.

The perpetual cycle of violence does not serve anyone’s interests, and it must end. The impact of the protests has been severe and catastrophic, particularly on Gaza’s healthcare system. I am considering what more the United Kingdom can do to support those in desperate need in Gaza, and I hope to be able to make a further announcement in the coming days.

The situation in Gaza remains unsustainable, set in the context of a stalled middle east peace process that remains, in the view of the UK, vital to pursue and preserve. A long-term strategy for Gaza itself is desperately needed to improve humanitarian and economic conditions and reduce the restrictions that are damaging the living standards of ordinary Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live their lives in peace and security. It is vital that all parties redouble their efforts to move towards renewed negotiations and the shared goals of peace and a two-state solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Emily Thornberry.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will have another go.

As I was saying, a few days ago, Dr Tarek Loubani came to see me. He is a Canadian who was volunteering in Gaza last year. When the protests began on the border last spring, he went to help the many protestors who had been wounded by gunfire or affected by tear gas. He said that, on 14 May, the situation was relatively calm. He stood chatting to his colleagues 25 metres away from the protestors, wearing his green hospital scrubs. He said:

“We could clearly see the IDF sniper towers…And they could see us”.

When he turned sideways, that was when they shot him—one bullet, through both legs. The paramedic who came to his aid, clearly marked in high-vis clothing, treated his injuries, then resumed his work elsewhere and was shot dead an hour later. That paramedic was one of 189 Palestinians killed during last year’s protests— 35 of them children—while Dr Loubani was one of 6,000 shot by snipers.

The UN report into these actions may have its faults—I accept that, and I agree that it plays down the role of Hamas in orchestrating these protests, but it provides clear and compelling evidence that live ammunition was used in a way that cannot be explained or justified against individuals such as Dr Loubani and thousands more like him. Yet this morning, as the Minister said, the Government have abstained on a resolution endorsing that report, in effect telling the Israeli authorities, “We refuse to find fault with your actions.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is a notable celebrity, not merely in Islington but here in this House.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am so glad to renew my acquaintance with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or, as the newspapers always call him, “effectively the Deputy Prime Minister”—surely the only occasion these days when the words “Prime Minister” and “effective” are used in the same sentence.

Although there are many other important issues that I would like to discuss with the Minister for the Cabinet Office today, sadly none is more vital or urgent than Brexit, so I would like to use our time to have a sensible, grown-up discussion about what the actual plan is between now and 29 March. To that end, I ask him this: if the briefing is correct that there will not be a fresh meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement next week, when will that vote take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I hear what the Minister says, but he does not seem to give us any answers. I genuinely appreciate his attempts, but I hope that he will understand the concern that all of us have, not just in this House, but across the country, that we have a Government treading water in the Niagara River while the current is taking us over the falls. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order, be quiet. The Whip on duty, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), has no useful contribution to make other than to nod and shake his head in the appropriate places. No chuntering from a sedentary position from him is required or will persist.

[Emily Thornberry]

Can we go back to the central issue: there is no way that we can avoid a border in Ireland after Brexit without a full customs union, or a permanent backstop, or some new technological solution. Will the Minister tell us which of those options the Government are currently working towards?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

When we leave the European Union, free movement will end. It is our policy that there should be fair rules and managed migration. We believe that immigration should look after our economy and should look after our communities. That is the answer; it is a full answer, and it has been consistent. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen to what the Labour party has said with the consistency with which we will be listening to what he says, he will find that we are consistent and that our policy is clear. Unless he has any other questions on Labour’s policy, I propose to sit down.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the shadow Secretary of State completed her oration?

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, I have.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

When the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to calm down, perhaps I can continue. What this debate and all the many contributions have laid bare is that on the first duty of every Government—the duty to protect the safety and security of their citizens—the Prime Minister’s deal fails. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks in a moment, he will address those points that I have mentioned: access to vital security databases; our future international co-operation with the EU; our ability to tackle terrorism and organised crime; our place in the world; our shared fight against climate change; and even the future of our NHS.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer one other very specific question that goes to the heart of his responsibilities as Foreign Secretary. He was proud to announce yesterday the new embassy that his Department is opening in the Maldives, one of 12 new posts due to be opened by the Government over the next two years. However, even after those new openings, there will still be 16 other countries around the world where Britain has no direct consular representation but where other EU countries do. These countries have a combined population of 72 million people, spread across Asia, Latin America and Africa, including 10 past and present members of the UN Security Council. These are countries where up until this point, thanks to the common foreign and security policy, any British citizen visiting, working or living there who found themselves in difficulty and could not look to a British embassy for help had the right to go to other EU embassies based there and ask for consular support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked the Government last week what provision was being made in the Prime Minister’s proposed deal to continue those arrangements after we leave the EU. The answer was none. In fact, it is worse than that—the answer was that British citizens who are arrested in those countries or who are affected by a hurricane or an earthquake could no longer ask the French or Spanish embassies to help, but they could “phone the Foreign Office switchboard.” If we needed any more evidence of how half-baked, hurried through and totally botched the Prime Minister’s deal is and how reliant it is on vague future aspirations of co-operation, it is the fact that the Government have not even bothered to think about what it means for British citizens being left without consular support in dangerous situations. It is the very definition of making the British people, whom it is our first duty to protect, less safe and less secure.

