Iran: Protests

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister shares with me—and probably with most of the House—a deep affection for the Iranian people, for their beautiful country and for their extraordinary culture, which makes the killing and terrible violence we have seen even worse than we could possibly have imagined. Can he give the House confidence that Britain and the international community will not now abandon the Iranian people for geopolitical expediency?

Arctic Security

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The main purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement today was to send out an international message, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the skilful way in which she has amplified that message this evening. However, there is another audience who deeply appreciate what the Prime Minister has had to say. Many ordinary British people are becoming increasingly anxious about the threats being made by one of our most important friends to one of our allies. They are frightened by the dark turn that international relations seem to have taken and the potential chaos that we may be heading for. In fact, a friend of mine texted me today to tell me that as she was watching the Prime Minister live, she was weeping—she has found this very frightening. Will the Foreign Secretary convey the thanks of so many of us to the Prime Minister for his clarity, calm and leadership?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will convey that message to the Prime Minister. We have clearly seen that our Prime Minister is standing up for the UK national interest, our security and prosperity and British values. We know that our security and prosperity are strengthened by alliances and partnerships, not by pulling apart.

Ukraine

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have been complaining at home recently because the heating broke down, and I felt that was not being taken seriously by my other half. It was minus 1°C, I was really cold and I had been moaning about it for a week. Then it was pointed out to me that right now in Ukraine, in Kyiv, it is minus 12°C, although it feels like minus 16°C, and overnight it will be minus 17°C. To stop myself moaning, I have put the temperatures in London and in Kyiv on my phone.

I keep remembering that in Kyiv ordinary men and women are having to battle against the cold, and their infrastructure is being deliberately attacked by Putin to try to undermine their morale. What happened on Monday night? There were 293 drones and 18 missiles in a bombardment. Air defences shot down 240 drones and seven missiles, but there was damage to critical civilian infrastructure in Kyiv and across Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv and Donetsk.

There are now several hundred thousand households without any power or heating. There are 500 high-rise tower blocks where people are really cold, and they have acute shortages of electricity. The Russians are doing this on purpose. This is not proper warfare. This is such a basic thing—you are not supposed to target civilians when you are at war; it is against the law. When you are at war, you are at war, so go for the combatants; do not go for the children, nursery schools and housing estates. Do not bomb blocks of flats. That is not right or proper; it is illegal, immoral and wrong.

The people are exhausted. They are about to hit their fourth year of being at war with Russia, but what is so amazing is the strength, focus, fortitude and bravery of these people, which has absolutely hit me in the heart when I have talked to Ukrainians. They are absolutely determined to keep their country Ukrainian, and they will not allow the Russians to win. No matter how hard it is, how cold it is or how many people are lost, they will continue to fight. They stand resolute, and we stand with Ukraine and with those brave people.

On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have had the honour of not only visiting Ukraine, but having a number of meetings with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee. Its members have varied over the years. During the most recent meeting, the chair was the only person we could see. I joked about it to start with—I was going, “They ought to turn the lights on.” What an idiot! They do not have any lights or any power. The members were talking to us from their cars, because they could put on the heating and a light in their car and talk to us that way. That was how we had a meeting with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee, but the members of the Committee showed up and told us what they had to say. We stand with Ukraine—this bravery!

There are many things that we can do. I am really encouraged to hear that we are bolstering the work that we need to do when it comes to the shadow fleet. If anybody does not understand it, the shadow fleet is a fleet of ageing ships of obscure ownership that are uninsured and often environmentally unsound. They are being used to transport sanctioned Russian oil products to get around the oil price cap.

I hope that we can find legal grounds for deploying military assets against the shadow fleet under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and do insurance spot checks on false-flag ships, some of which were expelled by the countries for which they used to wave the flag and claim they came from. Some of those countries do not even have a shipping register, yet the ships still claim that they belong to those countries. If the ships are not insured, we can really take action, and I am glad to hear that we are going to step that up. That sort of sanction busting must stop.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On that point, two tankers from the shadow fleet were scheduled to go through the channel earlier today. The shadow fleet exists solely to keep money flowing to the Kremlin, while threatening maritime safety and environmental security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should be mindful of other aspects relevant to this debate as we continue to pursue the shadow fleet that allows Putin to wage his unwarranted and unlawful invasion?

