Emily Thornberry
MP for Islington South and Finsbury · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Israeli Minister Ben Gvir has said, “It is time for the state of Israel to publicly recognise that the Falkland Islands are Argentine territory under occupation”, and that we, the British, are not merely occupying the territory but, in carrying out oil drilling there, are stealing money from the Argentine people.”
“At last! I am so very happy to see a British Government—a Labour British Government—finally doing the right thing and taking a strong stance against the illegal building of settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine, no longer a bystander wringing their hands.”
“I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on taking such a brave stance, and on his powerful and moving statement. I am so proud that this has finally happened; but could Ministers and officials meet my Committee and me, and some of our officials, to discuss whether we can implement these sanctions as quickly as possible?”
“However, at the last local elections, the Greens registered candidates with the Electoral Commission as “first choice candidate” or “lead candidate”, so that, in an election with three votes, there was an instruction on the ballot paper as to who someone should vote for. That is an abuse, and it should be stopped.”
“No, I have only got two minutes. Come on! People should just pay their taxes and get involved. New clause 86 proposes that a donor would have to be a total citizen. It is not enough to come back to Britain and go, “Oh well, I’m here now.”
“I recommend the report to Members, if they are in any doubt about the ways in which malign actors, either state or non-state, are trying to influence and undermine democracies across Europe, but if we think that we are free of that because we are on the other side of the channel, we have got another think coming.”
The complete record
Every one of 612 lines we hold for Emily Thornberry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Does the Minister appreciate that there may be a difference between conflict of interest information and national security mitigations, and that he may be able to tell us about some of that information but not able to tell us whether or not there were mitigations to defend national security?”
“I thank the Minister for giving me access to the papers at 9.30 this morning. However, is it right that among the 1,500 pages of documents released, there is no written evidence of any mitigations being put in place either to minimise Peter Mandelson’s conflicts of interest or, more importantly, to reduce the risk to our national security that vetting had flagged, due to Peter Mandelson’s close connections with Russian oligarchs, senior Chinese officials, retired Israeli spymasters and a debt of £1 million to buy shares in a secretive Israeli start-up? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us whether we will see such documents later because the police have got them, or whether they just do not exist?”
“524.] In March, the Minister again told us that the Government would update the House on their reaction to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. My question is: when will we stop hesitating and take action to ensure that international law is respected?”
“I welcome the statement by the Minister, his reiteration of the Government’s commitment to international law, and that they are prepared to take further action—and will not hesitate to do so—when it comes to Palestine. It has been almost two years since the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Israel and the occupied territories, calling on the Government to take action. Since then, settler violence has exploded; just this week, the UN released a report stating in no uncertain terms that the far-right Israeli Government are weaponising settler violence to carry out their stated intention of annexing the west bank. In February, we were told that the Government wanted to respond to the advisory opinion with “the rigour and seriousness that it deserves.” —[ Official Report , 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c.”
“For that reason, I believe that the ISC should be allowed to look at the file, with proper redactions, to understand how mitigations could be put in place to make us safe when it came to the appointment of Peter Mandelson.”
“I rise to support the ISC in its carefully considered concerns, and I am disappointed at the answer that the Government have given. It seems to me that one of the questions on the Mandelson appointment is: why, when the United Kingdom Security Vetting document had two red boxes ticked, including “This man should not be appointed”, was that somehow or other translated into “He should be appointed”? It is very important that the public know and understand that we are learning from the mistakes that were clearly made, and we cannot know that lessons have been learned unless the documents are checked. My Committee and the ISC are trying our best to get to the truth, and we are having obstacles put in our way.”
“The right hon. Lady seeks to lecture us on why everyone is so fed up with the political class, but she is using this opportunity not to lay out what the Conservatives would do, but to insult everyone on the Labour Benches. Surely that is not the way to proceed.”
“It was 18 months ago, I remember, that my late friend Terry Etherton was sitting up in the Gallery beaming down at the Prime Minister because he had just announced the Government scheme to give compensation to those who had been wrongly sacked from the armed forces for simply being gay. I have a constituent who lost his job at MI6 in the 1980s for his sexuality, and he has no compensation. Those in the security services also put their life on the line for their country; it is just not fair. Will the Prime Minister find the time to sit down with my constituent and me, so that together we can work out how we can extend Terry’s scheme, so that those who were in the security services can also get justice?”
