Standards in Public Life
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(5 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
We cannot have points of order; we are just beginning the statement. [Interruption.] Those are the rules of the House. I am not going change them especially for you.
I call the shadow Minister.
Darren Jones
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election, and they elected a landslide Labour majority, with the Conservatives suffering an historic defeat. In my view, one of the reasons the public booted that lot out of office was their repeated failings in standards and ethics, from the personal protective equipment contracts for dodgy friends to lying to Parliament and the sexual misconduct scandals. The hon. Gentleman asks me why it is that Ministers who have breached the code have resigned. It is because we fixed the system. The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who cannot be directed by the Prime Minister, as was the case under the previous Government, is that they are independent. When Ministers have been found to have broken the code, they have gone, because that should be the consequence for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Prime Minister knew at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, but the Prime Minister has already answered that question repeatedly. The information that has come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the Prime Minister about the state of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Had the Prime Minister known at the point of appointment what we all know now, with the privilege of hindsight, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions about the process flowing from the Humble Address. As I have already informed the House, the Government are working with the leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we can comply with the Humble Address and co-operate with transparency to release the documents as we have said we will, in compliance with the Met police investigation and other constraints that are currently being managed. We will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the House effectively in line with the Humble Address.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement and for telling us that relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles where the appointee will have access to highly classified material, will have to pass the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. [Interruption.] That may sound surprising to Conservative Members, who probably did not hear what my right hon. Friend said as they were barracking him so much, but that is to be—[Interruption.] That is to be welcomed.
The Foreign Affairs Committee believed that Peter Mandelson should have come before our Committee before he was sent to Washington, and we were right. We should not have been prevented from seeing him. In the past, political appointees to ambassadorial roles have nearly always appeared before the Committee, but only at the Foreign Office’s discretion. We do not want it to have that discretion any more. We would like it written into the rules that before someone is appointed to an ambassadorial role or to be chair of the British Council or director of the BBC World Service, those political appointees must appear in public before the Foreign Affairs Committee and answer our questions.
Darren Jones
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. She raises important points about the process for appointing ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and the host country accepting their appointment to the role. That is why we have made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation.
My right hon. Friend asks me about the role of pre-appointment hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her Committee that it is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before the Committee to answer questions. Of course, we continue to keep all other pre-appointment hearings under review.
Lord Mandelson
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to start by acknowledging the victims of Epstein and the powerful men around him: vulnerable, abused women and girls who were sold and traded. Since the publication of Epstein’s papers, we have learnt so much more. An email from Jeffrey Epstein to Peter Mandelson, dated 28 October 2009, reads as follows:
“new york? brown? cuban-american…have you made any decisions?”
A few minutes later, Peter Mandelson responds:
“why are you awake. these questions are all related – desp for CuAm but can only get to NY at a time when people feel G”
—that may be Gordon Brown—
“won’t have some sort of breakdown…still working on it, therefore”.
There are so many questions to be asked about that. One of the suggested answers might be that this is not just about young women.
Emily Thornberry
I will come to that, because it is important, and it is important to put it in context.
Since then, we have seen not just that, but treachery of the worst kind. The question is: how did we get here? How did a man like that become Britain’s ambassador to the United States? We must begin by taking ourselves back to the time when Donald Trump was elected, and consider how challenging and difficult it was to know who was the best choice for ambassador. There was a choice: we could have continued with the ambassador who was already there, Karen Pierce. She had been invited to Mar-a-Lago many times; she had connections with Donald Trump’s circle; she was an older woman; she was a powerhouse; she is great at making friends; she wears mad shoes. She is one of a generation of senior, older women, too many of whom are no longer in the Foreign Office and have been replaced by boys. At the time when Labour was elected, all the other six members of the G7 were represented by women, as was the United Nations. Now there is only one.
We had a choice between deciding to ask Karen Pierce to continue to be the ambassador and going in another direction. The question was: what was the right way to do it? We chose Mandelson because it was seen as an imaginative response, and I welcomed it as an imaginative response. Personally, I would have continued with Karen Pierce, who is a woman I know, trust and admire, but if a different direction was to be taken, it was a choice that was imaginative and one that made some sense in the context of Donald Trump becoming President.
On 3 November, when we discovered more information about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, we asked Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, and Oliver Robbins, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to come before the Foreign Affairs Committee to give evidence, because we were concerned about how this had happened. Clearly, so much background information about Peter Mandelson was out there but did not seem to have been considered properly before a decision was made, so we asked how it had happened. We were told that the first thing that had happened was due diligence. Due diligence meant fast-stream civil servants having the opportunity to search open sources, so they go to Google and they look, and that threw up reference to Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
I said to Sir Chris Wormald—this is question 313 in the transcript—
“It is really important to be clear about this—I am sorry to keep banging on about it—but was the Prime Minister told that Peter Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2009, when Epstein was in prison for soliciting an under-age girl?”
