Emily Thornberry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member is saying, and he is absolutely right on the blue belt. Does he therefore regret that in all the debates we have had about the Chagos Islands, the Conservatives have not raised the importance of the conservation of the fish stocks and the biodiversity around those islands?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks and for the attention that the FCDO has paid to the importance of marine conservation. The biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty represents a transformation in the way that we protect nature in the high seas. I commend the Government for being an early proponent of the agreement, and I am so pleased—in fact, I am thrilled—to see that we are finally going to ratify it. I feel that I have been witnessing the Chamber at its best this afternoon. To hear such passion and such well-informed expertise on both sides has been a real honour. It reminds one what an honour we all have in being Members of this place and sitting in a room to listen to such speeches, which has been wonderful. Let me confess that I am one of those people—I remember that when I came back from seeing sperm whales I was still weeping, and I apologised to the organiser of the trip that I seemed to just not be able to stop weeping, but she said, “Don’t worry, dear. We see lots of people like you on these trips.” I feel as though I have found my people, given the passion that has been expressed today for the high seas and for biodiversity. Today, I want my speech to have a particular focus—please forgive me for this—because I believe that our commitment to this treaty can be tested by how we treat our current responsibilities. I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in using the Chagos islands as a test. I apologise for not recognising that the Opposition have been talking about the biodiversity of the Chagos islands. Perhaps I was only focused on the considerable amount of time they have spent on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. I have since spent the time available looking up their references to biodiversity, and there have been three of them, so I apologise for saying that there had not been any. I have had a number of exchanges in this House with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has responsibility for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, about the vital importance of safeguarding marine protected areas around the Chagos islands. I am grateful for the assurances he has given me that the Government are committed to the continued protection of the unique and unparalleled environment of the Chagos archipelago. However, the FCDO’s assurances, although welcome, really do not go far enough, but before I say why, I want to explain why these waters matter so much—not least because of their role in replenishing the high seas—and the extraordinary obligation that the UK owes the world to ensure that they remain protected. As has been said, these 640,000 sq km of near pristine ocean are among the most pristine in the world. They are home to the largest living coral atoll and to 58 islands. They are the breeding site for more than a quarter of a million pairs of seabirds, as well as the vital and unexplored deep-sea ecosystems that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) talked about with such passion. The vast no-take zone that the UK established in 2010 provides a vital sanctuary for numerous endangered species. If this marine environment were damaged, it would do huge damage to the seas generally and to species already on the brink of extinction, such as the endangered hawksbill turtle, which forages in the waters of the Chagos islands and nests on their beaches, or the unique population of reef manta rays, which use the protected waters as a refuge and which would soon disappear if those waters became unprotected. This is exactly the kind of marine life that the BBNJ agreement seeks to protect through the establishment, among other measures, of marine protected areas in the high seas. The vast marine protected area around the Chagos islands provides a safe corridor and foraging ground for vital migratory species and apex predators such as tuna, sharks and whales, and without it we would see their numbers crash much more widely across the world. In a warming world in which coral is dying at a terrifying rate, the coral in the Chagos archipelago is relatively healthy and acts as a reseeding bank for other reefs in the Indian ocean through larval dispersal. The reefs and marine life of the Chagos archipelago help to replenish degraded reefs and depleted fish stocks from east Africa to Indonesia. The coral in the Chagos archipelago has shown an extraordinary degree of resilience and an ability to recover even from bleaching events, and it is not known why. This resilience and the undisturbed nature of the Chagos ocean make it a really important site for scientific study. It could give us an important insight into what we can do next to save our coral reefs, and a proper insight into how healthy marine ecosystems function and the impact of climate change. For the last 15 years, the UK has protected those waters and taken seriously its duties as the steward of those ecosystems, just as the BBNJ agreement invites the entire international community to do as stewards of the high seas. As the UK now hands them over to Mauritius, we have an equally serious duty to ensure that they remain protected. That brings me to the terms of the Chagos deal and the Minister of State’s evidence to my Foreign Affairs Committee, for which I am grateful to him. The Minister noted that the UK and Mauritian Governments are committed to promoting the conservation of the environment of the archipelago. I obviously welcome that, and I pay tribute to the Government of Mauritius for their clear determination to protect nature. Nothing I am about to say is intended to cast any doubt on that commitment. The problem, however, is that Mauritius is a democracy—a vibrant democracy—in which Governments have historically had different attitudes to protecting the ocean. It is therefore not good enough for the Minister just to point to the commitment of the current Mauritian Government to marine protection; we need a basis for lasting confidence and mechanisms to ensure that these ecosystems remain protected for future generations. My principal concern is that there is no funding mechanism in place to ensure that Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos archipelago and to incentivise it to do so. That stands in contrast to the treaty we are discussing.