Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will stick to the specific subject of the question. If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury is not satisfied with the answer, that is another matter. She will have to come back and ask it again another time.

[Emily Thornberry]

May I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, I cannot take a point of order in the middle of questions.

Brexit: Opportunities

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by welcoming the Paymaster General to his new role. I thank him for advance sight of his statement. In fact, I imagine he had about as much advance sight of it as I did—11.40? However, I sympathise with him, not just for being thrown into this particular deep end, but for the title that was given to him for today’s statement.

Before I go into that, let me say that the proposals that the Paymaster General has mentioned will demand careful consideration once we have been able to examine the detail. For example, he mentioned the recent Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport proposals for reform of the data regime. If they are anything to go by, every measure in that package will need to be carefully considered, not just on its own merits but for the implications for our trading relationship with Europe. There was also reference in the statement to GMOs, research and development, vehicle standards and artificial intelligence, and all kinds of other things may be hidden in the huge category of law that has yet to be reviewed. We will come back to this, I have no doubt.

Let me return to the title of the statement: “Brexit: Opportunities”. That is the title, yet the country faces continuing shortages of staff and supplies, exacerbated by the Government’s Brexit deal, while businesses across the country face mounting losses in trade with Europe directly caused by the Government’s Brexit deal, and the people of Northern Ireland remain stuck in limbo as the Government refuse to implement the Brexit deal that they negotiated. Into all that, along comes the new Paymaster General to talk about all the wonderful opportunities that await us because of the marvellous Brexit deal, which is working so well at present. If he will excuse the unkind metaphor on the first day of his new job, it is a bit like the Pudding Lane baker strolling around the great fire of London asking people running for their lives if they have any orders for Christmas.

On the issue of opportunities, I will happily have a debate with the Paymaster General, whenever he wants to have one, about how the Government are wasting the opportunities of Brexit when it comes to the lack of ambition and innovation in both the roll-over trade deals they agreed last year and the new negotiations that they have begun since. I will happily have a debate, too, whenever he wants to have one, on the merits of the Government’s strategy to downgrade trade with Europe in favour of trade with Asia, on the fantastical basis that we can make up all the losses our exporters are facing in their trade with the EU through the gains that we will make through trade with the Asia-Pacific. The flagship policy of that strategy is the UK’s accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which, according to the Government’s own figures, will produce a £1.7 billion increase in UK exports to those Asia-Pacific countries over a 15-year period. That is roughly a third of what we exported to Luxembourg last year alone—the covid-affected year.

I will happily debate that strategy with the Paymaster General on another day, but what I want to focus on today, and what I urge him to focus on in the new role he has been given, is not the imagined opportunities of Brexit that might happen in the next year, two years or five years, but the real practicalities that need sorting out today—the holes that need fixing in our deal with Europe to support British businesses through this period of economic recovery and resolve the impasse in Northern Ireland.

Can the Paymaster General tell us where we stand on the Government’s efforts to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications and regulatory equivalence for financial services, so that our key growth industries in the professional and financial sectors can get back to doing busines in Europe with the speed and simplicity that they enjoyed before Brexit? Can he tell us where the Government stand in their efforts to seek mutual recognition of conformity assessments to remove the double testing of products that is costing our key industries both time and money? Can he tell us not just what the latest plan is to kick the can down the road in Northern Ireland, but how we are going to reach a sustainable and permanent solution?

On that note, may I ask the Paymaster General to clear up one specific mystery, which relates to the Cabinet Office? In March last year, without publicity and without an open consultation, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paid McKinsey consultants £1 million for eight weeks’ work to provide

“the most effective solutions to ensure food security and choice is maintained for consumers in Northern Ireland”

after checks on GB-NI goods were introduced. My question to the Paymaster General is this: if the best brains at McKinsey were given two months and £1 million by the Government to examine that problem and come up with a solution, what is the answer that they provided? Is the reality that they, like the Government, have no better alternative solution than a veterinary agreement—the solution that businesses want, the solution that the EU says would work, the solution that every Opposition party in this House supports, but the solution that Ministers are refusing to consider?

