Emily Thornberry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the Minister might be able to help us. We had before us the Iranian ambassador, who made it clear that he wanted to be able to continue to negotiate. Given the way in which the joint comprehensive plan of action fell apart and the fact that the Iranians were in the middle of negotiating when there was the attack by the Israelis, if a significant segment of the Iranian regime wants to continue to negotiate, what is Britain doing to ensure that we have jaw-jaw, not war-war?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could help the House. During the 14 years when the Conservatives were in power, when was the time that the benefits system worked well?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  In the year since the election of this Labour Government, Britain is back as a force for good on the world stage. Following the outbreak of conflict in the middle east last week, I was proud to see the Prime Minister lead calls for calm, cool heads and de-escalation. In its aftermath, we must take seriously the renewed defence commitments that the Prime Minister has made at NATO, but we must also proudly wield the soft convening and convincing power that the UK has in spades. That soft power has historically been the key to successful diplomatic efforts in Iran, securing the joint comprehensive plan of action, and in the wider middle east and around the world. Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Foreign Affairs Committee has learned from our conversations with our European allies, which is that Britain is quietly and effectively stepping up to lead the fight against Russian disinformation and cyber-warfare, and that the investment we will be putting in will be well spent?

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  Our relationship with China is most definitely a difficult one. On the one hand, it is our third biggest trading partner, but on the other hand, the national security strategy, on page 35, says that there is an increase in espionage, China is undermining our economic security and interfering in our democracy, and that has increased over recent years. The Foreign Office needs to hold the ring. The China audit needs to be wide-ranging. It is an important piece of work. We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account?

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In the absence of the published China audit, which we have all been looking forward to so much, the national security strategy has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by many of us. On China, it states: “Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years.” May we have some guidance on how we will address that, because that is not entirely clear? In particular, what advice is being given to the nations and regions when they are dealing with our third-biggest trading partner, with whom we need to promote but also protect ourselves?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  We must not forget Gaza. Despite the eyes of the world now being turned to the Iran-Israel war, it is important that we continue to remember the suffering of the Gazans and continue to move on it. As a witness from Médecins Sans Frontières said to my Committee, there is “lethal chaos” in Gaza. There is one read-across from the Iran-Israel war that I think we should learn from: the clear closeness between Israel and America, and the fact that America can influence Israel. I ask the Minister to ensure that we continue to say in our conversations with the Americans not to give up on Gaza, and to use their influence to ensure that the Israelis do the right thing. There must be peace and the hostages must come home.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The only way to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb is a deal, but there cannot be a deal without negotiations and there cannot be negotiations without trust. President Trump tore up the first nuclear deal and is now acting alongside Israel, and its attack last week ended the US-Iran negotiations for a new nuclear deal. The war aims of this campaign are so unclear, with an emboldened Netanyahu Government calling for regime change, and President Trump hinting at it, too. In all those circumstances, it is difficult to see how there can be negotiations based on trust. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain must continue to play a role in the negotiations, even though they must seem an incredibly difficult and challenging prospect?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  It is completely understandable that Israel feels threatened by a bellicose neighbour with uranium mines and a nuclear programme, but the rest of the world is unanimous in saying that the way to deal with Iran is through discussion, negotiation and a nuclear agreement. There once was such a deal, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Baroness Cathy Ashton among others, but that deal was derailed by President Trump, egged on by Israel. Now, belatedly, even President Trump has come to the view that the solution has to be a nuclear agreement with Iran secured through discussion and diplomacy. Yet in the middle of that, Israel has decided that the solution is a regional war. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain must remain firm, with the rest of the world, in urging both Israel and Iran to step back from a conflict? Military action can predict only one thing; it will not stop the Iranian nuclear programme, but it will ensure the deaths of innocent victims on both sides.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Air India Plane Crash · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister please convey the gratitude of this House to the Foreign Office staff and the police officers who have had such difficult work to do on behalf of us all? Public service can be very hard sometimes, but we are very grateful.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  I have to admit that when Brexit happened, I thought that the problem of Gibraltar would be so difficult that I really did not see how we would ever get over it. It is a tribute to the flair, the flexibility and the fraternity on display on all four sides of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary has been able to come to this place to announce such a great success, and I congratulate him and his team wholeheartedly. The Foreign Secretary talks about our scrutinising this matter in the usual way under the CRaG process. I have to say that I think the CRaG process is rubbish, and I ask him to look again at, in essence, our having the right, as opposed to being given it by largesse, to debate and vote on a treaty. The requirement is that the Government lay before Parliament a treaty, which this House may resolve not to ratify during a 21-day delay. How that is done, I frankly do not know, because it has never been done, but it could, in theory, result in a delay of 21 sitting days. In many cases, it would be not so much ping-pong as hoofing the ball up the pitch again and again. The CRaG process is obscure and out of date. It is basically the Ponsonby rule, and it is unfit for the 21st century and unfit for this place. I ask the Foreign Secretary to look at it again.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for what he has said about Gaza. The message he is sending to Netanyahu’s far-right Government could not be clearer, and it should have the unanimous support of this House. It is essentially, “This must stop.” Turning to the grown-up EU deal, which comes hard on the heels of the two other recent trade agreements, the Government are rightly confident that those deals will be popular and will provide great benefits to our country. As such, I ask the Prime Minister this: why not take this opportunity to fix a glaring hole in our democracy and simply put those agreements to a vote, allowing them to be scrutinised by this place? I can assure him that they will be passed.

• 15 May 2025 · Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister already knows my view that, as we develop our sanctions policy, Parliament should be more engaged so that we can have collective knowledge and all feed in to the best possible sanctions policy. We do not have enough of that at the moment, and there is more that we should do. One thing that Members would do is suggest more creative ways of using sanctions and more lateral thinking, but, in the end, it does not matter how creative or eye-catching a sanction is: if it is not enforced, it means nothing. My concern, and the concern of many, is that there are simply not enough investigations being done for breaches of sanctions, particularly against British companies. I have listened very carefully to the rapid way in which the Minister gave his statement and read carefully what is in it, but nothing in it says that more resources will be put into actually investigating potential breaches of sanctions. We can change rules and give more powers, but if there are not enough people actually kicking down doors—literally or otherwise —to ensure that companies are not breaching sanctions, we are frankly wasting a fantastic opportunity.

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I know that a lot is going on, but the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty is important. It is about our blue planet and our oceans, in which we used to have a leadership position. When we were leading it, 115 countries signed that treaty, but it needs to be ratified as well, and very few countries are ratifying it, including Britain. When we asked the Government about it, they said that it was because they did not have enough time. Have they dropped the ball, is there a Bill, will we ratify it, and will we ratify it before the UN Oceans Conference?