Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

We have heard questions about the International Court of Justice, but I want ask some questions about the International Criminal Court. Its chief prosecutor said last week that

“all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence”

the Court over its investigations of war crimes in Gaza must “cease immediately”.

He was forced to issue that demand after a letter signed by 12 United States senators warned the ICC:

“Target Israel and we will target you.”

That letter threatened sanctions not just against the ICC’s officials, but against its employees, associates and families.

Will the Attorney General join me in condemning those Republican senators for their outrageous actions? Will she also join the chief prosecutor in agreeing that anyone who threatens the ICC simply for doing its job is undermining the very impartiality and independence on which its international mandate depends?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

I am absolutely certain that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General will have been as shocked as I was to read this week’s report by researchers at Warwick University on the recent handling of rape cases by the CPS. In far too many areas, the picture it paints is simply appalling: poor communication, poor quality control, poor decision-making, outdated attitudes, stereotypes and victim blaming, added to the constant problem of staff being overworked and under-resourced. The one positive is that it was the CPS that commissioned the report in the first place. It has not shied away from the findings, and researchers are clear that the roll-out of Operation Soteria will take things in the right direction. Do the Law Officers agree that we simply cannot leave things there? Will they undertake to come back to the House with an action plan based on the findings of this report, and a clear timetable for its implementation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

We have all read with deep concern last week’s interim ruling from the International Court of Justice regarding the situation in Gaza, and Labour is absolutely clear that Hamas must release all remaining hostages immediately, that Israel must comply with the ICJ’s orders in full, that the judgment of the Court must be treated with respect, and that all parties must comply with international law as part of an immediate humanitarian truce and a sustainable ceasefire. I ask the Attorney General, very simply: does she agree with me on all those points; and is it the official position of the Government to accept the authority of the Court in this matter and, even more importantly, to urge Israel also to accept the authority of the Court and to implement its orders in full as a matter of urgency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

Last month, I had the pleasure of hosting the brilliant Women’s Budget Group in Parliament for the launch of its report on gender gaps in access to civil justice. Across the board, from employment and benefits to domestic violence and housing, the report found too many women reaching crisis point before they got the help that they needed, as well as increasing numbers getting no help at all and having to represent themselves in court. Will the Attorney General raise those findings with the Justice Secretary and look at how the Government can address the disproportionate impact on women of our country’s legal aid deserts?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

Almost 500 days ago, in the joint inspectorate’s report on the post-charge handling of rape cases, it recommended that “Immediately”—I stress that word—

“the police and the CPS should work…to ensure that bad character is considered in all rape cases, and progressed wherever it is applicable.”

That means applying to enter into evidence relevant elements of a suspect’s history, including past convictions and a record of violence. But when I recently asked the Ministry of Justice about the issue, it could not even tell me how many bad character applications had been made or allowed in the last year, let alone what progress had been made in meeting the immediate recommendations from last year’s report. Does the Attorney General know what progress has been made? If not, will she make immediate inquiries?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

The Attorney General has been discussing rape prosecution statistics. National World reported last month that there have been 1,600 cases over the past five years in which a suspect accused of and investigated for rape ended up being charged with a lesser offence. We all know that that type of under-charging is not uncommon, but the allegation in National World was that those 1,600 cases were then counted towards the charge rate for rape, even though no one had been charged with a rape offence. Can the Attorney General tell us whether that is true and, if so, does it mean that the charge rate for rape is even lower than we currently think?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

May I join the Attorney General in thanking the House of Lords Constitution Committee for this excellent report? I have to say, it is a damning indictment of the former Attorney General, but also a helpful warning for current and future holders of the post. I want to ask the Attorney General about one specific point in relation to the report. Does she agree that it would be helpful to provide greater clarity within the ministerial code on the duties of Law Officers, particularly on upholding the rule of law within Government and providing impartial legal advice regardless of political considerations—both areas that the former Attorney General fell so drastically short on?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

I believe that the Solicitor General is now an old hand at this, but may I welcome the new Attorney General to her place?