Perhaps this is because of my background as a lawyer, but there seems to me to be a difference here. To stand by a friend who has been accused of something shows one sort of character—it shows a certain strength—but to continue to be friends with them after they have been convicted, and to stay at their house, shows a completely different type of character. That, to me, was a nub point, so I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been given that information, which was publicly available—although, I have to say that it had passed me by; I knew of the friendship, but that is different from knowing that the friendship had continued post-conviction. I think it is really important to establish that difference, and that was something we asked about in the Committee hearing. The answer was, “I am not going to tell you the contents of the due diligence report.”
Alicia Kearns
I understand that the right hon. Lady is saying that the information that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with a then convicted paedophile passed her by. However, she does have an entire committee of Clerks who will have advised her. She also says that she said that this was an imaginative appointment. I am afraid she actually said that it was an “inspired appointment”. I know, because I spoke out against the appointment. Will she please tell me whether her Clerks at any point shared with her concerns about the background of Epstein and his relationship with Mandelson, and whether she will therefore now say that she regrets calling it an “inspired appointment”?
Emily Thornberry
Anyone who either made the decision or said that it was a good thing must regret it, of course, but we must remember that the appointment was made on the 18th and I made those comments two days later. During those two days—in the run-up to Christmas—the Clerks were not the people I referred to first. Work was done thereafter, and the reason for that work was that we wanted Mandelson, once his appointment had been announced, to come before the Committee to be questioned. We felt that it was very important that he should appear before the Committee in an open hearing, where we could ask him questions, such as the ones that I put, and a record could be made.
Emily Thornberry
May I just finish?
For instance, I said this:
“if you had come before us, we would have looked on the internet—we would have googled—and we would have found that Channel 4 had done a documentary, ‘The Prince & the Paedophile’, that clearly highlighted Mandelson’s links with Epstein. We would have given consideration to the Financial Times and Guardian reports in June 2023 that referenced the JP Morgan internal investigation. In those reports, what was most damning of all was that Epstein was sentenced in 2008 to 18 months’ imprisonment for soliciting an underage girl, and Peter Mandelson goes to stay in his townhouse in Manhattan in 2009. At that time, Peter Mandelson was the Business Secretary. So we have the Business Secretary staying in the townhouse in Manhattan of someone convicted of paedophilia.”
We would have asked those questions, and whatever answers would have been given, whether they were honest or not, would have been out there in public.
The problem, I think, was that a decision was made in the haste of Donald Trump’s election to go for an “imaginative”, “inspiring” or “alternative” person to go to the United States, and not enough time was spent on it. The decision was therefore made to appoint, subject to—
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
No, please, let me finish. [Interruption.] I want to finish what I am saying.
Emily Thornberry
So the decision to appoint was made. There was supposed to be some due diligence before that happens.
I can help the House by explaining what that “due diligence” meant. As I have said, that was looked at by civil servants on the fast stream. We asked, “When you did the due diligence, what detail of the results was given to the Prime Minister?” I said that it was very important that we were given information about what the Prime Minister had been told at that point, because the friendship with Epstein was generally known about, but the ongoing friendship and the specific point about him having stayed, while a member of Cabinet, in Epstein’s New York townhouse was, to me, a very different matter. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been let down by not being told that particular point. In the end, we cannot expect the Prime Minister to do all the due diligence himself—he does have a country to run. He relies on those around him to give him proper advice, so that he can then work on that advice and make decisions on that basis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
Seven Members are seeking to intervene. If I may, I will perhaps take two interventions.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This whole debate centres on the judgment, and trust in the judgment, of our Prime Minister of this United Kingdom when he decided to appoint the monster—when he decided to appoint Mandelson as our ambassador to the US. The right hon. Lady has just confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary refused to answer questions about vetting, yet the Prime Minister is asking us to trust the Cabinet Secretary to make decisions about the release of documents and information. Does she agree that it must be right that the Intelligence and Security Committee makes those decisions, as opposed to a Cabinet Secretary in whom we no longer can have trust?
Emily Thornberry
Again, for the record, I asked the Cabinet Secretary why he was not prepared to give that information to us, and he gave two reasons: first, because he felt that he had a duty of care to the candidate; and secondly, because he was not going to put information about his advice to No. 10 into the public realm.
I think that the proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense. We can see a lot of bustling around going on in the background of the Chamber at the moment, so let us see what comes from that. I will take one other intervention.
