Emily Thornberry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Nov 2025 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The UK, as penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, has already played an important role in calling an urgent Security Council meeting this week, but what my hon. Friend says about Russia chimes with the Select Committee’s experience when we visited New York. It was suggested to us that the UK has held back from raising Sudan at the Security Council because it knows that Russia is likely to use its veto. Beyond providing direct aid funding, which I know is a priority for the Prime Minister, what can the United Kingdom do to focus the minds of the international community on the unfolding tragedy in Sudan? It has gone overlooked for far too long.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  In our report we called for the media to have free and full access to Gaza. The question has to be, “What have people got to hide?” Not allowing the media in is a breach of established norms. The media is allowed in no matter how difficult the circumstances. It is for the media to decide whether or not it should take the risk of going into a particular area, but the world does need to know what happened. There has to be some form of accountability. There has been limited accountability but nothing like the accountability there ought to have been had there been free access for the media.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  It is a very good question. Of course, the problem is that there is still not free access for anyone going in. Part of the concern, obviously, is that there is an attempt to undermine international jurists and the international courts by not just Israel but some of its allies. We need to ensure that we stand by the rule of law and the international courts. There needs to be a reckoning on both sides. There have been, on the face of it, the most terrible crimes committed and we need to ensure that people are held to account. We must not be afraid; we must do that.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  Of course I agree with that, and I respect the experience the hon. Gentleman has in relation to Northern Ireland. Disarming terrorists and being able to move on is of crucial importance.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to the report and all his work. It has been a great deal of work, and he certainly played his part it in, so I thank him. Yes, Britain can do so much. We have experience in the region, and we have really good friends. We also have the experience of Northern Ireland. People said there was no chance of getting peace and a long-term solution in Northern Ireland, until suddenly there it was. We need to bring a hopeful and positive attitude to this. I believe there is an important contribution that we can make.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  At the moment we find ourselves in a vacuum where there is no plan for what is to happen to the strip now. In a lawless situation, it is extremely challenging. That is why we have to keep moving forward. The ceasefire is not the answer but only the first step. There is some work being done, but I would like to be reassured that we are playing a central role in that. I believe that we could be and we should be.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  Just as I do not think Britain as a country can look away from what is happening, I do not think our Committee can look away either. We have asked the Government for their response to that particular court case, and we are still awaiting a proper response. There may well be some obligations that are attached to it, and we do think that it has taken too long for the Government to respond.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess that, in the 20 years I have been in Parliament, I have never done one of these before; it is all entirely new to me. If I am doing anything wrong, please, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I am sure you will—put me back on the straight and narrow. The situation in Palestine is a humanitarian catastrophe, an injustice and great unfinished business. It has also been a huge diplomatic challenge for our country and indeed for the rest of the world. We as a country believe that we have some responsibility to try to find a way through—and rightly so, given our history in the region and the potential assistance that we can give. For a long time, our policy on Israel and Palestine has been dictated by being close to the Americans, believing that they are the ones with the influence, but the Americans, until recently, were not really doing anything. In any event, the Israelis were certainly not listening to the Americans, and for sure they were not listening to us. The international community, I think, just stood and watched as hopes for a two-state solution ran into the sand. Meanwhile, our long-standing alliances with countries such as the Arab countries were blemished by our continual refusal to recognise Palestine, so while we had willingness, we were not as influential as we should or could be. In the view of our Committee, Britain needed to have a stronger voice, and there is more that we could do. In the words of the former Member for North East Bedfordshire, the former Middle East Minister, we tended to do “too little, too late”. Most of us thought that it was beyond time to recognise a Palestinian state. It was of immense importance as an expression of intent and good will, and to help reset the important relationships in the region. I was really pleased that, four days after our report was published, the Government committed to recognising a Palestinian state. I accept that it was not just our report that persuaded them. It was also the circumstances of the France-Saudi Arabia conference, and the campaigning of a great many people, not least Members of this House, particularly the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). Our report also recommended that humanitarian aid must immediately flow in under the auspices of the UN, and called for the immediate dismantling of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. I am glad that we have seen the back of that organisation—good riddance—but I am keen to hear more from the Government about their contribution to the UN 60-day plan to deliver vital food, aid and sanitation. The Committee’s