That brings me to my final question—the great unanswered question when it comes to Brexit practicalities, which I hope the Paymaster General will not try to evade as so many of his predecessors have. When Lord Frost was asked on 24 June why he would not pursue the option, even in the short term, of a veterinary agreement with the European Union to resolve many of the problems at the border, he said:

“We’re very ambitious about TPP membership, so…it might turn out to be quite short term. That’s the problem.”

Can the Paymaster General answer two questions? First, why do the Government believe—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before the right hon. Lady asks any more questions, let me say that she has significantly exceeded her time. I know that we are in a bit of flux, so I will allow her to finish, but I hope that she and others will note that keeping to time is important as a courtesy to others.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The questions I want to ask are these. First, why do the Government believe that signing a veterinary agreement with the EU is incompatible with their ambitions to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Secondly, if the answer is that joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership requires them to diverge from EU standards in relation to food safety, which is the only logical explanation for the comments that Lord Frost has made, can the Paymaster General tell us which specific standards they plan to diverge from?

I urge the Paymaster General, in his first appearance in his new position, to come out of the fantasy world that his predecessors have been living in together with Lord Frost and join us in the real world, together with Britain’s business community—the world of delays and shortages, red tape and bureaucracy, lost business and lost trade. It is a world that demands sensible answers and practical action from the Cabinet Office, not just another Minister addicted to dogma and wishful thinking.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not think we should go much further down this line. I have 59 Back-Bench Members who wish to participate in this scrutiny now, so let us not go down the rabbit hole of scrutiny but stick to the purpose of the amendments before us.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My argument is simply that the scrutiny amendment among these amendments is perhaps the most important, because if Parliament could be allowed scrutiny, we would not focus on other particular issues, because we would know that, in the end, Parliament could make the decision. I would find it particularly astonishing if any Government Minister or Whip is able to look their colleagues in the face and ask them to vote down the amendments on parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals after the shambles we saw in December with the supposed scrutiny of the new continuity agreements—10 deals that were agreed too late to complete the 21-day ratification process before they came into force.

The Minister is an intelligent man, and I am surprised that he is so uninformed. Four of those deals were finally laid before Parliament on the afternoon of new year’s eve, just a few hours before they took effect. The deal with Cameroon has still not been laid before Parliament, almost three weeks after it came into force. Needless to say, there was not a single word of parliamentary debate about any of those 10 agreements before they took effect, let alone any suggestion of parliamentary approval. The very fact that it is possible for all that to happen without falling foul of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is all the evidence we should need that the procedures set out in CRaG for the scrutiny of the Government’s trade deals are simply not up to the job.

The Government might make the argument that, since those 10 deals in December did not sell any NHS data or alter our standards on food hygiene, their agreement does not make the case for the amendments I mention or for new levels of parliamentary scrutiny. However, that brings me to the issue of human rights. What happened in December makes an incontrovertible case for Lords amendments 2 and 3, on human rights, and 1 and 5, on parliamentary scrutiny.

It is understandable and right that many Members will focus their contributions on the situation in China and the plight of the Uyghur people. We have all read with horror the first-hand accounts of torture and extrajudicial killings, mass incarceration in detention camps, forced sterilisation and abortions, servitude and slave labour. It shames the world that this is happening in our lifetime and it disgraces the Government of China. It is absolutely right that if a UK trade deal with Beijing is proposed or agreed, representatives of the Uyghur community should be able to seek a ruling from the High Court that the crimes they face in China meet the criteria for a charge of genocide, in turn requiring the UK Government to consider revoking that trade deal. When the Minister has an opportunity to look at the compromise amendment, as it has been called, he will see that that is what is being suggested.

There have been various arguments by Ministers as to why the proposed genocide amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary. I will deal with one of those in particular. It has already been suggested that no trade deal with China is imminent, and so measures to block such a deal are premature—a point well made, Members may think. However, the problem is that it cannot be squared with the fact that both the UK and China have to different degrees announced their plans to consider joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the trans-Pacific trade partnership.

If the Government cannot guarantee, first, that they will beat China to the punch, and secondly, that they will be given veto power over any future bid by China for membership, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to guarantee to Members of the House that a trade deal with China is not on the horizon, because in the shape of CPTPP it most obviously is. That was why I was trying to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman—to see what his answer was. I would be happy to give way again, or perhaps he can answer at the end of the debate.