Dr Johnson
The right hon. Lady is making strong and clear points about the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson. The Prime Minister was clear at Prime Minister’s questions that he knew the relationship was ongoing, and he knew that at the time he appointed him. What sort of ongoing relationship with a non-related convicted paedophile is acceptable to the right hon. Lady for someone who is meant to represent our country on the world stage?
Emily Thornberry
I think I have made it clear that, for me, there is a difference between being a friend of someone who is accused of something and then putting distance between oneself and that person if they are then convicted. I think a decision should be made at that point. That goes to a matter of conscience and the right way to proceed. That is my view.
Emily Thornberry
I will not take any more interventions.
I have explained what our Committee was told about due diligence and how that happened. Normally what would then happen is that an interview would be done with a panel, and questions that arose during due diligence would be put to the candidate during that interview. But that did not happen in this case because it was a political appointment. So if anyone had any concerns about Peter Mandelson and his background, or any of the things that people are now concerned about, those would not have been formally put to him during any form of interview process where minutes were taken and we could now look at what those conversations were. That, I think, is a really important piece of information to put before this House so that people understand how this happened.
We have due diligence—fast-streamers looking at the internet—nothing being put to Peter Mandelson, and then the decision being announced. The decision was announced in the middle of December, as we have heard, and then they wanted to do it really quickly, presumably so that he could be at the President’s swearing-in. Also, once the announcement was made, Karen Pierce would have lost power and influence, because it would have been known that she was not continuing in post, so it was important to move as soon as possible.
The next stage was vetting, which is done by the Foreign Office. The question I have for Ministers is this: given that the announcement had been made and that speed was needed, was pressure put on the Foreign Office to get through the vetting quickly? Was there, to coin a phrase, a need to “get on with it”? That is an important question to ask and one that we need an answer to, but we must also be realistic. Once it was known that Peter Mandelson was going to be the ambassador for Britain, it would have taken huge bravery and introduced potential risk to withdraw him from the appointment if anything had come up at the vetting stage.
Mike Martin
As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, does the right hon. Lady know what the then Foreign Secretary—the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—knew at that time? Does she think that that should also be brought to the attention of the House in this release of documents?
Emily Thornberry
The point is that the due diligence and vetting are done by civil servants and are not supposed to involve politicians, and the decision was made in No. 10. That is how it works, as I understand it, so the views of the then Foreign Secretary may not be directly relevant.
Mike Martin
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way once again; she is being very generous. What is the point in civil servants doing due diligence if that information is not given to politicians when they make the decisions?
Emily Thornberry
No, it is given to those who are making the decisions—as I understand it. The due diligence is done by the Cabinet Office. It does due diligence on a number of candidates, and then the decision is made as to which candidate will be put forward. Then it is announced. Then the vetting is done by the Foreign Office, and that information is handed back. I believe that that is the process. I think it is important, for clarity, that people know the process, because if we are about to get a large amount of information, it is important to understand how it worked.
Simon Hoare
The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right in that respect. I will just quote from a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair:
“Due diligence is generally carried out by the appointing minister’s department (in this case it was carried out by the Cabinet Office on behalf of No 10) so is not usually shared with other departments, and was not in this case.”
That answers the question of whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was involved; this was purely the Cabinet Office and No. 10, so the right hon. Lady is right. I just thought that that quote might help her in her argument.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read the letter—I am afraid I did not have it at my fingertips—but I think it is important to put all this information before the House.
The next question is, what does “vetting” mean? I appreciate that there are other processes that we cannot go into here, and it would not be appropriate to do so, but I hope it will be of help to the House to share another answer from the Foreign Affairs Committee session. In question 269, I said:
“The foundation of it seems to be that they have a form to fill in, you take it in good faith that they are filling that in correctly, and then you check what it is that they have said, so if they have omitted anything, no one is looking outside what is on the form.”
Sir Oliver Robbins then said:
“That is broadly correct, yes.”
That is vetting.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I will touch on vetting in my contribution later, but as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office many years ago, I would like to seek clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the diplomatic service would undergo ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known in political terms—in Chief Whip terms—as the “pet process” undertaken by the Cabinet Office, because full vetting takes a long time?
Emily Thornberry
I understand what the right hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, I do not know. All I can do to help the House is point out that when it was announced in mid-December that Lord Mandelson would be the ambassador, pressure was being applied to make sure that we were all clear that he was going to be the ambassador in time for the swearing in of the President a month later. The Committee did everything that we could to try to get to the bottom of how many questions were asked and what the questions were, and we all did our utmost to try to get to the truth of this. If Members read the transcript, they will see that we were not “mandarined”.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the process, because many people outside it wonder what information is shared and what process is gone through. It is hard to believe that the information held by the Department of Justice in the US was not shared with our security services or disclosed in the process, given the security clearance that is required for a post of this nature. On that basis, and to eliminate any accusations of cover-up or conspiracy, is it not the right path to have the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this and thin the evidence that comes forward?