report was not just about Gaza. We all agreed that everything has to be done to protect the west bank from an increasingly violent and organised settler movement with representation at the highest levels of the Israeli Government. We went on a visit, and saw evidence of settlers thinking they could act with impunity. We also met organisations established to monitor the settlements that are being undermined by Israeli legislation taking funding away from non-governmental organisations. We urge the Government to prepare a comprehensive ban on the import of settlement goods, because when we say that settlements are illegal, we must mean it, and we must follow through. We also called for the Government to immediately evacuate injured children for medical treatment in the UK, and I am pleased that they immediately committed to doing so. We called for the Government to participate in peacebuilding, and to kick-start negotiations for a long-term two-state solution. They told us that they had played a full part in the France-Saudi Arabia conference, but the question is: what is happening now, and how are we going to keep moving forward? We have to keep moving forward. Many of us have been asked to express a conclusion on breaches of international law, from genocide downwards. The Government have consistently maintained the position that they are not able to make a determination—first because it is not for them but for a court, and secondly because we need to see the evidence. I have to say, it looks like a genocide to me, but I am not a court. That is why we need to play a role in collecting evidence for the future legal reckoning that must come. I am really disappointed—more than that, I am genuinely surprised—that the Government did not agree to this in their response to our report. One of the things that the Labour Government pride themselves on, which I am proud of too, is their commitment to upholding international law, no matter how difficult it is. I really do not understand why they have taken that view. Our report is the sum of a huge amount of work by members of the Committee and Committee staff, for which I am hugely grateful. We always knew that as soon as it was published it would go out of date. Maybe it has gone out of date in a good way; at least there is some semblance of a ceasefire now and the hostages have been released, though it is very difficult to say all that given the events of this week. What remains consistent is the approach that we believe the Government should take: to be consistent and clear; to act as a convenor, a sensible friend and a force for good; to work hard; to refuse to look away; and to take seriously our responsibilities in the region. Peace will come. It is a question of when and how, and whether Britain will be at the forefront of crafting it. We believe that Britain should be.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is another Member of the Committee who worked very hard on this report. His focus and commitment really made a difference to the report, so I thank him for that. We on the Committee are concerned about the funding and assistance that can be given for governance, defending democracy and creating states, not just in Gaza but in other countries. We are very concerned about the budget and exactly how much will be available to do the vital work that Britain is really good at. We do not want to withdraw from the field.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Israel-Palestine Conflict: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this report; her contribution has been so important. She is right: what we are trying to do when finding peace is to bring hope and a future, not just for Palestinian children but for Israeli children too, so that they can live in peace together and have a decent future.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased yesterday to see the Foreign Secretary writing in The Times : “Now is the time for international action to use Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to support Ukraine.” The trouble is that over the past three years, eight months and four days there has been a lot of talk about using these assets, and nothing has happened. I know that the Foreign Secretary knows that the last thing that Ukraine needs is warm words; we need action, particularly against a background of the Russians renewing their bombing campaign against civilians in the cities. The question is: if there is going to be a plan, when will it happen? When will this considerable sum of money be used to rearm and rebuild Ukraine?

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

  More

  I must say that we are all behaving so well this afternoon. I was saying that there is no incentive or funding mechanism in the Chagos archipelago deal, yet the treaty we are talking about—the subject of the Bill we are giving a Second Reading today—does have that very funding mechanism. Why does it? Because we know that that is needed for it to work. Without a dedicated funding mechanism for Chagos marine protection, in which a transfer of funds is contingent on the continuing protection of the marine environment, there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue. The Mauritian Government want to allocate resources for doing so, but they operate in a resource-constrained environment. It is therefore deeply regrettable that both parties did not reach an agreement on future arrangements for environmental protection across the Chagos archipelago before signing the treaty. They should have allocated dedicated funds to it, or agreed a funding mechanism that would have been a proper basis for confidence. In short, the Chagos agreement should have followed the lead of the BBNJ agreement. I remain concerned that there is a lack of concrete action on the future conservation of the Chagos archipelago’s unique marine environment and biodiversity. I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has given to the House and my Committee, but now actions need to be taken, drawing on the example presented by the BBNJ agreement. The ratification of the high seas treaty is testament to Britain’s renewed global leadership on climate and nature. That reputation risks being undermined by a failure to invest in the protection of the unique and extraordinary marine environment that is the Chagos islands.

• 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?