That dispute about the potential timing of any China deal raises a very important issue, which I hope all supporters of the genocide amendment will consider very seriously. During this debate on trade and human rights, and the surrounding media coverage, it would be very easy to tell ourselves that this is a discussion entirely about China, and therefore entirely about deals that might or might not take place in the future. The reality is that it should, and it must, also be a debate about the deals that the Government have done this month, and the deals that they are openly planning to do in the next two years, because anyone who cares deeply about the human rights of China must also have deep concerns about the records of Egypt, Turkey and Cameroon or Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Brazil. That is why Lords amendment 3 demands that before the Government negotiate and sign such trade deals in future, they should present Parliament with a report on the human rights record in each country in question and allow Parliament to take that into account during the process of scrutiny and approval.

Let me give the House one example of why Lords amendment 3 is required. Just five days before the US Senate was attacked, it came together to approve a resolution co-sponsored by 20 senators from both parties, from Marco Rubio to Cory Brooker. It was about the brutal campaign of subjugation by the French-speaking Government in Cameroon against the country’s English-speaking minority. The Senate resolution condemned with great force the atrocities committed by the Anglophone separatist militias, and it speaks with equal power about the actions of the Cameroon Government, including “torture, sexual abuse,”

massacres and

“burning of villages, the use of live ammunition against protestors, arbitrary arrest and”

unlawful

“detention…enforced disappearances, deaths in custody,”

attacks on journalists and the regular killing of

“civilians, including women, children and the elderly”.

The Senate resolution noted approvingly that, exactly one year before, the Office of the United States Trade Representative—remember, this was Donald Trump’s trade representative, the direct counterpart of the Secretary of State for International Trade—had terminated Cameroon’s access to preferential trade rights due to

“persistent gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

Finally, in that same spirit, the Senate resolution urged members of the international community to join the United States in a strategic collective effort to put pressure on the Government of Cameroon, including through “the use of” all

“available diplomatic and punitive tools”.

I have quoted that Senate resolution at length because I believe that we must ask ourselves what on earth those senators would think if they knew that on that very same day, when they were unanimously passing those strong words of condemnation towards the Government of Cameroon and urging the international community to join them, here in the United Kingdom we were bringing into effect a brand-new continuity trade agreement with Cameroon—a trade deal that was agreed by Ministers apparently with no consideration, and clearly no concern, for the persistent gross violations of international human rights that are taking place inside Cameron; a trade deal that none of us in this House bar Ministers have even been allowed to read, let alone debate or approve; and a trade deal that may or may not contain provisions on human rights, but until the Government finally decide to publish it, we the elected Members of this Parliament simply cannot know. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will keep the example of Cameroon in mind, and consider the words of the US Senate and the actions of the US trade representative, when judging how to vote later.

We all know that on occasions such as this when amendments are up for debate, Ministers will try to persuade us that they do not disagree with the good intentions behind them, but they just do not think that they are really required. However, if that is what Ministers say today in relation to Lords amendments 2 and 3 on human rights, or Lords amendments 1 and 5 on parliamentary scrutiny, I only ask Members to remember Cameroon: a trade deal done with a regime that is slaughtering women and children just because they live in English-speaking towns; a trade deal done in the face of the US Senate on the same day that it called for international support; and a trade deal that, incredibly, has still not been laid before Parliament, almost three weeks after it came into force.

I urge all Members to think about the Cameroon deal and how little consideration Ministers gave either to human rights or to the rights of this Parliament when they decided to sign it. Finally, I urge Members to ask themselves and their conscience whether they accept what those same Ministers are saying when they go through the amendments before us today and tell us, “They’re not really required.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I had hoped that we might manage at least the first part of this consideration without a formal time limit, but I will have to impose a time limit initially of six minutes, at the absolute outside—in the hope that Members will take less time than that.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, there was a written ministerial statement today in which the Secretary of State for International Trade announced that we were to begin selling arms once more to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen. Of course, that flies in the face of the Court of Appeal decision last year. The Government claim that they have carried out a complete review, and that all the alleged instances of war crimes are simply isolated incidents.