Emily Thornberry
Throughout my contribution, I have tried to explain the attempts that the Foreign Affairs Committee has made. The most important thing is that we asked several times. We asked straightaway in January, and we asked in February. We asked many times to have Lord Mandelson in front of the Committee, because we would have been able to ask those questions.
We would perhaps not be in the mess that we are in now if the Foreign Affairs Committee had been able to do its job properly, and we expect that the next political appointment, if there is one, will be put before the Committee so that we are able to ask questions in a way that is not necessary for appointments of people within the Foreign Office. If the Government want to appoint someone who is a politician, politicians should ask questions on the record, so that we know what we are getting, what contribution they can make and the risks that are being taken. We would have asked about Epstein and loans, and the answers—truthful or not—would have been on the record.
China and Japan
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.
On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given £50,000 by a notorious paedophile and that a few years later he sent on market-sensitive information to Epstein, who worked for JP Morgan, about market bail-outs. He told him about the Prime Minister’s resignation, said that they should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is a matter not of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords, but of whether the police should be involved.
G20 and Ukraine
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by complimenting the Prime Minister on his work on the international stage? Is he aware that a statement was put out yesterday by the Chairs of Foreign Affairs Committees of 22 Parliaments across Europe, in which we made it clear that we are united in the belief that Ukraine’s sovereignty is vital not just for brave Ukrainians but for the continued security of Europe? We are therefore pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure the House that any plan that is to be agreed will be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, but can he also assure the House that there will be “nothing about Europe without Europe”?
The Prime Minister
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I did see that letter that was put out yesterday. She is absolutely right to say that this conflict affects not only Ukraine and its sovereignty but the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, in our values and our security, and materially in relation to things like the cost of living and the price of energy. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about Europe without Europe and nothing about NATO without NATO are key principles that sit behind the work that we are doing.
Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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?
Chris Ward
As I say, this was a decision taken by the CPS independently, with no interference or involvement from the Government. Members may or may not sympathise with that decision. It was a CPS decision. That is why it is important that the evidence is in the public domain now and that everyone can judge from that how things proceeded.
I will just make one final point. Obviously, the CPS decision was not based purely on the evidence put forward by the DNSA. It was based on much wider evidence collected over a much longer period, so the decision on whether to proceed was taken by the CPS on a much broader evidential basis.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This House will listen to the right hon. Member with respect.
Emily Thornberry
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.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. She talked about muddle and confusion: she is right that there has been a lot of ill-informed commentary in previous days. That is precisely why the Government have proactively brought a statement to the House to set out the facts of the trial, and I am very happy to be able to do that.
Let me do that again for my right hon. Friend. The DPP has set out the reasons at the heart of his decision not to take this case to trial. He believed that the evidential test was not met. The DPP took an independent decision on the evidence, as was set out in his letter of 7 October. The DNSA did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anyone to do so. As the Prime Minister, her constituency neighbour, has explained very clearly, the current Government’s policy position was immaterial to this assessment. It is only the Government’s policy at the time that the alleged offences were committed that is relevant.
My right hon. Friend will understand that the CPS decision to drop the case was not influenced by any member of this Government, special adviser or senior official. I have been crystal clear about that today. The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party. As the Government have already stated, the suggestions that the Government concealed evidence or withdrew or leant on witnesses are all untrue.
G7 and NATO Summits
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The need to de-escalate was the central focus going into the weekend and coming out of it, and I am very pleased that we have reached a ceasefire in relation to the conflict in Iran. We absolutely need that to hold.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the soft convening power of the United Kingdom. It is an incredible asset and, yes, I can confirm that we are working with others in relation to Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks, which, as the House knows, are a regular occurrence.
National Security Strategy
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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?
Pat McFadden
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. If people look at page 39 of the document, they will see many references to China, and I referred to the statement that the Foreign Secretary is going to make. On our advice to people, as I said, it is guided by the protection of our security interest and the promotion of our economic interest. She refers specifically to the devolved Governments and the nations and regions. We did arrange a recent security briefing for the First Ministers at the time of the recent meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions, because we agree it is important to bring them into our thinking and help them play their role in protecting our national security interest, too.
UK-EU Summit
Emily Thornberry Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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.
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a process for implementing any agreement. All of these agreements will require legislation, and therefore they will go through the House on that basis.