[Emily Thornberry]

I agree completely. We need to be as creative as possible when it comes to the shadow fleet, and there is always more that we can do. The Foreign Affairs Committee and many of its talented members are always available to give as many suggestions as the Government wish to hear. One thing that worries me is that it is all very well having creative ways of imposing sanctions, but they are only as good as their enforcement. When I push the Government on exactly how much effort they are putting into enforcement and how much investment is going in, I am always concerned that although those sanctions may look good on paper, things may be slipping through the net. We need to ensure that we mean what we say, and that we do it.

There are a couple of other issues that I would like to briefly cover. First, although there is a hot war going on in Ukraine—that is one war that is going on in Europe—we are all agreed that Europe is also at war with Russia on another basis. That is the new hybrid warfare, the sort of warfare that is more difficult to identify, whether Russia is subjecting us to sabotage, cyber-attacks, or misinformation and disinformation. We are at war with Russia, and it is trying to undermine our democracies and our countries. Nowhere is that clearer than around the Black sea, which is of huge strategic importance to Russia. The countries around the Black sea, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, have all been subjected to a level of hybrid warfare that we need to look at, not just because we need to be of assistance to them—we are all in this together—but because that is a portent of what could happen to us.

Yesterday, the Committee heard from Ana Revenco about the ongoing hybrid warfare that Moldova is subjected to. It is at the forefront of hybrid warfare; it faces cyber-attacks, illicit financing schemes, prolific information manipulation campaigns and political rhetoric espoused by Kremlin-linked actors. Some of us in the Chamber might be thinking, “We already have some of that—in fact, we probably have all of that”, but we only have it at a low level. However, we are heading for elections, and elections are always a time when a democracy is at its most vulnerable. We must not be complacent, but I fear that sometimes we are. We are a great democracy; we have been going for a long time, and we think, “Oh, it’ll be fine”, because of course we are an island. If, like Finland, we had Russia right on our border, we would have a very different attitude, but in modern times, whether or not we have a land border, Russia can still try to influence our democracy by undermining us. If we open our eyes, we can see that there is ongoing disinformation that is trying to undermine our democracy right now, and the problem is that the public are not alive to it. The last thing anybody ever wants to admit is that they have been lied to and they have fallen for it. Trying to explain to them afterwards that they have done so is just impossible, so we need to ensure that we counter that disinformation right now.

For the Russians, Britain is the No. 1 enemy in Europe. Looking at their rhetoric and the sorts of things they say about us, it is Britain they loathe more than practically any other country. I am proud of that, but we need to be mindful of what it means for our country. The Russians believe that we are responsible for triggering the second world war and many subsequent conflicts. In today’s context, that is projected on to the war in Ukraine, where Britain is portrayed as not merely a supporter of Kyiv, but the architect and main driver of the conflict. Listening to some of the things their secret service has been openly saying about us, it is as if everything that is happening in Ukraine is down to us—I wish it were, but the rhetoric is definitely against us. They advance a conspiratorial vision in which Britain is acting as not just Ukraine’s ally but the mastermind behind a proxy war, persuading Europe to fight to the last Ukrainian. The chairman of the state Duma even alleged recently that we were orchestrating specific incidents, such as the shelling of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border. So it goes on. Russian propaganda routinely accuses the UK of being involved in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage targeting Russia, or Russian nationals. The allegations include the poisoning of Litvinenko, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic sea—it seems that all of this is down to us—and the terrorist attack committed by Islamists at the Crocus City Hall.

Russian propaganda continues to point the finger at Britain. It used to be America, but for some reason America is not in Russian sights so much any more, and we are. In a way, we should be proud of that, but we need to be mindful of it, and we need to stick together and stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine—the Ukranians are fighting the war for us, and we continue to give them every support—and we should be proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in this country and in this House—with the exception of those who are not present in the Chamber this afternoon—we are united behind them. We remain united, and we must remain united until the end—until victory. Slava Ukraini!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want us to keep our comments fairly brief, so to save time, let me say that I associate myself completely with what was said by the Minister, the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in support of Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. They are a brave and noble people showing enormous courage. None of us here has any sympathy whatever for Putin and what he has done. We should be reasonably confident and not downhearted. We should be proud of what we have done as a nation from the very start.