That is not the only loss of security that I hope the Foreign Secretary will address in his closing speech. If the first duty of the Government is to protect the physical security of their citizens, their second duty is surely to protect the economic security of the nation, which was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). What we have learned with this Foreign Secretary is that he is very willing, quite often, to say one thing about the economic impact of Brexit behind the closed doors of Downing Street and another when he is in the television studios or standing at the Dispatch Box. When he is trying to sell this deal to Parliament tonight, I hope that he will clear up some of the disparities between what he says publicly and what he says privately.

I have three questions for him to that end. In the television studios, he says that this is the best deal for Britain and we can look forward to a glorious era, where

“we become an independent sovereign power, negotiating our own trade deals”

around the world. Around the Cabinet table, presumably informed by the Attorney General’s advice, he says the opposite—that this deal will leave us in what he calls a “Turkey trap”, stuck in an exclusive trading agreement with the EU, but unable to influence any of its decisions and unable to negotiate our own deals. Will he tell us tonight what he really thinks? ?

Secondly, in the television studios, when asked to talk about the backstop, the Foreign Secretary says it simply will not happen. He says:

“Britain will be an independent nation…it is in black and white. That is the intention of the EU”.

But round the Cabinet table, he says the opposite. The backstop will become a “frontstop”, he says. “As soon as the deal is signed,” he says, “the EU will have what they want”. “They will block any progress,” he says, “on the final new trading agreement, and will turn the backstop into the only available outcome.” Will he tell us tonight what he really thinks?

Thirdly and finally, in the television studios, the Foreign Secretary says:

“We will not be significantly worse off”

as a result of the Prime Minister’s deal, but did he not used to say the exact opposite around the Cabinet table, especially about the impact on the NHS, when he warned of the need to avoid a hard Brexit?

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remarks over lunch on Monday. She said that the Foreign Secretary was “so charming” but that there was “no consistency”, and she was absolutely right. Even more damning, however, was her explanation for the inconsistency. Excuse me, Mr Speaker, for using the Foreign Secretary’s name, but I am quoting his Cabinet colleague. “Hunt”, she says, “is all about the game-playing”. Doesn’t that sum it all up?

We have a Tory Cabinet obsessed with their own internal power games and fighting like ferrets in a sack to succeed their lame duck leader, with a Foreign Secretary who, according to his own Cabinet colleague and the evidence of this debate, has been more interested in playing leadership games than in making sure that this political agreement can maintain our future foreign policy co-operation with the EU and protect the security of British citizens, whether at home or abroad. That is the kind of Front Bench we see before us today. In the light of their complete failure of leadership and their total—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, it’s not boring to me. Sir Alan, you are normally a figure of dignity in one way or another. You are a little over-excitable. Calm yourself. You really need to get a grip. You are not only a knight, but a KCMG and a figure of enormous celebrity in the life of the nation. I know that you do not underestimate all that, so a tad of dignity would be greatly appreciated.

[Emily Thornberry]

That is the kind of Front Bench we see before us, and in the light of their complete failure of leadership and their total failure to deliver a new set of fair rules on immigration and to protect our country’s security, it is absolutely no wonder that this House is only a week away from rejecting their dismal Brexit deal and already holds this dismal Government in total and utter contempt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), I should mention that we are very fortunate today to be joined in one of our Galleries by two members of the Osmond family, Jay and Merrill Osmond. It takes some of us back to the 1970s. We are very pleased to have you—well done.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I join the Minister in paying tribute to Lord Carrington, who served his country with such distinction in both the forces and in government and whose decision to resign the office of Foreign Secretary will be remembered as an act of great principle and honour?

I share the joy at the rescue of the boys in Thailand and salute the bravery and sacrifice of the diving teams, including the seven British divers.

On the question of tonight’s match, I am afraid that I am not going to be watching it. It will be the only game that I have missed, but I will be representing the Labour party at tonight’s memorial event for the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide—something very close to my heart, given my father’s role in trying to prevent it.

Let me wish Gareth Southgate and the England team the best of luck for this match and hopefully for the final on Sunday. I may know very little about football, but even I can see that England’s progress so far at the World cup shows what can be achieved when all the individual players work effectively as a team, when there is a clear game plan, when they are all working together and, of course, when everyone respects and listens to the manager. Can I simply ask the Minister what lessons he thinks the England team could teach this shambles of a Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The Labour party says that it would strike new trade deals, but its plan to stay in the customs union would prevent that because it would bind us to the common commercial policy for all time. It used to say that it would control our borders, but it backed an amendment to the withdrawal Bill to let freedom of movement continue.

The Labour party also used to say that it respected the referendum result, but now it is toying once again with the idea of a second referendum. The Labour leader will not rule it out; the deputy leader will not rule it out; and the shadow Brexit Secretary will not rule it out. Nothing could be better calculated to undermine our negotiating position, and lessen our chances of a good deal, than holding out that prospect of a second vote. Whichever side any of us campaigned on in that referendum, the country made a decision, and we should now get on with the task in hand. That is what the Government are doing.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister seems to argue that by leaving the EU the British people voted against a customs union, but that is the complete opposite of what he used to say. I take him back to 2011, when he said that a yes-no referendum would not give us that information. He said:

“that sharp division between the status quo and quitting the EU does not reflect the breadth of views held in…the country.”

For example, he said:

“If people voted to leave the EU would that mean having no special relationship with the EU or would it mean a relationship like Norway’s?”

He said it. My question is, we understand what he is saying, but when did he stop agreeing with himself? I fear that we will look back on this week as one where the Government could have taken a decisive step towards a sensible workable deal to protect jobs and trade. We have ended up with them proposing a dog’s Brexit, which will satisfy no one, which will not fly in Europe, which will waste the next few weeks and will take us—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Thank you. [Interruption.] Order. No, I think we have heard it fully, and that is absolutely right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I would like to answer but unfortunately I do not have any more time.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Foreign Secretary knows that the right hon. Lady has had her two questions, and therefore that it would not be legitimate to put a third on this occasion. There may be other occasions. We come now to Question 2 and we need to speed up.

