Westminster was rocked by political drama on Thursday as Labour launched a scathing condemnation of Conservative MP Robert Jenrick, accusing him of crossing parliamentary lines with a personal attack on Attorney General Rachel Reeves.
Commons Clash Escalates
The political firestorm erupted during Justice Questions when Jenrick, the former immigration minister, directly challenged Reeves about her legal advice concerning the Rwanda asylum scheme. In a move that sparked immediate outrage from the opposition benches, Jenrick questioned whether the Attorney General had provided "robust and comprehensive" legal guidance to ministers.
Labour's Furious Response
Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry led the counter-attack, branding Jenrick's approach as "completely inappropriate" and accusing him of attempting to undermine the government's chief legal officer. "This wasn't a policy debate - this was a personal attack designed to question the professional competence of the Attorney General," Thornberry stated.
The Labour frontbencher emphasised that while robust political debate is expected, direct attacks on the Attorney General's legal advice represent a dangerous departure from parliamentary convention. "There are lines you don't cross, and Mr Jenrick crossed them today," she added.
Constitutional Implications
Legal experts watching the exchange noted the unusual nature of the confrontation. The Attorney General's role as the government's principal legal adviser has traditionally been treated with cross-party respect, with previous holders of the office rarely facing such direct challenges to their professional judgment in the Commons chamber.
The incident highlights the increasingly tense atmosphere in Parliament as the government faces scrutiny over its immigration policies and the controversial Rwanda scheme. With both sides digging in their heels, this confrontation suggests the political battles over immigration policy are set to intensify in the coming weeks.