We should not assume that Putin will necessarily win. He has an economy the size of Spain, or perhaps Italy. We have vastly more resources. These regimes can seem very strong, but they can collapse very quickly. Who knows what will happen? He is only a prototype dictator. In these four years, he has only marched 30 miles; Stalin marched all the way from the Volga to Berlin. Yes, all right, he is refusing all these peace offers, and he is determined to get the rest of the Donbas. I agree that over four years, with thousands more dying and his economy destroyed, he might get another 30 miles, and get the rest of the Donbas, but so what? What will that achieve for his country? It is so cruel, unnecessary and pointless. There is criticism of Mr Trump, but at least he is trying to get some sort of peace deal. Our influence is limited, but we should support his efforts. One thing we cannot support is cravenly getting a peace deal that allows Russia to grab territory that it has failed to get over the past four years, and get the fortresses that Ukraine needs for its survival.

There is hope. I know that some people think that this is almost as bad as Germany invading Poland in 1939. It is almost worse. I have made it my job over the past 40 years, partly because my wife is half Russian, to try to understand the Russian psyche. It is worse, in a sense, because so many nationalist Russians, who are not the Russians I know or associate with, view Ukraine—Ukraine means “border country”—as part of Russia. They view Kyiv, the source of the Russian Rus, as we view Canterbury, so I am afraid these Russian nationalists will not give up. They want to grab the whole country, so we must remain firm.

I would go along with anything the Government wanted to do in support of Ukraine in terms of sanctions: upping sanctions, stopping tankers—anything they like. However, in the few moments that I have, I want to question the Government on the idea of sending a small force of British troops. We are part of the coalition of the willing; I do not want it to be the coalition of the naive willing.

I have sat through so many of these debates: the debate on Iraq—I was one of only 15 Tory MPs to oppose Blair’s invasion—the Afghanistan debates; and the Syria debate, in which I refused to support Mr Cameron. There is so much danger in deploying perhaps just 7,000 under-resourced British troops to a country the size of France, with a population the size of France’s and an 800-mile front—a country where 7,000 people have been dying every month. Now, if America was prepared to come in, or if there was a NATO operation, I think the House would be very willing to accept our involvement, but compare this with what happened in West Germany. Compare the size of our Army now to the size of our Army then. Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had 120,000 service personnel in Germany? We had 55,000 British troops, excluding the RAF, in West Germany; we had 900,000 NATO troops in West Germany, including the Bundeswehr. America was totally committed.

I noticed what was said by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). They did not immediately say that they would support the Government. Instead, they asked some quite serious questions. If we have this debate, we have to go on asking those questions. What are the rules of engagement? What happens if I am right, and Putin accepts some temporary ceasefire and then marches in again? What would happen then to our 7,000 troops?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I take on board his points, but we have yet to give sufficient emphasis to whether Putin actually wants peace. I fully understand that plans need to be made in case there is a peace, but that is rather based on the idea that he wants to stop, and I, for one, am not really sure that he does.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree with that entirely. I am not sure that this will ever happen. I am not sure there will ever be a ceasefire. I think Putin is determined to carry on for another four years and another 30 miles. However, as the national Parliament, and given the size of our Army and the resources that we have, I think that we have a right to question the Prime Minister on this. Now, I quite understand that for the Prime Minister, this is hell. He has to deal with the NHS, the farmers, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats—much better to grandstand on the world stage and say, “Yes, we are prepared to put our troops on the ground,” but it is grandstanding, and it is extremely dangerous.

I will end on this point. Just imagine—I know it is probably not going to happen—that there is a ceasefire, and we put troops in, and Putin marches again. Does anybody here really, in their heart of hearts, want to be involved in a shooting war with Russia? I have grown-up children. Does anybody here want their son to be called out there, and to be killed by a Russian drone, as thousands of brave Ukrainians have been? This is serious stuff. I am pleased that the two Opposition parties are asking the questions—that is what we all need to do.

Iran

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary in her condemnation of the brutality and horrendous actions of the Iranian regime and the threats that it poses. She will know that when she was Home Secretary and I was shadow Home Secretary, we strongly supported the national security actions on Iran. In fact, I said specifically that I hoped the House would be able to come together to support our national security and defend our democracy, and I urge Conservative Members to take the same cross-party approach to defending not only our national security but regional stability. The scale of the truly brutal, horrendous actions in Iran means that we should stand together in condemnation of that action, and in the action that we need to take in concert with our allies, including on further sanctions and further immediate pressure on the regime.

The right hon. Lady asked for my assessment of the scale of what is happening. Like her, I have seen the reports that suggest that 2,000 people might have been killed. There might have been more. My fear is that the number will prove to be significantly higher, because we are currently getting so little information as a result of the internet blackout that the regime has instigated as it tries to hide what it has done and the consequences. That is why we are talking to other countries about what can be done swiftly to try to restore some sort of internet access or phone communication to people across Iran.