Salisbury Incident

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

When you read Hansard you will see. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Strongly held opinions have been expressed, and everyone can consult the record. I understand that there is an intensity of feeling, but the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) must have his question heard, and then the answer will be heard.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and while I am always pleased to hear from the Minister of State, I have to say that it is an absolute disgrace, and a huge discourtesy to the House, that the Foreign Secretary is not here himself to answer questions on the contents of his memo, especially given that we saw him in London a few hours ago jogging in the snow and stopping to answer questions from the media: if he can answer their questions, he really should be prepared to answer ours. What is he afraid of?

Perhaps the Foreign Secretary is afraid that these questions go to the very heart of his credibility and the credibility of previous statements that he has made in this House. On 21 November, from the Dispatch Box, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he stood by the statement he made in February 2016—that a vote for Brexit would leave the border arrangements in Northern Ireland “absolutely unchanged”. He told the House in response—just three months ago—that he

“repeated exactly the pledge…there can be no return to a hard border…That would be unthinkable, and it would be economic and political madness. I think everybody…understands the ramifications of allowing any such thing to happen.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 848.]

But last night, despite that clear public statement from the Foreign Secretary, we discovered his private memo to the Prime Minister on the same subject. In it he wrote:

“It is wrong to see the task as maintaining ‘no border’”.

The Government’s task is, he said, to

“stop the border becoming significantly harder. ”

But, he wrote:

“Even if a hard border is reintroduced, we would expect to see 95 per cent plus of goods pass the border”

without checks.

Let us be clear what this memo reveals. Contrary to the Foreign Secretary’s previous statements, he accepts that there will have to be changes to the current border arrangements, and he accepts there will need to be border controls that do not exist at present; the only debate is their degree of hardness. Surely the Foreign Secretary has learned by now that you cannot just be a little bit pregnant: either there is a border or there is not.

My first question for the Minister is that the Foreign Secretary told the House that there would be no new border arrangements and no changes to the status quo, but this memo says the exact opposite, so which is the truth: what the Foreign Secretary said three months ago in public or what he said three weeks ago in private?

The Foreign Secretary has already said what we have heard so many times on this issue: that there is some magical technical solution which will allow goods to be checked, smuggling to be prevented, and points of origin proved as easily as paying the congestion charge and without—here is the truly magical part—even the installation of cameras. As I have pressed the Foreign Secretary repeatedly to tell us, how on earth is that possible, or is it just another addition to his ever-growing list of fantasies from ‘Boris island’ to the ‘channel bridge’?

I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already promised the media today to publish his leaked memo in full, and I hope that will provide some answers, but may I ask the Minister now—for the benefit of the House, and so that my colleagues can question him on his answer—to spell out in detail how this proposed invisible border will actually work in practice? If he cannot provide that detail, we are left with the conclusion that all of us on this side, and increasing numbers on his side, accept—that the only way to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland is by staying in a customs union. The fact is that the Government know that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary, but she has now exceeded her time and we must leave it there.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have one further sentence, and then I am done.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well, but—[Interruption.] Order. I will be the judge of these matters; I require no assistance. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is always willing to help and I am grateful to her for that gratis voluntary offer of services, but I feel able to cope without them. The Minister will have a suitable period of time to respond, and the shadow Foreign Secretary can now add one brief sentence.

[Emily Thornberry]

The truth of this memo is that the Government are saying one thing in public while preparing for the reality in private, and it is about time the deception was ended.

[Mr Lidington]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Forgive me: I do not wish to be discourteous to the shadow Foreign Secretary, and certainly not to the Minister either, but, by the way, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is not a Minister of State; he is a member of the Cabinet.

[Emily Thornberry]

It was confusing as to who was going to be responding to this urgent question, and I apologise for having drafted one script only to find that a different Minister was in the Chamber to respond.

[Mr Speaker]

That was a nice try, and it was very generous of me to allow the right hon. Lady to make it. I call the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions a range of restrictions that we have until the age of 18, but those are for the most part to do with public health, public safety and the prevention of crime. They are not the same as the basic right to vote on issues that affect your life once you are considered old enough to make other independent decisions about your life, such as leaving school, leaving home and getting married. Let me give him a specific example—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that it will not have escaped public notice, and it is rather a sad irony, that when a woman is addressing the House, quite a lot of noisy, boorish and, in one case rather stupid, individuals are trying to shout the right hon. Lady down. Cut it out!

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I want to give the right hon. Gentleman a specific example to illustrate what I am talking about. According to the Government’s own figures, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds receiving carer’s allowance for looking after disabled relatives at home has risen by more than 50% over the past four years, so last year, over 2,000 16 and 17-year-olds gave up their youth and often their schooling to care for relatives at home. How can it be fair and how can it be logical to expect them to take on that responsibility because of failures of the state and then to deny them a say on how that very state is run?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister says that he was only talking about 18 year olds, but you were there, Mr Speaker; he was talking to 370 under-18s. These discussions have revealed that there is no logical principled objection to votes at 16. That is why the Welsh and Scottish Governments support it and why every single political party in the House supports it, except, of course, the Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party—joined, once again, in opposition to change. They are not the coalition of chaos; they are the coalition of cavemen. [Interruption.] Does he not realise—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One Member who thinks he knows what he is talking about is gesticulating at me. The answer is that it is a matter of taste, not of order. It is blindingly obvious and should not really escape somebody of great intelligence.