How can a statement of such extraordinary magnitude be made by way of a written statement? I know that tomorrow is a busy day, but can we be assured that the Secretary of State has asked to come before the House, either tomorrow or on Thursday, to be able to answer questions, because there is huge interest in this matter in the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. As ever, she is well aware that the way in which Ministers make their announcements is not a matter for the Chair, in so far as the announcement has been made by way of a written statement, but she will also be very well aware that there are devices that she can use, which Mr Speaker will take very seriously, in order to require a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions that she has every right to put.

Britain in the World

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) will know that I was listening very carefully and my interpretation was that, had she said that any Member of this House was a cowardly lion, or words to that effect, I would have stopped her. I have given her the benefit of the doubt, in that she was drawing an allegory from a well-known work of fiction, but it is marginal, and I think she knows that.

[Emily Thornberry]

I was talking about a pair of Dominics, which explains why we are having today’s debate on the international aspects of the Queen’s Speech, which, Brexit and extradition policy aside, has absolutely nothing new to say on foreign policy, defence or international development, at a time when the world is crying out for new initiatives and global leadership on these issues. At a time when Her Majesty has got quite enough on her plate, I ask all her supporters in the House whether it was really necessary to waste her time asking her to read out the following lines, drafted by Downing Street:

“My Government will honour the Armed Forces Covenant…and the NATO commitment to spend at least two per cent of national income on defence.”

Nothing new, no substance behind it—that is a statement that sounds all too hollow to our armed forces families living on substandard salaries in substandard accommodation.

Let me continue:

“As the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, my Government will ensure that it continues to play a leading role in global affairs, defending its interests and promoting its values.”

Nothing new, no substance behind it, and it bears no relation to reality when it comes to our role in the world under this Government. Let me continue:

“My Government will be at the forefront of efforts to solve the…complex international security issues.”

Nothing new, no substance behind it, and it is at odds with a Government who cannot even explain the strategy for Syria, Libya or Yemen, Iran, Israel or Palestine, let alone the ongoing crisis with Iran.

There is more:

“My Government…will champion global free trade and work alongside international partners to solve the most pressing global challenges.”

Waffle, waffle, waffle—nothing new, no substance behind it—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, I am quoting Her Majesty, who had those words written for her by the people at No. 10—nothing new, no substance behind any of it, and an insult, when we consider how this Prime Minister actively acquiesced when his friend and hero, Donald Trump, started ducking all those global challenges and actively making them all worse, and told me that I was being pessimistic for warning as much.

Among all those vacuous, meaningless lines that Her Majesty was forced to read out, there is one of greater interest in the foreign policy section of the speech, which I would like to highlight:



“My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom.”

Let us bear in mind that those words were drafted by Downing Street for our sovereign to read out in front of Parliament. That was a solemn promise from the Government, in Her Majesty’s name, to protect the integrity of democracy here in Britain. Yet here we are, still waiting—still waiting!—for the Government to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russian interference with our democracy.

Shortly before the election, the Foreign Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that the delay was perfectly normal because it usually took six weeks for ISC reports to be published, although this report had already been cleared in full by the Committee and the intelligence services, and just needed to be signed off by Downing Street. Most important, of course, it needed to be signed off by the two architects of the leave campaign and renowned friends of Russian oligarchs, the Prime Minister and Dominic Cummings.

Six weeks, the Foreign Secretary told us, but how long has Downing Street now been sitting on the report? I will tell you how long: 12 weeks and five days. Now we are told that it has been cleared for publication, but that can only happen when the new Intelligence and Security Committee is convened. On behalf of the former Chair of the ISC, Dominic Grieve, who is sadly no longer in the House, let me read on to the record his reaction to that news. He said:

“The fact that he”

—the Prime Minister—

“has been able to sanction its publication now shows that in fact it was perfectly possible to sanction its publication before parliament was dissolved…The reasons he gave at the time for non-publication were bogus.”

So there we have it: bogus arguments, bogus timetables, bogus excuses, and still no sign of the ISC report. Yet this Government have the barefaced cheek to ask Her Majesty to announce that they are protecting the integrity of our democracy.