“May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?”
“When the confirmation of his appointment came forward, neither the offer letter to Peter Mandelson nor the Government’s press release made it clear that the appointment was subject to vetting. Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?”
“The truth is that my Committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. We are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the Opposition Benches say should have been asked. The answers are there, on the record; people can see what we got when we did ask. A month before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before a political appointment was confirmed. That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed, because the process was clearly abused. Someone—probably Peter Mandelson himself—leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it.”
“The Foreign Affairs Committee has just come from a meeting with some of the Gulf ambassadors, who are genuinely grateful for the help that Britain has given in defending their countries, and want to say how grateful they are that the Prime Minister visited the Gulf, in an act of true solidarity. But when people heard the Israeli Defence Minister say that his war aims in Lebanon would follow “the model in Gaza”, our blood ran cold. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what role the United Kingdom can play to ensure a ceasefire in Lebanon, and that Israel is prevented from taking over Lebanon south of the Litani river?”
“May I also pass on a message from one of my constituents, who is caught in Muscat at the moment? They moved from the UAE on the basis of Foreign Office advice. They went to the airport in Oman and all they say is this. When they got to the airport, they could see some representatives, particularly of Italy, who were wearing high-vis jackets. There may well be people from Britain there, but they were not as clearly identifiable as some from other countries. I am sure that there is a presence in the airports, but perhaps there could be high-vis jackets or some form of clearer identification, because there will be a lot of people at Muscat airport looking for help.”
“Having spent some 10 years on the shadow Front Bench, I know that it is frustrating and that it can be difficult, but there is a responsibility, in my view, to always put the country’s interests first and to not use an opportunity for narrow political advantage and play party politics. As for throwing personal abuse across the Dispatch Box at a time like this, I have to say that I am profoundly shocked. May I move on to my question? Given that the Minister called in the Iranian ambassador to see him, I would be interested to hear what on earth the ambassador had to say and how he excused what Iran is doing at the moment by attacking many countries in the region, some of which have worked night and day to try to find a peaceful way through this.”
“I would say, particularly if our presence in Africa is to be diminished—as it unfortunately will, given what is happening to our aid budget—“At least let those countries hear a bit of truth, and let it be promoted.” It is not as if we were nothing. I do not want to overstate this, but we are already communicating with 313 million people worldwide, which is pretty good. Let us make sure that they all have an opportunity to hear what it is that the BBC can do. The new fact-checking unit is second to none, and is especially important at times like this, when it is able to crack the lies so that people can see the truth.”
“When a war has been called, they say, “Let us hear what the BBC is saying,” because they want to hear the truth, not just the nonsense and the spin. What are we doing at this time when there is a new type of warfare that is not about guns and not about tanks rolling over the hills, but about the war for people’s minds? The war for people’s minds is about the promotion of lies: that is the new type of warfare, and we are so complacent about it. We are not sufficiently alive to the amount of manipulation that is going on. We are allowing this jewel, this gift that Britain could give the world, to diminish. Why are we doing that? I personally feel that it is not just a matter of ensuring that the funding for the World Service is not cut.”
“I will now move on, given the time that I have left—I have promised myself to give myself full range until you stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about one of the most important things that we do as a country, which is supporting the BBC. Across the world, countries are using huge amounts of money every year—China and Russia are spending £8 billion on their global news platforms—to spread lies. We have, against that Goliath, the David that is the BBC. The advantage the BBC has is that it is a badge of truth, like no other organisation. Other countries would just die to have what we have. We have the BBC; we have the World Service. People change to the World Service from other channels.”
“This is not the place for that, but I do not want us to do it again ourselves. Given the limited time, I will not go into any more details, but let me say this. I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about the British Council. He has great expertise. We have had private meetings; we have had public meetings; we have had the National Audit Office over; we have sent our own auditors in; we have spoken to the unions. We in the Foreign Affairs Committee are doing everything we can to help the Foreign Office to ensure that the British Council, when it is restructured, is restructured in a way that is for the benefit of our country, the benefit of our culture and the benefit of soft power. “We are watching you carefully”—that is all I am saying at this stage.”