[Emily Thornberry]

I was talking about cavemen, Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister not realise the lesson that we women taught his predecessors 100 years ago? When change is right it cannot be resisted forever, and this is a change whose time has come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If it appertains to the exchanges, we will hear it. I think I heard the right hon. Lady erupt a moment ago—that would be a fair characterisation. If she wishes to erupt on her feet rather than from her seat, that would be good. The Foreign Secretary might think it courteous to stay—he is not obliged to do so, but he is a courteous chap.

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rather than erupting, is it in order for me to say to correct the record that I have never thought it was a good idea to invite the President of the United States to the United Kingdom? I thought the invitation was issued with undue haste. Once it has been issued on behalf of Her Majesty, it is very difficult to withdraw it.

[Mr Speaker]

The Foreign Secretary is beetling to the Box. If he wishes to stand up at the Box to offer us a product of his lucubrations, we will be happy to hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I notice that the First Secretary did not want to talk about patient care at his local hospital. Could the reason be that his local accident and emergency department, according to the board’s most recent minutes, has

“Severe staff shortages in medical and nursing staff”,

meaning that patient safety is being put at risk, and the only option to tackle those shortages is to cancel outpatient clinics? And it gets worse: there is to be a public meeting tomorrow to consider closing his local A&E for good—in other words, all the things he has been denying. What are you doing to our NHS? It is happening on your own doorstep. Is it not about time he got a grip?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am entirely innocent in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. No one will have missed the fact that, like on so many of his initial promises over Brexit, he has turned this from an unequivocal guarantee to an aspiration dependent on a successful deal—[Interruption.] I did listen to the right hon. Gentleman.

It seems to me that, like his jogging partner from The Sun, the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that it is up to the Irish to find a solution, but why should that be? It was his promise that border arrangements would not change, so it is up to him to make sure that that works. That is why I want to challenge the Foreign Secretary today. In September, he laid down four personal red lines for the Brexit negotiations. None of them related to the Irish land border, which is a crucial issue to 1.8 million of our own citizens and 4.8 million of our friends south of the border, so may I—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are immensely—indescribably —grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary, but I think she is approaching her peroration, with a question mark at the end of it. I am happy to indulge Front Benchers to a degree, but I want to accommodate Back Benchers. I am determined to get to the bottom of the list today, and I shall do so.

[Emily Thornberry]

Let me urge the Foreign Secretary to announce a fifth red line today by promising unequivocally what he promised last year—that Irish border arrangements will not change—and to say that if those arrangements do change, he will refuse to stay in the Government.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, the Foreign Secretary has responded to an urgent question in the course of which he has very properly made remarks, but it is important, as others in the House can testify from past experience, to distinguish between a response to an urgent question, on the one hand, and the proffering by Government of a statement, on the other.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. How unfortunate it is that we need to ask an urgent question as opposed to getting a statement.

Let me say at the outset that whatever strong feelings we have about Iran’s actions in this case, I am sure we are all joined in sending our thoughts to those affected by yesterday’s earthquake on the Iran-Iraq border. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for returning from Brussels to answer this urgent question. Perhaps he reflected that the last time a Minister of State was asked to answer an urgent question on behalf of a Cabinet Minister, the Cabinet Minister lasted only 24 hours.

I hope that we can make more progress today than we were able to make on the same issue last week. Let us start by clarifying the points on which there is absolutely no difference between us. First and foremost, we all want Nazanin to be brought home as soon as possible. No one who has listened over recent days to the heartbreaking testimony of Richard Ratcliffe can be in any doubt about how urgent it is, for Nazanin’s mental and physical health, that she is returned to her family immediately.

Secondly, if that can be done, as has been suggested, by conferring diplomatic status on Nazanin, that would obviously be welcome, although I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary clarified how that could be achieved—how we can free this innocent British mother without opening up a Grace Mugabe precedent, which might make it possible to use the same tactic in Britain to help a guilty foreign national to escape justice? Thirdly, we can all agree that the responsibility for Nazanin’s incarceration and mistreatment lies entirely with the Iranian authorities, and we all unite in urging for her freedom to be restored.

On those points, we are in full agreement, but let me turn to two key issues on which we have so far differed and, frankly, we continue to differ. First, the Foreign Secretary argued last week that his comments to the Select Committee did not have “any connection whatever” with the latest threats by the Iranian authorities to extend Nazanin’s sentence, and that it was simply untrue to suggest otherwise. That is entirely contradicted by what was said by the Iranian courts last weekend, and by what was said on the Iranian judiciary’s website and on Iranian state TV. All of them said explicitly that the Foreign Secretary’s remarks were the basis of their renewed action against Nazanin. We know from the evidence of Richard Ratcliffe that when Nazanin was told of the remarks and saw how the Iranian authorities would exploit them, she became hugely distressed and upset. So will the Foreign Secretary today accept the impact that his words have had and the distress that has been caused to Nazanin, and apologise properly for that—apologise not for upsetting people, but for getting it wrong?

Secondly, last week the Foreign Secretary was asked several times to do one very simple thing, and that was simply to admit that he had made a mistake—not that his remarks had been taken out of context or misconstrued, but that they were simply wrong. He has, so far, refused to make that clear, and that refusal was compounded yesterday by his good friend the Environment Secretary. Even after all the debate on this issue, the Environment Secretary still, incredibly, claimed that we “don’t know” why Nazanin is in Iran. We do.