As the Solicitor General will know, an estimated one in five women in this country have experienced the daily misery of being stalked and the constant fear that their stalker may one day attack them. In the year ending March 2022, almost 120,000 stalking offences were reported to the police, but less than 6,000 of those reports resulted in a charge. That is a charge rate of just 5%, compared with 7% the year before. Does the Solicitor General think that is good enough?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

May I say what an honour it is to be at this Dispatch Box facing the next Prime Minister as she awaits her call from the palace? It is a true honour, although colleagues will have noticed that in her list of leadership priorities last night the Attorney General had absolutely nothing to say about tackling the epidemic of crime in our country or ending the culture of lawbreaking in our Government, both of which have flourished on her watch. What she did say last night, however, was that we need to

“shrink the size of the state”.

I ask the Attorney General a very simple question: in percentage terms, what size of staffing cuts does she plan to make to the Crown Prosecution Service, and what will that mean to the record backlogs that our courts currently face?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Attorney General.

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

At the heart of any legislation on economic crime is the basic principle that anybody who wants to make money in the UK needs to obey the UK’s laws. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that P&O had “broken the law”, that we will be “taking action” against it, and that we will take it to court

“under section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 325.]

Can the Solicitor General tell us, as part of the team of Government lawyers, whether he agrees with the Prime Minister’s statement? Does the statement reflect the team’s own legal advice to the Prime Minister, and, assuming that it does, what are the next steps in the legal proceedings that the Government intend to take against P&O for breach of the 1992 Act?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I welcome the shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry?

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and happy new year. It remains to be seen whether the funding allocated is sufficient to tackle the record backlog in court cases facing our country, but may I ask a specific question about one particular aspect of the backlog? This week, magistrates across the country will resume hearing the backlog of cases relating to breaches of covid restrictions over the last two years. Whatever we may think of that process, we know that those magistrates will be put in an impossible position if the laws that the Government are asking them to enforce are not applied equally to individuals working for the Government themselves. Will the Attorney General guarantee that, if Sue Gray concludes that covid restrictions were broken by individuals in Downing Street, there will be no barrier to those individuals facing the same legal consequences as everybody else?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Let me begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to her new role. May I associate myself with the remarks that she made about the late David Amess. He was an enthusiastic and lively participant in International Trade questions, as he was with everything that he turned his mind to.

I also look forward to studying the Secretary of State’s response to the Trade and Agriculture Commission report, which I have just learned will be released with a written ministerial statement later today.

On page 54 of the International Trade Department’s June 2020 paper on the strategic approach to free trade with New Zealand, it forecast that an agreement along the lines that I understand the Government announced last night will cause

“a reduction in output and employment…in the UK agriculture sector.”

Does that remain the Secretary of State’s forecast for the impact of last night’s deal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Hollinrake is not here, so we will go instead to the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Small and medium-sized farms across the country are rightly worried that this weekend’s agreement with Australia and the precedent it will set for future trade deals will not just undermine their business but destroy them. Last November, the Minister of State promised these farmers that the new trade and agriculture commission would mean that

“all the National Farmers Unions…will play an active role in assessing trade agreements going forward”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 190.]—

and that as a consequence the farming industry’s interests would be “advanced and protected” by the TAC. Does he stand by those statements today?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

It is higher—at last!

[Mr Speaker]

There we are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It would be remiss of me not to welcome the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) to her new role.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I also thank my colleagues for asking such vital questions about shortages of PPE and other essential medical supplies?