The right hon. Lady asks about the Foremans. I raised the Foremans’ case directly with the Iranian regime just before Christmas, and we continue to raise it because it is a huge consular priority for us. We are also in close touch not just with the US but with other allies across Europe and the G7 to look at what further sanctions measures we need to take.

The right hon. Lady also asked about the snapback, and she will know that this has been a running issue for many years. Following the non-compliance over the nuclear regime, the previous Conservative Government did not take the snapback action. We took that action, and it was supported on a cross-party basis. I hope again that will remain the case, because it was clear that that compliance was not taking place. That work was done in conjunction not just with the E3—France and Germany—but with US allies; there have been many conversations about this matter with them as well.

The right hon. Lady also raised the issue around the IRGC. She will know that this issue was raised with the previous Government over many years. I have particularly raised the need to reform the legislation. That is exactly why I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review: I was concerned that legislation designed for terrorism threats was not applicable in the same way to state-backed threats, and we need to ensure that we can deal with the hybrid and state-backed threats that the country now faces.

The international community needs to come together on this. In the face of this brutality from the Iranian regime, we need not just concerted action around sanctions and the enforcement of existing sanctions, but overwhelming pressure. We will pursue that through the UN and through every avenue we can. The world is watching Iran, the world needs to be watching and the world needs to stand together against the brutality we have seen.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The question now is: what is Donald Trump going to do next? There must be many people in the Foreign Office trying to second guess what he might do. Will we give support to Donald Trump if he decides to take action against the Iranian regime in—what he would say would be—defence of the Iranian people, or will we take the same position we did in the summer, which was to give assistance when it came to defending American bases or Israel, if the Iranians retaliate?

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend will obviously understand that the US response will be a matter for the US Government and Administration, and it would not be right for me to speculate on the what and the how, or on the way in which they will respond. What I can do is set out the UK’s approach around increasing the economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, but also in calling on countries to come together to do so, because although a lot of countries have talked about sanctions, in practice we have not seen them enforced, and we need that concerted action together in the face of this brutality.

Venezuela

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another, however abhorrent that leader is, and tries to intimidate the smaller country to, as it says itself, gain access to its resources, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that this should be called out not just by Britain, but by our western allies? We should be calling it out for what it is—a breach of international law. It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law; it is surely for the west to stand up and call it as it is. Does she not therefore share my concern that there may be a profound risk of international norms changing? If we do not call it out, this may become okay, and we risk living in a world where might is right, which is surely not in Britain’s interests.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I recognise that she has been consistent in her opposition to the Maduro regime, even when she was under pressure not to be through many years. She and I would probably agree that a man who is currently being investigated for crimes against humanity and has such a history of political repression, as well as economic destruction and corruption, should not be leading a country.

My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the issues of international law. I have set out our commitment to international law, and she will know that my predecessor as Foreign Secretary talked about progressive realism. We have set out the progressive principles we follow—including how important international law is, because the framework it sets does not just reflect our values, but is in our interests—but also that we have to engage with the world the way it is. I can assure her that, as part of that, I have raised the issue of international law with Secretary of State Rubio and made it clear that we will continue to urge all countries to follow it.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the remarks from both Front Benchers in relation to the appalling attack in Australia?

I am greatly encouraged to hear the Government state that they want to have a whole-of-Government approach to the issue of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He could have chosen to leave Hong Kong at any time during the years up to his arrest. He could have left in 2014, but he joined the umbrella movement. He could have left in 2019, but he joined the protests against the proposed extradition law. He could have fled in 2020, when he was given bail, but he stayed because, he said, he wanted to stand up for the city that had given him everything. Despite his great age and his health difficulties, he has been held in solitary confinement for 1,800 days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Jimmy Lai is an inspirational example of bravery and patriotism for all those fighting for democracy, wherever they are in the world?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s tribute to Jimmy Lai, his bravery and his strength in the face of the most difficult circumstances, and to the way in which he has spoken up for freedom and for values, as well as for his city and communities. She is right to pay tribute to him, and I think the whole House would join in that tribute and in recognising what he has stood up for. We also recognise that others have been forced to leave Hong Kong as a result of that repression. That is why the BNO route that the Government provide is so important.

