Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Ellie Reeves and Tom Tugendhat(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General
This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and that is my No. 1 priority as Solicitor General. The barriers that victims of rape and serious sexual violence face in this country are unacceptable, and the CPS is committed to improving its performance. These efforts are beginning to have an impact. Referral volumes for adult rape are on a sustained upward trend, and in the last quarter conviction volumes were at their highest level since 2016.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Given that over recent months we have discovered that the whole country has been a victim of crime from foreign espionage, state aggression and any number of different forms of hostile activity, will the Attorney General be kind enough to give a statement explaining how he is actually representing our interests, rather than preaching to us about how the law does not defend us and we just need to take it?
The Solicitor General
I answered an urgent question in this House a few weeks ago on the China case, which I expect the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. The Government have already made it clear that they are deeply disappointed in the outcome of that case. As has already been confirmed by the CPS and senior Treasury counsel, the decision to offer no evidence in the case was made by the CPS without political influence, including from me or any other Law Officer. As the Attorney General has outlined in some detail in evidence he gave in a recent Committee hearing, where a case can no longer proceed because of evidential reasons, as happened in this case, the requirement is that the CPS informs the Attorney General of the decision as soon as it is taken.
Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office
Debate between Ellie Reeves and Tom Tugendhat(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Solicitor General
As I set out in my answer to the urgent question, the previous Law Officers gave consent to prosecute in April 2024. After that happens, it is right that there is no further involvement of Law Officers in cases. In accordance with the framework, that is how things work. It is right that politicians do not interfere with prosecutions in criminal cases, and that is what happened in this case once consent to prosecute was granted.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I just start by saying that nobody in this House is disputing the independence of the prosecution or indeed the judicial officers? Nobody has had any dispute on that point at all. The question is a different one. It is whether an official who is giving evidence not on his behalf, but on behalf of the Government, should have had any communication with his own Government after the prosecutor said that the evidence was not sufficient.
One argument is that if the Government are not supplying enough evidence, surely they should supply a little bit more. But the argument that the Government are using is that the official gave evidence on the basis of the previous Government’s view between 2021 and 2023. Well, that is a little odd, because the Labour party manifesto was not written until 2024, and yet he quotes it in his evidence. There is an incoherence here: either he is giving evidence on the basis of the previous Government’s view between 2021 and 2023, in which case the Labour party manifesto is irrelevant, or he is reflecting the view of the Government post 2024, in which case the quotation of the Labour party manifesto is relevant. Which is it?
The Solicitor General
In terms of the witness statements, to start with the first and by far most substantive witness statement was the one made under the previous Government. In relation to more recent statements, the Conservatives’ starting argument was that the Government in some way interfered with the evidence, and now they seem to be criticising the fact that we did not interfere with the evidence. It is right that the deputy National Security Adviser gave that evidence free from any political interference, as has been confirmed numerous times in this House already.