In the absence of anything else of substance on foreign affairs in the Queen’s Speech, let me raise some of the other issues that were not mentioned, and ask the Minister who winds up the debate to address them. First, may I ask what on earth has happened to the Trump Administration’s so-called middle east plan? Has the Foreign Office still not had any sight of that plan? Is there even a plan to look at? Now that he is in a place of greater influence, perhaps the Prime Minister will press ahead with the international summit that he promised to convene as Foreign Secretary, so that we, and our fellow allies with an interest in the middle east, can spell out our red lines on the American plan. Or will he go one better, and use such a summit to demand that if the Trump Administration keep prevaricating, we and others will resume the role of honest broker between Israel and Palestinian that Donald Trump is clearly incapable of fulfilling?

Secondly, talking of honest brokers, may I ask—for what is now the fourth year running since I became shadow Defence Secretary—why the Government are still refusing to use the power vested in them by the United Nations to draft a Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire in Yemen, to be observed by all parties? Yemen has just started its second year at the top of the International Rescue Committee’s rankings for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. How many more years do its people need to suffer before the Government finally pull their finger out and do their job at the United Nations?

Thirdly—this is a related matter—it is now more than 15 months since the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Last month, we saw the horrific spectacle in Riyadh of four junior Saudi operatives being sentenced to execution while all Bin Salman’s most senior aides were cleared of all charges. The Government have consistently asked us to have confidence that justice will be done by the Saudi authorities. Well, that was not justice. So I ask the Government, yet again, when they will publish their own assessment of who was responsible for ordering and carrying out the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and when they will deliver the “serious consequences” that were promised from the Dispatch Box

Fourthly, it was distressing last week to read the report of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact into the Foreign Office’s prevention of sexual violence initiative, which was intended to tackle the global use of rape as a weapon of war. We welcomed that initiative at the time, but we now read in the commission’s report that “ministerial interest waned” after William Hague left the Foreign Office—[Interruption.] That is a quote from the report, which goes on to say that

“staffing and funding levels dropped precipitously”.

The commitment to the campaign in London fell and a budget of £15 million and 34 staff in 2014 has fallen to £2 million and four workers, including the intern.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

If the right hon. Lady wants me to become her adviser, I am very happy to do so, although of course that has a cost attached: I would advise her to leave her position at once. Can she answer a very simple question? During the election, her party made it very clear that it would have Britain leave the customs union and be outside the single market, and it said that again after the election. Then her party began to drift, and the other day the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), now sitting on her right-hand side, said, “Actually, we could remain in the customs union and the single market.” While she is interrogating the Government, perhaps she would like to make clear what her party’s position is on leaving the European Union.

[Emily Thornberry]

It is such a shame that during those 20 seconds or so the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. The answer is on page 82 of the Red Book—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I stopped people shouting at the Foreign Secretary, and I will stop people shouting at the right hon. Lady. Listen to her answer.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Emily Thornberry

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made a point of order earlier about when the impact assessments were published, and I understand that there is an inquiry. When we heard the Secretary of State announce that they had been published, my researcher went to the Vote Office and found that they were not available. A phone call was made to the Vote Office in Members Lobby, which said that they had just arrived. This is not right, and I would like your advice about how we can hold the Government to account when they do not publish impact assessments until after the Secretary of State has got to his feet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. If a mistake has been made by the Vote Office, I am quite sure that Mr Speaker will be annoyed on behalf of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether Members can be given sufficient information even if papers are provided some 10 minutes before a debate, given the nature of the impact assessments. If we are to read them properly and understand them, surely Members, if at all possible, should be given more than a few minutes’ notice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I simply observe that the debate started at 5.34 pm and it is now 6.36 pm, so it has been under way for an hour. I appreciate that the Chair insists that Members of Parliament should take part in the debate and concentrate on the speech being made at any particular moment, but I am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of intelligent Members to be able to participate in the debate while also looking at the papers that are now available to them. It would have been better had the papers been here earlier, but I am quite certain that this debate will go on for another three hours and 23 minutes and, if they now have the papers, Members ought to be able to multitask to the extent of listening to the debate and reading the papers at the same time. That does not mean, if a mistake has happened, that I condone it; if there has been one, it will be thoroughly investigated.