“The directors are being shorn—there are fewer of them—and they in turn will be expected to cut their staffing by, we are told, about 25%. Let me warn the Minister, who should perhaps reflect on this, that restructuring of that kind is not particularly sensitive to Ministers’ priorities. It would appear that we are simply restructuring in order to restructure, while not looking first and foremost at what the Foreign Office is about, what we should be doing, and how we can ensure that we retain the expertise, the knowledge, the connections, the best people, in order to deliver those priorities. I fear that we will yet again undermine morale in the Foreign Office. I could go into one of some of the reasons why, under the last Government, Foreign Office morale was gravely undermined.”
“Those staff will be acutely aware that they are also charged with attempting to sow the seeds for peace in the future, and that will also rely on their relationships and their professionalism. They do that knowing that it is important that Britain continues to be a force for good—as we can be at our best. We expect them to work twice as hard, against a background of rumours and stories about cuts to their jobs—25% of them could lose their jobs. It is important for the House to remember the sacrifices that these civil servants make. They do a different job from our armed forces, but effectively through their work they are keeping us safe, and it is important for that to be understood. I fear that the strategy for the restructuring of the Foreign Office is not very clear. It seems that we are taking a top slice off.”
“She was there by herself, and she was clearly really frightened, but the embassy will look after her and, I hope, it will get her home to her mother. It is our brave Foreign Office staff who have to step up at times like these. I am sure that they must also be terrified, but they will get this girl back. They will have to call in favours and rely on relationships that they have developed over years. They will rely on relationships and the credit that they have in the bank because of their professionalism and their work on behalf of our country. They cultivate relationships and use that strength, and hundreds of thousands of Brits in the Gulf will rely on that professionalism in the next few weeks and months.”
“I begin by paying tribute to the strength and bravery of FCDO staff in the middle east. They are giving support and guidance to hundreds of thousands of Brits who are stranded, scared and desperate to return home. There are so many lessons to learn from what is happening in the Gulf at the moment, but for the purposes of this debate, the lesson we should learn is the vital importance of the Foreign Office. It is not all about wearing linen and drinking gin under jacaranda trees— [ Laughter. ] I have done it. It is a great deal of hard work and it is very important that we recognise that. It has never been harder—look at what they are having to deal with now. I heard on the radio a few days ago an interview with a 21-year-old who went to Dubai to celebrate her birthday.”
“Sputnik took over the airwaves immediately afterwards. What are we doing? What is the matter with us? This must surely be a priority. I see your beady eye on me as I speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end by giving what I think is the best example. I have been told that BBC usage is growing in the fringes of China—in the countries around the edge of China—more than anywhere else, through TikTok accounts. What story does that tell us? It tells us that young people want the truth and are desperate to find it, and they are doing that in the way young people do, through TikTok—but they go to the good old BBC.”
“I do not think I need to repeat the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and made very well. Perhaps I could mention another specific service: BBC Persian, which is particularly important at this time. It is doing incredible work. It is sharing vital, lifesaving information with millions of Iranians who are suffering right now during internet blackouts. It is BBC Persian that is doing the fact-checking. It is a source of truth. It is an independent voice. It is not propaganda. If we want to understand its effectiveness, we need only bear in mind that the regime absolutely loathes it. If we require a badge of truth and a gold star, that alone must be sufficient. Why are we not supporting BBC Persian? And why did the Arab radio station that was broadcasting in Lebanon get cut? Guess what?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a really good speech and until a moment ago I agreed with everything he said. Does he not agree that our relationship with the United States goes far beyond any leadership? It goes very deep. During the visits the Foreign Affairs Committee has made, we have met people from many different aspects of the United States. They are good friends of ours and we need to ensure that we keep those relationships close.”
“The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.”
“Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?”
“Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that people feel about the idea of cryptocurrency getting into our democracy? Is there a ban on it in the Bill? If not, why not?”
“I take objection to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely if someone is a citizen, they should be able to vote. It should be as easy as possible—as easy as breathing—to vote, because a citizen has a right to vote. Every attempt should be made to make voting easier, not more difficult. If automatic enrolment helps people to vote, that is what we should do. Of course we need to be careful about it, though, and one of the reasons why this is a rolling programme, rather than putting it in place everywhere on the same day, is presumably to ensure that it is done properly. In the end, we should all want the same thing; British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, and nothing should get in their way.”