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  It seems to me that the issue is this: given that all the deputy NSA’s witness statements refer to China as a threat, I cannot understand why the CPS took the nuclear option of collapsing the case rather than leaving it to a jury. Twenty years as a criminal barrister has given me absolute faith that the jury would have spent no time on how many angels can dance on the top of a pin, but would simply have looked at whether or not China was an enemy. They would have found it very easy to decide that that is exactly what it was and then moved on to whether or not these men had been spying on behalf of China. It does seem to me that the decision should have been left to a jury. Does my hon. Friend have any idea why on earth the CPS dropped the case?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by publicly welcoming the Foreign Secretary to her new post, and by echoing her comments about the previous Foreign Secretary. I also welcome her commitment to finally using the Russian frozen assets. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon, because those assets are needed for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine. I am pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary is going to take further advantage of Britain’s unique sanctions regime by extending it against Russian individuals and companies, but she knows—perhaps better than most, given her previous experience—that a regime is only as good as its enforcement, and there are times when doors need to be kicked down. It worries me that officials from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation told the Treasury Committee a year ago that they had issued only one £15,000 fine against a British business for engaging with a sanctioned individual. How many British businesses have faced financial penalties for direct or indirect breaches of sanctions on Russia or the Russian state since then, and what has been the value of those fines?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  It seems that there is now case law saying that an enemy is a threat to national security. Frankly, that seems to be a lower test not a higher test. But if, in 2024, there was evidence that China was an enemy and the Crown Prosecution Service had made a decision to prosecute on that basis, I cannot understand why there has been a change now. The only other answer is that the Crown Prosecution Service did not properly assess the evidence before making those charges. Moving away from all the light, heat and fury, it seems to me that those are the central points.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by expressing solidarity with the two previous Conservative Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who would seem to have suffered from having Chinese spies in their offices? That must have been very distressing, upsetting and threatening. The DPP’s claim of needing further evidence from the Government and decision not to publish the China audit has, I think, become conflated and resulted in a great deal of muddle and confusion, and allegations that the Government are soft-pedalling on China. Before we disappear down that rabbit hole, may I take us back to basics? As I understand it, these men were charged with an offence under section 1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act: to pass on information that “might be…directly or indirectly useful to an enemy”. When the Crown Prosecution Service was building its case, presumably it had a witness and presumably that witness was the deputy National Security Adviser, who was there to answer this question: is China an enemy? Without that evidence, there was no point in charging the men in 2024. What has changed since 2024? We are told that what has changed is that the enemy is now— [Interruption.]

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that I agree with her completely. I think that would be very wise.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, we all think that it was a mistake. The question is how the mistake occurred and how we can ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again, because something went very wrong. When Lord Mandelson was appointed, red flags were obviously missed or ignored. On the day that the American President lands in Britain for a state visit, the Government are materially worse off because we do not have an ambassador to the United States.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman raises some important points. The power of Select Committees to summon witnesses has been an ongoing debate, and I suspect we have not resolved it yet. He also raises the matter of Privy Counsellors; our Committee has myself and another Privy Council member. The difficulty is that if we were offered Privy Council briefings, as we are sometimes, it is quite difficult, because we want to be able to do those things in public and inform the public of the work of the Foreign Office to ensure that when difficult decisions are being made, they understand why those decisions are being made, with all the factors involved in that. That is fine; I think we need to trust the public more than we sometimes do. We certainly need to trust Back Benchers more than we sometimes do.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one final time, but then I will finish.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will get to the end of this paragraph, and then I will give way. That is why yesterday my Committee asked the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Office head of propriety and ethics to appear before us and explain what went wrong. We have been told that no one is available before the recess, but we will continue to push for prompt and public answers.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is difficult to have answers to all the right hon. Gentleman’s questions at the moment. I think the most important thing is that lessons are learned, and even if all due process was followed and the inquiries were proceeded with to the letter, they clearly are not good enough and we need to change them. Either due process was not followed or it was and we need to change it. Either way, we need to work together to ensure that this never happens again, because something went very wrong.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister help us with this? In the letter that the new Foreign Secretary wrote to me, she said that the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team conducted a due diligence process at the request of No. 10 prior to the announcement of the appointment, and that the FCDO was not asked to contribute to that process and no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of it. Now that the Minister has heard that, is he surprised that the Foreign Office was not involved?