It is not good enough. If it is a matter of pride that the Foreign Secretary is refusing to admit that he made a mistake, I feel bound to say to him that his pride matters not one ounce compared to Nazanin’s freedom. After a week of obfuscation and bluster, will he finally take the opportunity today to state simply and unequivocally, for the removal of any doubt either here or in Tehran, that he simply got it wrong?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the Hansard reporters caught the full flavour of that. We will inspect the Official Report tomorrow.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not think that has really cleared up a great deal, but let me try another question.

Again at our last session, the Foreign Secretary told this House—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I cannot believe that the Foreign Secretary conducted himself in that way when he was a schoolboy. Or perhaps he did, which might explain some matters.

[Emily Thornberry]

Let me just quote again from the last session of Foreign Office questions, when the Foreign Secretary told the House:

“There is no plan for no deal”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 141.]

Five days ago, he said that

“we must make the right preparations…for a no-deal scenario.”

We know that the Cabinet cannot stop fighting about the Brexit that they want, but it would be a start if our flip-flopping Foreign Secretary could stop fighting with himself.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have not asked the question yet, Boris. Which is it: the Telegraph article or the Florence speech—the lion roars or the lion wants to stop this malarkey? Apart from his own fading ambitions, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary believe in?

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady should not refer to the Foreign Secretary by his first name. It is rather vulgar.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Not the name, but merely the mention of it. It is unseemly and insufficiently reverential.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

If the First Secretary of State wants to talk about unemployment, let me ask him this: will he publish the Treasury’s assessment of the impact that a no deal outcome would have on jobs and growth in Britain? Will he publish that today—I don’t think so. Let us continue. If he will not tell the House—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Lady must be heard, and she will be, as will the First Secretary of State. Members must calm themselves.

[Emily Thornberry]

If the First Secretary of State will not tell the House what no deal means, can he at least clear up the confusion over whether a plan for no deal actually exists? Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told me that, indeed, there was no plan for no deal. Two hours later, No. 10 fought back and said that there was a plan. [Interruption.] The Brexit Secretary might be laughing, but I am turning to him next. He was so busy fighting with himself that, on 12 March, he said that there was a plan. On 17 March, he said that there was not. On 19 May, he said that he spent half his time thinking about it. Yesterday, he said that he was not prepared to comment. Can the First Secretary of State clear up the confusion today: is there, or is there not, a contingency plan for no deal? If there is, will he undertake to publish it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I know the right hon. Gentleman is new to this, but the way the rules work—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know whether this is spontaneous or orchestrated, and I do not really care which. But whichever it is, the idea that it is going to stop the right hon. Lady from asking her questions is for the birds. Members are wasting their vocal cords. We will carry on for as long as necessary to accommodate the Back-Bench Members whom I wish to accommodate.

[Emily Thornberry]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is new to this, but the way it works is that he asks the—that I ask the questions—[Interruption.] We are quite happy to swap places with them. Frankly, if he does not want to continue under these rules, I am sure there are plenty of other people on the Front Bench there who would love the opportunity to audition as Prime Minister.

I do appreciate all the First Secretary’s answers, but they just serve to illustrate what a mess the Government have got themselves into by threatening to walk away even before talks began. Is it not the truth that we have a no deal option on the table but the Government will not tell us what that means, and that they have contingency plans but they will not let the public see them? We have got a Chancellor demanding transitional arrangements, which a no deal option makes impossible. We have got a Foreign Secretary making it up as he is going along. We have got a Brexit Secretary so used to overruling his colleagues that he has started overruling himself, and we have got a Prime Minister who is so bereft of ideas that she has started putting suggestion boxes around Parliament. But as a country we have 20 months to go until Brexit. We absolutely have to get a grip. If the Conservative party has not got the strength for the task, then we absolutely have to get rid of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady but she really does need to bring herself to a single-sentence question, because there are lots of colleagues who want to take part. She is normally very succinct, but today is an exception. Return to form!

[Emily Thornberry]

Given that a plan for no deal would be worse than that dereliction of duty, will the Foreign Secretary spell out publicly what no deal would mean? If he is not prepared to tell us that publicly, can he reassure us that at the very least he has a detailed private plan to manage that risk?

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made Labour’s position perfectly clear—it is in the manifesto. We think that the state of Palestine should be recognised. I answered that in my speech. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s problem, and it is such a shame he did not take my intervention.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, well I think that might be called a point of frustration, or alternatively a point of explanation, but I am afraid that we will have to leave it there. No further chuntering from a sedentary position from either side of the Chamber is required, or indeed beneficial.

Syria and North Korea

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We appreciate the Foreign Secretary’s inimitable rhetorical style, but I fear that the right hon. Lady, by moving as though to intervene, supposes that she is taking part in a debate. Let us await the televised debate, if it is to happen. At this point, the Foreign Secretary can content himself with responding to questions.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State, while refusing to answer the challenge of a televised debate, to use the opportunity of a statement to make the most extraordinary claims? Perhaps the biggest was that he was unaware of Labour’s position on this matter. We have made it abundantly clear that the way we should have proceeded was for UN inspectors to establish beyond doubt who was responsible and challenge the international community, including the Russians, to take multilateral action against the perpetrator, who is presumably Mr Assad.