Conflict in Sudan

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend is experienced in these issues. Questions of aid are absolutely vital, but as the Foreign Secretary said over the weekend, aid is not enough in a conflict of this magnitude. We are working with all parties to try to ensure a change in behaviour from the two conflict parties. They are taking steps that are not only inflicting horrific hardship and violence on civilians in north Darfur and wider Sudan, but restricting the vital flow of aid, which is so important. We will continue to work with a range of international partners, including members of the quad, to try to bring this conflict to a close. The quad’s statement on 12 September is important, and all external parties providing support to either side in the conflict must stop doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I was pleased yesterday to see the Foreign Secretary writing in The Times:

“Now is the time for international action to use Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to support Ukraine.”

The trouble is that over the past three years, eight months and four days there has been a lot of talk about using these assets, and nothing has happened. I know that the Foreign Secretary knows that the last thing that Ukraine needs is warm words; we need action, particularly against a background of the Russians renewing their bombing campaign against civilians in the cities. The question is: if there is going to be a plan, when will it happen? When will this considerable sum of money be used to rearm and rebuild Ukraine?

Ukraine

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I begin by publicly welcoming the Foreign Secretary to her new post, and by echoing her comments about the previous Foreign Secretary. I also welcome her commitment to finally using the Russian frozen assets. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon, because those assets are needed for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine.

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

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the point that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has raised, and I thank her for her considerable work and expertise, and thank the Committee for its work in this area. As she will know, the Foreign Office sets out the framework for sanctions and then works with the Treasury on enforcement. Following the publication of the cross-Government review on enforcement in May, the Government are committing to stronger action to make compliance easier, but also to deter non-compliance, and to ensuring proper enforcement.

I am advised that so far in 2025, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation penalties have totalled over £900,000, and there has been a £1.1 million compound settlement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In April, the National Crime Agency secured the first convictions for breaches of Russian financial sanctions, but I am happy to work with the Chancellor to ensure that my right hon. Friend has any further information that she wants on that topic.

Ambassador to the United States

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

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.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

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?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emily Thornberry]

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.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

I will get to the end of this paragraph, and then I will give way.

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

[Richard Tice]

The right hon. Lady is speaking powerfully. Does she think that if her Committee had been allowed to interview Lord Mandelson, it would have come up with a recommendation not to approve his appointment, and, in such a situation, does she think that her recommendation would have been listened to?

[Emily Thornberry]

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.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that if we are to salvage anything positive from this whole sorry episode, it must be that in the future, Parliament, through the Select Committees, has a role in this process? Does not her experience illustrate that the question of who is in charge of that must remain with the Select Committee and not with the Executive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

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.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Speaker. Our Committee has a proposal that we should have a greater role in scrutinising the appointment of the US ambassador, given that they are one of the highest ranking members of the diplomatic service, and to help the Government to avoid this situation in the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider our proposal seriously?

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Mark Pritchard]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I made my own comments earlier about pre-confirmation hearings. Adding on to that, does the right hon. Lady agree that when senior civil servants—whether from the Foreign Office or elsewhere—are asked to come to Select Committees on important matters and they find some excuse not to attend, the Select Committee should at least have the power of summons in order that somebody gives an account? In addition to that, if security or classification is used either truthfully or—shall we say—exaggeratingly as an excuse not to give evidence to a Committee, does the right hon. Lady agree that when Select Committees have Privy Counsellors, as in her case, a briefing could at least be heard on Privy Council terms?

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Chairman of the Select Committee is being very generous. She is elegantly describing due process and is implying—at least I think she is—that due process may have been set aside for other purposes in this case. However, we know that due process was done because the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last Wednesday and said that it had been done—unless he is using the Bill Clinton defence, and it turns out that due process was done, but set aside. Where does that leave the Prime Minister?

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Dr Spencer]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is very generous. As MPs, we put the interests of the country above all else. What does she make of the decision to appoint an individual to represent our country in difficult negotiations in the knowledge that the other country had compromising information on the individual?

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emily Thornberry]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course I have confidence in our national security vetting staff. They do incredibly important work keeping this country safe. I will not comment on individual cases—I have been clear about that. I will return to the fundamental question asked by the hon. Member and others.

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Stephen Doughty]

I have set out the process clearly, and I note that the Chair of the Select Committee has received that letter, which also sets it out clearly. She may have slightly missed the commitment that I made to her and to members of her Committee at the start of the debate, which was about considering all options to support the Committee in its work on pre-scrutiny processes. She makes an important and sensible point.