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  My Committee first asked for the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson at the end of last year, when rumours first surfaced about his appointment as ambassador to the United States. We continued to ask after his appointment was confirmed. Indeed, the Minister may remember our exchange, on 14 January in this Chamber, when I asked him to “allow Lord Mandelson the time to come before my Committee before he leaves for the United States” to “allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him”. —[ Official Report , 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 143.] Requests were made more often, and privately, after that, and in the eight months since. They have been turned down. I understand that there have been some Chinese whispers going on. It has been claimed that the FCDO has been telling journalists that the Committee had the opportunity to meet and question Lord Mandelson when we were in Washington. Obviously, there has been a break in the chain, because the reality is that we had a 15-minute interaction over breakfast while receiving a formal briefing from diplomatic staff about other meetings that day, which is quite materially different from the type of formal evidence session required to conduct meaningful scrutiny. I want to make it clear that we have not sought to question Lord Mandelson out of a desire to frustrate the Government or their diplomatic agenda. In fact, quite the opposite. It is our responsibility to scrutinise the FCDO to prevent exactly this sort of mistake from damaging Britain’s reputation on the international stage. We want to make the Foreign Office the best it can be and in so many ways it is doing an absolutely excellent job. It is fantastic to see the way in which Britain’s reputation has been so enhanced. However, mistakes can be, and obviously have been, made. The shocking revelations of the last week were not in the public domain in December, but Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was very widely known. Had my Committee had the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson, I am confident that our members would have raised a range of questions, along with these ones, as journalists, particularly those at the Financial Times , have tried to do. It is quite possible that those questions may have provoked evasive answers, possibly not true answers, or even the same sort of response met by journalists, particularly those from the Financial Times , but that would all have been in the public sphere. It would have been on the record, and Lord Mandelson would have had the opportunity to tell the truth before the House. Having failed to convince the Government to permit my Committee to question Lord Mandelson, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on Friday, posing a number of questions about the apparent failures in the due diligence and vetting processes conducted before and after the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Those questions included whether there were any concerns raised by agencies undertaking security clearance ahead of Lord Mandelson’s appointment and whether a decision was taken to dismiss any such security concerns, and, if so, whether such a decision was taken by the FCDO or by No. 10. I also asked whether any decision was taken to suspend or alter the usual vetting requirements or the usual timeframe for vetting procedures. I thank the Foreign Secretary for her prompt response to that letter, which I received this morning. In her reply, she informs me that the initial due diligence process had been carried out by the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team before the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment, as has been widely reported. She assures me that the Foreign Office did not contribute to that process, and that no issues were raised by the FCDO as a result.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I think this is quite important, and I would like to have the opportunity to inform the House with clarity so that we all know where we stand. I believe that this contribution to the debate is an important one. It is not a party political point; it is just trying to ensure that we learn from what we have heard. The Foreign Secretary assures me that the Foreign Office did not contribute to that Cabinet Office process, and that no issues were raised by the FCDO as a result. The question is this: did the Cabinet Office miss the glaring red flag of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, or did it fail to pass those concerns on? If so, why?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I would not quite put it like that; I think that the Executive do, in the end, make the decision—they are the Executive. However, I think that we should, as a Select Committee, have a role in this process, particularly when it comes to political appointments. It has happened before, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, when there were political appointments to the ambassador to South Africa and to Paris—it has happened in the past. I do think, particularly when there are political appointments, that the Select Committee should have a role in that process, and we can make better decisions as a result.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I really am finishing. If we do not have the opportunity to scrutinise this failure, how can we ensure that we stop it from happening again? We need to improve our scrutiny and our decision making.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is slightly more subtle than that. The point is that if Lord Mandelson had appeared before the Committee, he would have faced a range of questions that would have highlighted issues that needed to be considered properly and that could not, in the rush to appoint him, be overlooked in the way they seem to have been. It is about putting a brake on it. We would not, as a Committee, have the power to say that the Government cannot appoint someone, but we would shed light on the nature of the appointment and, through our questions, be able to examine whether or not it was the wisest thing to do.