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the right hon. Lady off the top of my head is that unawareness, whether real or proclaimed, is not disorderly. Proceedings have been orderly. Some people may feel better informed, others may not, but the right hon. Lady, who has considerable experience, both of this place and of pleading her case in the courts, has made her own point with her own eloquence in her own way, and it is on the record.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Lady that I absolutely respect her sincerity and very proper generosity of spirit in taking the opportunity, but I hope she will understand when I say that I have to be sensitive to the wider interests of the House? What she has said already has been very powerful, and I think it will be widely echoed across the House. I have, of course, written to Tam’s widow, Kathleen and to both of the children to express my condolences. He was a parliamentary giant whose contribution was enormous. He never held ministerial office but achieved a great deal, and we thank him greatly for that service. I hope the hon. Lady will not take offence, but we must move on.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it discourteous to the House for the Foreign Secretary to leave during an application for an emergency debate in his area? I appreciate that this did not come up on the screens, but it had been widely telegraphed. Indeed, in case there was any doubt about it, I wrote him a note to tell him it was coming.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that these are matters upon which Members can form their own views. As to whether there is anything disorderly about the conduct of the Foreign Secretary, the answer is no, there is nothing disorderly about it. The Foreign Secretary was here for exchanges lasting approximately an hour and a half, and the question of which Minister is fielded by the Government is a matter for the Government. They have fielded the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan). The hon. Lady can form her own view of him, but he is certainly not disorderly; nor is he in any way, on any occasion that I have ever observed him, remotely dishevelled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

Dear oh dear. We are not asking for details; we are asking about a central plank of the negotiations. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us an answer on the customs union—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Both the questions and the answers will be heard. If the juvenile behaviour could stop, that would be really helpful to the scrutiny process.

[Emily Thornberry]

We have not had an answer on the customs union as a whole, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about one specific point? Since 1993, there have been no customs checks on the land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. In May, when visiting Northern Ireland, he said that if the UK

“were not part of the customs union…there would have to be customs checks at the border.”

He also said that for anyone to pretend otherwise

“flies in the face of reality.”

Will he confirm that that remains the position? If that is right, he really must make it clear today that the Government are determined to avoid that situation.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We cannot continue the debate, but the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who asked his question most powerfully, has raised his concern, to which there has been a response. I cannot be expected to be the arbiter of the respective value of the contributions. The House will be reassured to know that nothing disorderly has occurred.

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the Prime Minister, who has just left the Chamber, asserted that I was in favour of a second Brexit referendum. I never have been, and I am not. I just wanted to set the record straight, and I hoped that she would be able to hear me do so, but unfortunately we have just missed her.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is, however, very interesting, notably to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Because I take an anorakish interest in the pronouncements of each and every Member, it is also of considerable interest to me, so I am very grateful to her for what she has said.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A junior Government Whip chunters from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not right always, but the same could be said of junior Government Whips. On this matter, however, the hon. Gentleman is right in both respects: motion 5 on today’s Order Paper is posited on the assumption that there will be a debate on Monday 18 July on the UK’s nuclear deterrent; and this debate has not been notified to the House, other than via a passing reference to it yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence in the course of the statement on the recent NATO summit. I make no complaint about what the Prime Minister might have been thinking or what he intended, or if he was caused or tempted to comment elsewhere—I am not focusing on that point. What I am focusing on is that if there is to be a change of business, there should be a supplementary business statement. That is the way we do our work in this place.

If I may say so, the usual channels, whatever their opinions on the merit of the issue, really ought to be aware of that point, which is blindingly obvious and brooks no contradiction—it is very, very, very straightforward. We cannot get into a situation in this place in which we do business in a disorderly fashion. The procedures of this House are for the protection of this House and all Members ought to take that very seriously. They certainly ought to be aware of the significance of that and some sort of remedial training is required for those who are not.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Ministry of Defence released a press release—this is therefore not just a glancing reference by the Secretary of State—stating that there would be a motion, but the House has certainly not been informed. Indeed, the motion is about not renewal, but the principle of continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence, which in my view seems to be a different issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I confess I do not know what press offices get up to in these matters, but suffice it to say that ultimately the Secretary of State in a Department is always everywhere and for everything responsible in that Department. We probably should not dwell on this further, but let us try to learn from it for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and his generous words. I shall pass on his comments to the new shadow Secretary of State for Defence when he takes up his post this afternoon; they are typical of the way in which he and his office have worked.

One particular concern that many people have is the implications of Brexit for our border controls. What will happen to our border control at Calais, what will happen to the common travel area with Ireland, and will the co-operation we currently receive from our European counterparts in respect of tackling illegal immigration be maintained? How will we go about resolving these issues? Will the armed forces play a role in that, and in what way can we keep our borders safe and secure?

[Mr Speaker]

My arithmetic may be faulty, but I counted six questions, to which I know the right hon. Gentleman will give a single pithy response, because we must make progress to other hon. Members who also have questions on the Order Paper—something it would have been good to remember earlier.

Shipbuilding on the Clyde

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am most grateful to the Minister for his words, but I gently point out that he took more than twice his allotted time. I felt that he had germane information to impart, so I let it go on this occasion, but I cannot do so on a subsequent occasion; there are rules in this place and they must be observed. In recognition of how long it took the Minister, the hon. Lady now has slightly longer, if she wishes to take it.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I, on behalf of the Opposition, also extend our condolences to the family of Captain David Seath?

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in an urgent question, although I am deeply disappointed that the Minister had to be dragged to the House this afternoon to explain what on earth has been going on with the Government so far. The Secretary of State cannot be seen for dust. After three days of considerable uncertainty over the future of British shipbuilding, during which the Government have remained completely silent, the Secretary of State has, unfortunately, failed to clear the air. This is about a commitment to our Royal Navy and the national defence of the UK.