One area where we have, thankfully, not seen shortages to date is the supply of prescription medicines, thanks to the so-called Brexit buffer of supplies built up in preparation for a no-deal Brexit. But given that this buffer only provides somewhere between three to six months of supplies, will the Minister tell us how the Government are getting on with replenishing these stocks from imports, so that we do not experience any shortages once the Brexit buffer starts to run out?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Lady focuses on coal and boasts about the announcement on coal, but according to the Environmental Audit Committee, UK Export Finance has not supported a single coal project since 2002. I do not know whether she is uncertain about the answer or just too embarrassed to answer, but the reality is that more than 90% of the £2 billion of investment in energy deals that was agreed at the UK-Africa trade summit was committed to new drilling for oil and gas—more fossil fuels. None of that was mentioned in the Government press release, which focused instead on the paltry figures for investment in solar power. Does the Minister accept that she is part of a Government who talk the talk on climate change but never walk the walk? They make symbolic moves on the domestic front but will never take any global lead. Worst of all, they refuse to stand up to the climate denier—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to get to the question; we cannot keep reading out a statement. A quick question, please.

[Emily Thornberry]

Worst of all, the Government refuse to stand up to the climate denier-in-chief, Donald Trump. Does the Minister not realise that in the face of this climate emergency we no longer have time for cowardice?

Yemen

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In your absence, there has been a bit of backwards and forwards between the Front Benches, and I gave way on several occasions to the Minister. He is now making it clear that he will not allow me to intervene at all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us just be clear about this. It is up to the Member, the Minister or the shadow Minister whether they give way or not—those are the rules of the House. The other point is that I understand this debate was meant to finish at 3.30 pm. We are now running over. The fact is the Minister does not wish to give way—that is his choice. It is no use getting uptight about it—that’s life.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that, with the remaining two minutes—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is not a continuation, I hope. Let us get to the end of the debate. There are people who want to go on to the next debate. Please, I want to look after all Members of this House and all Members who wish to speak in the next debate, but they will not do so if we run on a lot longer over time. Please, let us get to the end, because I do want Mr Twigg to come in next.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. No, I am sorry—I have finished.

Yemen

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to make interventions, but many Members want to speak in this debate and we are not going to get there. The time limit could be three minutes, so short interventions, please.

[Emily Thornberry]

I refer the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to the earlier part of my speech in which I quoted one of his own Ministers saying that a “deliberate error” had resulted in hundreds of deaths in Yemen. He must bear that in mind when we are deciding whether to continue supporting the ongoing action in Yemen. I will answer the rest of his question in the rest of my speech.

This is about the kind of signal that we are sending to the rest of the world. On Syria, Members on both sides of the House have rightly protested the bombardment of eastern Aleppo by Russia and Assad, demanded tougher international action against Russia, dismissed Russian claims that civilians are not being targeted, and called for those responsible to be tried for war crimes if necessary—they must face justice.

Yemen

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

I will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. No, you cannot.

[Emily Thornberry]

Am I not allowed to intervene?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The impact assessment for the Bill has only just arrived in the Vote Office; it was not here for the beginning of the debate. Surely we ought to be given the statistics in order to have an informed debate, rather than having to rely on what comes out of the Secretary of State’s mouth.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We will investigate the matter. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would give me a little more warning of her point of order, but there we are.

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 18th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Is it really a point of order?

[Emily Thornberry]

I ask for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, on whether this is correctly a point of order. The inconsistency that has been shown this afternoon is extraordinary—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is absolutely not a point of order. I thought that it might have been something relevant.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 63)(2),

That the House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

The Economy

Debate between Emily Thornberry and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

The fact is that 7,000 jobs have gone under this Government’s plans, and the gap between what we collect and what we are owed is estimated to be £35 billion, which is twice the housing benefit bill. Independent research commissioned by the Public and Commercial Services Union reckoned that the real figure was more like £120 billion, which is six and a half times the housing benefit bill. Whatever the true sum, the fact is that without a sufficient number of tax inspectors we cannot ensure that the rules apply to everyone. Everyone should pay tax; it should not just be for the little people. Paying one’s taxes should not be some sort of charitable gesture, and I have little understanding as to why it was seen as appropriate for this Government to continue to cut back on tax inspectors. If we are to have rules, they need to be applied. The Exchequer Secretary says that there were many processing jobs, but presumably people in that job need to make sure that the sums add up, that everything has been claimed that should have been claimed and that everything has been paid that should have been paid. Without that essential processing we will never know whether or not tax avoidance has been taking place—this is not just about major companies; it happens throughout the system. At a time like this, we need to make sure that everyone plays by the rules. If everyone does that and if the rules apply to us all and we have a fair society, we have the very one nation that Labour Members have been talking about.