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Genuinely guys, just give me a chance to put this before you. The Foreign Secretary’s letter states that— [ Interruption. ] I hope that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) will give me an opportunity to put this before the House. I apologise for calling hon. Members “guys”. The Foreign Secretary’s letter states that the Cabinet Office due diligence process was followed by the usual developed vetting process, or DV, which was carried out by national security vetting on behalf of the FCDO, after the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. According to the Foreign Secretary, this was conducted to the “usual standard set for Developed Vetting.” Career civil servants are regularly subjected to such tests, and many have stories of their appointments being delayed or even prohibited because they have studied abroad, married an Iranian, or simply because they were born in Belfast. The question is this: does having significant information in the public domain about a relationship with an internationally prolific child sex offender not raise more red flags than simply being born in Belfast? Is a civil servant a greater risk to this country because they are married to somebody who was born in the middle east or because they were close friends with Jeffrey Epstein? Did the Foreign Office vetting process miss a glaring national security and reputational risk, or was it told to overlook it? My Committee’s duty is to scrutinise the Foreign Office to make it the best that it can be, and neither the Foreign Office nor the Cabinet Office has shown itself to be the best it can be in the process surrounding this appointment.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Qatar: Israeli Strike · Hansard source

  More

  What happened overnight illustrates a huge problem that the new Foreign Secretary will need to deal with; I am pleased that the Minister will be ably helping her. The problem is this: there is an emboldened, far-right Israeli Government who believe that they can do whatever they like and there will be no consequences, while on the other hand the country of Qatar is genuinely working towards peace. I know the Minister has met the Qatari Ministers; I have met them too. They could not be more sincere in the efforts they are making, yet they get bombed for their efforts. The question for the new Foreign Secretary is how we can make sure that we are not just bystanders but play an active role in dealing with this issue. How will the Prime Minister be able to convey such a message to President Herzog this afternoon?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Foreign Office has not agreed with Mauritius a defined financial allocation for the Chagos marine protected area; given that no additional money has been secured or ringfenced for environmental protection; given that no one who would be involved in the administration of the marine protected area has so much as visited the archipelago; given the very little communication between the Mauritius Government and the British scientific community, who currently protect the area; given that the capacity of Mauritius to patrol the archipelago for poachers is unknown; and given that it is not clear whether the dispute mechanism set out in the treaty can even be used if the UK deems that Mauritius is in breach of its marine protection commitments, what are the Minister’s hopes for this absolutely unique and priceless marine protected area? Can that all be fixed by the memorandum of understanding?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I read with alarm yesterday’s report in The Washington Post detailing a plan for the future of Gaza that is circulating among the Trump Administration. They call it the “GREAT” plan. It proposes the total transformation of Gaza into a tourist region—a high-tech hub under temporary US administration. What is going to happen to the Gazans? Well, 2 million of them will be temporarily relocated to other countries, including Somaliland and South Sudan. Forced population transfer is contrary to, and a complete violation of, international humanitarian law. Serious thought must be given to the day after for Gaza, and my Committee recommended as much in our report that was published in July, but this unserious, illegal and deeply dystopian plan cannot be the sum of that thinking. What are the Government doing to dissuade Donald Trump from following this path? What, alongside regional and European allies, are we doing to put forward a serious plan for a peaceful future in Israel, Gaza and the west bank that is ready for the day after this terrible war finally comes to an end?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier today, 31 countries put out a powerful message: the war must end now, aid must go into Gaza unrestricted, the hostages must be released, and all parties must uphold international law. That powerful message was sent to Israel, and by return it was rejected. It was denounced by Israel as being “disconnected from reality”. So what now? In that statement, the 31 nations said: “We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.” What are we going to do, may I ask, and does that include the final recognition of Palestine?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the ministerial team for my early briefing, which gave me an opportunity to read a Foreign Affairs Committee report that came out—it was begun in September 2021—in 2022 under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). It is called “Missing in action: UK leadership and the withdrawal from Afghanistan” and it was excoriating: “The manner of the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan was a disaster, a betrayal of our allies, and weakens the trust that helps to keep British people safe.” It said: “the Government should keep better records—securely held—on locally-employed staff”— we have heard that this is one of the many data losses from ARAP— “to ensure that any evacuation can be carried out more effectively. It should devise a policy, based on clear and fair principles, about the assistance that will be offered to local partners in the event of a security deterioration, and report to us when it has done so.” I hope that such a policy has been developed, that more lessons have been learnt and that Ministers will report to my Foreign Affairs Committee about where we are now.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  I spent the first 20 years of my professional life in the criminal courts as a barrister. There is no one who loves the criminal justice system, or who has more respect for juries, than I do. However, the courts now are not what they were. The delays are so appalling that defendants just plead “not guilty”, because they know that their case will not come up for years, and the chances of actually facing justice are minimal. It is in that extreme state, which we have inherited from the Conservative Government, that radical action is needed. I know that my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench feel as I do about the criminal justice system and want it to work, so when they are looking at Sir Brian’s recommendations, will they consider a sunset clause? If his recommendations work, there will come a time when we can increase the amount of jury service again.