As a maritime nation, it is bad enough that our Navy has had its surface fleet cut by a sixth since this Government came into office. We have been promised that at least 13 new frigates will be built, but if the timetable for delivering the new frigates has slipped, the Government’s promise to maintain the Navy’s fleet at its current size is put at risk. Can the Minister answer a simple question: will construction begin this year, in line with previous commitments? He claims that the orders for the new frigates will proceed as set out in the SDSR, but it says nothing about the timetable—and the timetable is vital. The unions are now being told that this could be delayed by up to a year. Is he saying that that is not the case? Does he also deny the claims made by unions that the start of Type 26 construction has already been delayed?

The issue is not just about the Type 26 frigates. Over the past two years, the Government have repeatedly promised that all 13 of the Navy’s new frigates would be built on the Clyde—not only the eight Type 26s, but “at least” five lighter frigates announced in the SDSR as well. Can we have confirmation that that is still true today? What about the budget? There are rumours that the next two offshore patrol vessels will now come out of the same budget as the frigates, meaning that the overall budget is almost certain to fall—is that right? Has nothing changed, as the Minister says? If that is right, why has BAE Systems not denied press reports that there will be redundancies at the shipyards? If that is not the case, why are the unions being told that there will be redundancies? This is a matter of national importance for the United Kingdom. The future of hundreds of people in Glasgow hang on the Minister’s words this afternoon. Will he please answer my questions about delay, as this is a very important matter?

The Government say that they are publishing a shipbuilding strategy later this year. We have been waiting 16 months, and we are now told that a chair has been appointed. That is good, but will we get the shipbuilding strategy this year, because, frankly, at the moment, it looks like a shambles? This is not the time for weasel words such as “optimised schedules”. We need clear-cut assurances from the Government that they will honour the commitments that they have made both to local communities and to our national defences. If they do not honour those commitments, this will be yet another Tory betrayal of Scotland, which the SNP will not be able to fix. Only a British Labour Government will be in a position to safeguard the future of Glasgow’s shipbuilding industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I dare say that we will find out who thinks what when the vote comes.

[Emily Thornberry]

I asked the Secretary of State specifically about the SSRO and the Successor programme. I appreciate that he does not know the answer, so let me tell him that there have been no meetings—I have a letter here from the Ministry of Defence. The SSRO was tasked with saving at least £200 million last year through its scrutiny of MOD contracts. However, because the Secretary of State will not allow it to do its job properly, it has agreed savings of only £100,000. Why is it not being allowed to scrutinise the Successor contract? Is it because, as the Department has said:

“The government needs a safe space away from the public gaze to allow it to consider policy options… unfettered from public comment about”

their “affordability”? That is not good enough. We demand that the Secretary of State reverse the decision and open up the Successor programme to the independent scrutiny that it requires.

Syria

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the interest of colleagues, which is understandably extensive. I would be assisted in that regard by brevity, as exemplified by a distinguished lawyer. I call Emily Thornberry.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I listened with great care to what the Prime Minister said because I wanted to hear about the strategy and the plan, but I am disappointed because I fear it is very thin. I have many questions, but I will ask just one about the military strategy. I know the Prime Minister agrees that we cannot bomb Syria into a western-style democracy from 30,000 feet, and that there must be much more. I want to focus on ground troops. The 70,000 moderate Sunni ground troops that the Prime Minister mentioned seem to be in the wrong place, and there is some question about whether they really exist. Most importantly, given that the Russians are supposed to be some form of ally to us on this matter, I imagine that we will be taking co-ordinated action with them. The Russians will surely continue to bomb those moderate Sunnis, so we will have chaos on the ground.

[The Prime Minister]

As I explained in my statement, the military strategy is to take out the terrorist targets that we can, as that will help to degrade and dismantle ISIL in Syria. It is to deflate and ultimately destroy the caliphate, which is a radicalising force around the world. We do not agree with the Russians in every regard, for the clear reasons that I have given, and we want them to focus on ISIL and not on the Free Syrian Army. We need to have that discussion with them, but as I said, I believe the gap between us is getting narrower.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a genuine point of order. I say that as much in hope as in expectation, but let us hear from the hon. Lady.

[Emily Thornberry]

The point of order is this, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State speaks again and again about the Bill’s importance in relation to London, but will not take any interventions from any London Members on the Opposition Benches.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has, in a sense, advertised the claims of London Members, and I am sure that they will be at the forefront of the Secretary of State’s mind.

Procedure of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is not a time limit and it is not that common to have a time limit on procedural matters. I would urge colleagues to have regard to each others’ interests, but there is no fixed time limit. That is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that so many Members wish to speak on this very important constitutional matter, which we have been bounced into at the last minute with the last gasp of this dreadful Government, is there not a way in which more time could be allocated so that everyone can express themselves?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is no. The motion has been tabled by the Government for the debate to last for up to one hour. Colleagues can make their own assessment of whether they think that is a sufficiency of time for this matter, but I am not in a position to extend the time.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understand the rules—perhaps I could get some guidance on this—a Member should declare what those interests are, as opposed simply to referring the House to the “register”.

[Mr Speaker]

“Erskine May” does treat of this matter. The short answer to the hon. Lady is that, yes, it should be clear to the House what is constituted by the interest, because that makes the debate that much more intelligible. It is a straightforward point, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it, and I have ruled, on advice, accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I press the Solicitor-General on that answer? He is aware that there is acute public concern at the suggestion that Government Departments, particularly the Home Office but also the Director of Public Prosecutions, failed to act on a series of child abuse allegations brought to their attention by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP. It has been reported that although documents outlined in those allegations were presented to the DPP in 1983, the CPS can no longer locate them. The Home Secretary has instigated an inquiry, but perhaps the Solicitor-General can clarify a couple of matters now.