“Let me do the best I can. Is it seriously the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that a Labour Secretary of State might introduce auto-enrolment in areas where that will help Labour? Is he therefore saying that the more people who vote, the more Labour is helped? Is that his central argument?”
“One thing about giving votes to youngsters at 16 is that there will be an election in their last two years at school, and politicians will be beating their way to the doors of these schools to go in and speak. Those young people will have an opportunity to learn about what they are voting for and how the structures work in a way that, frankly, their elders often do not know.”
“We are very worried about that in the Foreign Affairs Committee, so we have taken the unusual step of asking domestic Ministers what they are doing about it. We are seeing patterns of behaviour and we are concerned that it is now happening in this country. It could blow up very quickly, not least in the next elections in May. The last thing we want is for those influencers to be there and then for us to somehow or other try to persuade the public, “Actually, you were unduly influenced.” Nobody will want to admit it once it has happened. We need to ensure we protect ourselves.”
“However, 184 years later, I worry that I may be the MP who oversees the death of our democracy, and the reason I am so concerned—profoundly so—is foreign interference in our democracies. The Foreign Affairs Committee started looking at other countries—we thought this was just about other countries—and we visited many other places. I must tell hon. Members that the things we saw in Romania and Moldova would make their hair stand on end. However, this is not just in countries a long way away on the border with Russia, but in many others. I have spoken to people in Germany and France, and it is quite clear that there is an attempt to influence our democracies, and we are complacent—far too complacent.”
“I have learned a great deal this evening, not least that, when we are debating legislation, Members should put in their name earlier than I clearly did. I have the great honour of representing the people of Finsbury, and there is a great line of fantastic Members of Parliament before me, such as Chris Smith. Before that, there was Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, who in 1842 delivered to Parliament the Chartist petition with 3.3 million signatories, or one third of the adult population. We had huge demonstrations in Spa fields and Copenhagen fields to try to get the vote—unfortunately, just for men—but, nevertheless, that is how seriously we take democracy in Islington South and Finsbury.”
“Finally, why are we allowing cryptocurrency into our democracy? Who wants to use cryptocurrency? Why can we not just use good old-fashioned cash, cheques and bank transfers like anybody else? Why do they need cryptocurrency? Because they want to cover up. It is the Russian currency of choice when it wants to bribe people. We know that from other countries and we know the way in which it is used. Just say no.”
“Who is responsible for taking them down? Of the seven different Departments, who is doing that? Those bots are still there—although they may now have gone because of the recent bombing. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that that is an attempt at foreign influence in our democracy and I am very concerned about it. I asked the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about it. He said he would look into it. As a result, I got three different letters from three different Departments all telling me three different things. We must consider this matter and ensure we tackle it properly. The Foreign Affairs Committee is producing an excellent report this month. I urge Ministers to read it, because it will contain recommendations which, unfortunately, I cannot go into today.”
“Well, the penny does seem have dropped—or the crypto-coin has dropped—but the Bill is not sufficient. That is why the Rycroft review is really important. It will come out at the end of the month and I ask the Minister to undertake to publish it when it is produced, because we are on a very tight timetable. The programme motion suggests that the Bill will leave the elected House on 23 April, so if there are changes to be made, they will be made by the unelected House of Lords, which is unfortunate. I ask business managers to consider that. Currently, there are seven Departments dealing with disinformation. The test I have is the 1,300 bots from a Scottish background—they seem very interested in Scottish nationalism in Iran. I have been asking various Ministers to deal with them. Who is taking them down?”
“Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?”
“Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting teeth. He has diabetes, heart issues, and recently he has visibly been losing weight. He has now been sentenced to 20 years. It is effectively not a life sentence, but a death sentence. I urge the Chinese authorities to end this elderly man’s appalling ordeal, and I would ask that they exercise clemency, and allow him to be reunited with his family. Does the Minister agree that concern for the suffering of Jimmy Lai extends far beyond his family, and touches the hearts of so many British people?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.””
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”