Of course, the rules also apply to those who claim benefits and of course if someone can work, they must work. That is what unites this whole House. What does not unite this House is the language used by Government Front Benchers—the language of “scroungers”. Such language is simply offensive, as the highly eloquent maiden speech by my new hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) so well set out. Such language is a smokescreen that covers up a great deal of what this Government are actually doing. Although they talk about scroungers and those who stay in bed, keep the curtains closed and do not go out to work—the remarks are highly offensive—they do not address the issue, which is that many, many people who are out of work want to work, but the fact of the matter is that people cannot go from welfare into work if the work is not there.

Furthermore, many of the changes that this Government are making and announced in the autumn statement will affect those very people who work. I want to go on to address the issue of not just those who are poor and not working, but that of those who are working in my constituency and are dependent on benefits. Sometimes I feel as though I live in a different world where Government Members believe that only those who are out of work claim benefits. In fact, many people who work depend on benefits. Surely that is a conundrum. Many people meet me on the street and say, “How can the welfare benefit bill be going up if a million additional people have got work?” The truth is self-evident. Many people who are now working work part-time or are self-employed rely on housing benefit and tax credits, the very things that the Minister will be cutting as a result of the autumn statement. Let us use the terms that he uses, such as the strivers. Those very strivers are having their support system cut away by this Government. Even in the hon. Gentleman’s offensive terms, that cannot be justified.

I want to talk specifically about housing benefit because the issue affects my constituents particularly. I hear Government Members say, “Why should it be that people on average earnings receive less than people on benefits?” That has a certain ring to it and I know that the Conservatives are out of touch, but surely some of them must know someone who rents a flat and who understands that housing benefit goes not to the tenant, but to the landlord. It is because rents have gone up so much in London and the south-east that the housing benefit bill continues to rise. In the past two years, private rents in London have gone up by 25%, according to London Councils. In those circumstances, how can it be justified to attack housing benefit, to put an arbitrary cap on housing benefit, or to believe that housing benefit should be the same level in London as it is anywhere else in the country? How can that be fair?

It is not the fault of my poor constituents that their rent is high. It is the fault of my Government and of Conservative Governments who did not build enough housing. There was a time when Conservative and Labour Governments used to compete with each other as to how much affordable housing they could build. In the 1970s, four fifths of the housing budget was spent on building new homes and one fifth on housing benefit. Now it is completely turned on its head and we continue to pay the price of failure. We must build more housing and we must not simply dance on a pin, analysing what affordable housing means.

The Minister represents a party that defines affordable housing as costing 80% of market rent. He and his party should get some sort of George Orwellian prize for double-speak. Eighty per cent. of market rent in my constituency could not be afforded by ordinary people in my constituency. I went on to the Rightmove website this morning and looked at the prices of three-bedroom flats in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman know how much the rent for a bog-standard three-bedroom flat in my constituency would be? Four hundred pounds a week. How much is the housing benefit cap? Three hundred and forty pounds a week. There was only one flat on Rightmove that was under the amount of the cap so how can people in my constituency, who will be subjected to the housing benefit cap, afford to continue to live in Islington?

There is an argument that the poor should not be living in Islington, but I respectfully disagree. My constituency should be a mixed constituency and should have rich and poor. Generations of poor people who live in my constituency should be allowed to continue to live there. Furthermore, the housing benefit cap is one atrocious measure that this Government have introduced, but we wait for the next, which is universal credit. There will be a cap of £500 a week for a four-bedroom flat in my constituency. There were 69 that were under the £400 current housing benefit—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.