What is CPS policy on document retention from the DPP’s office in the early 1980s, and does the apparent disappearance of the documents suggest that an exception was made to that policy, or was it breached? What explanation has the Solicitor-General received about the absence of the files? What steps has the CPS taken to try to recover the documents, and can he say what action, if any, was taken regarding the allegations by the DPP or the CPS in 1983 or at any time thereafter?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady does always have the alternative recourse of an application for an Adjournment debate.

[Emily Thornberry]

Or an urgent question.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, but this can be dealt with now. What I was gently, diplomatically, politely suggesting to the hon. Lady was that one question ordinarily suffices, and it is not necessary to have five in one go.

Southern Cross Care Homes

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister for his statement, which was very informative, but he significantly exceeded his time. I will therefore allow the shadow Minister slightly more than her two minutes so that there is equity between the two sides. I emphasise for the future, however, that answers to urgent questions must be of the prescribed length, and the same goes for questions from now on.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Minister for his response to my urgent question. Yesterday’s Southern Cross announcement that responsibility for managing 752 homes will pass back to the 80 landlords who own them has created a vacuum. I was interested to hear him say that that was part of a managed process, because it does not look like that—it has been a source of terrible uncertainty and great anxiety among residents and families. We have had so little information.

I am grateful for the information that the Minister has given today, but we need much more. Can the Government publish a list of all 80 landlords, or are the rumours correct that some of them have yet to be identified? Yesterday it was further announced that control of 250 of the homes would be handed back to the landlords immediately. We need to know which homes they are so that people living in them know who is running their home. Many of these landlords have little or no experience of running care homes. Does he have any information on the intentions of property companies such as London and Regional homes, which owns 90 former Southern Cross homes, or Prestbury, which owns 21?

I understand that the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services is doing its best to support its members, who will have a key role in ensuring that the operating companies can provide good quality care, and also that local authorities know how to perform financial stress tests to ensure that the new businesses have sound financial models, but what assistance is the Minister giving? Does he intend to provide additional resources to hard-pressed local authorities in order to help them? What advice can he give to local authorities if, for example, the new company is an offshore company? If the Department of Health does not have the expertise to assist ADASS, will he give that organisation access to officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who might be able to provide that assistance?

Presumably, the new operators taking control of the homes will need to be registered with the Care Quality Commission—the Minister has assured us that that will happen—but given the staff shortages at the CQC will he assure us that the registrations will be completed quickly? The House has heard him guarantee that the new operators will honour the previous terms and conditions of the 44,000 employees, but how does that square with the announcement of 3,000 job losses? Does he know how many homes are likely to close and what the timetable is for such closures? What will happen to the 50 former Southern Cross homes owned by Lloyds properties, which is in administration? What about NHP, which owns 250 former Southern Cross homes and which is at a standstill with its bondholders? These problems must be addressed. We need a home-by-home plan from the landlords, and he must give us that plan. The buck stops with him. Will he now accept his responsibilities?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no indication of any intended ministerial statement on this subject, but I alert the hon. Lady and the House to the fact that tomorrow we have questions to the Secretary of State for Health, including topical questions. That might provide a suitable opportunity to highlight these concerns.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. About 31,000 vulnerable residents do not know what is going to happen to their homes. Have you heard, Mr Speaker, whether Ministers intend to publish the full list of landlords who are suddenly taking control of 250 homes as of today so that we can have some transparency about the process? At the moment, as I say, 31,000 vulnerable residents are in the dark and 40,000 members of staff have no idea whether their terms and conditions are going to be honoured.

[Mr Speaker]

I accept that this is an extremely serious matter and, in the mind of the hon. Lady and perhaps others, a matter of some urgency. She will know that, as I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), Health questions take place tomorrow and the issue can be aired then. I have a suspicion that the hon. Lady, who has quite properly raised this matter a number of times, will return to it before long. The Minister on the Bench and representatives of the Government will have heard what she had to say.

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are well known for standing up for the right of the House to hear statements from the Government before they are heard on the “Today” programme. Unfortunately, it has happened again. It was announced this morning on the “Today” programme and to readers of The Guardian and The Times, that an additional £400 million will be spent on mental health. On the face of it, that is good news. However, although the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) have time to tour television studios, they do not have time to make an oral statement to this House and to answer questions such as whether this is new money and how the money will be spent to get the results that we all want to see.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for notice of it. A written ministerial statement has been given today. I have not received notice of an oral statement. The House will be aware that the Procedure Committee today published a report on ministerial statements. Matters of policy must be communicated first to the House, but the precise means by which that is done is ordinarily left to the Government. Today, there is nothing that I can usefully add, but she has registered her concerns forcefully and they will have been heard by the Leader of the House.

Before the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) rises to propose his ten-minute rule motion, I appeal, as I should have done before the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) rose, for Members to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, showing the same courtesy to the hon. Gentleman as they would want to be shown to them in similar circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Emily Thornberry

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about help for vulnerable people in meeting their energy bills, so we have to stick to that.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that if we are to move to a green economy, we have to do so in a way that is fair, so can he confirm that he is making representations to the Treasury to keep the Warm Front scheme which, as he knows, is a successful scheme that has helped 2 million of the most vulnerable fuel poor?