Ambassador to the United States

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

There have been some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, and it is apparent that everybody is agreed that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important to our nation. They are the leaders in projecting our soft power. They are viewed as embodiments of the United Kingdom, and it is them who influence very largely how the UK is perceived.

As has been said, we have had some really good ambassadors to the United States, going back to the late Sir Christopher Meyer, who I knew well and who did a terrific job, Lord Kim Darroch, and Dame Karen Pierce. Sometimes there have even been good political appointments. There was a certain amount of controversy when Peter Jay was appointed US ambassador—he was the son-in-law of the Prime Minister—but he did a reasonable job. Ed Llewellyn became our ambassador to Paris, and now to Rome, and has done a terrific job.

As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), pointed out, because Ed Llewellyn’s appointment was a political one, he was interrogated by the Select Committee. As she said, the Committee, on which I serve, has attempted numerous times to have Peter Mandelson appear. We were told, in the Foreign Office’s most recent letter to the Chair, that the Committee would have the opportunity to talk to him on a visit to Washington. I was at both meetings, so I can say that the first was a briefing about the state of American politics when we first arrived, and the second was a breakfast at which he hosted opinion-formers to discuss with us what was happening in the US Capitol. At no stage did we have any opportunity to cross-examine or ask Peter Mandelson the questions that we would have asked had he appeared before the Committee. It is ridiculous to suggest that those meetings somehow compensated for his failure to appear.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I was with the right hon. Gentleman at those Foreign Affairs Committee meetings. We should also say that there was no opportunity for us to quiz Lord Mandelson in a public setting.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The UK has a proud tradition of appointing career civil servants as ambassadors. Our senior diplomatic service is respected worldwide and, while travelling with the Foreign Affairs Committee this year, I have heard high praise for our “Rolls-Royce civil service”. It is professional, reliable and globally respected.

One strength of the British civil service lies in the clear separation between politicians and officials. Since the Northcote and Trevelyan report of 1854, civil service impartiality has been a sine qua non of a permanent civil service, and the reputation of the British Government depends upon it. That rigid distinction has served us well across the decades and applies in the staffing of our most senior diplomatic posts.

There have been occasional exceptions. For example, Baron Llewellyn of Steep, the former chief of staff to Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Prime Minister, was appointed ambassador to France in 2016 and now serves now as His Majesty’s ambassador to Italy. He gained experience with Chris Patten in Hong Kong—later Baron Patten—and then with Lord Ashdown when he was high representative for Bosnia, so he plainly has enormous international experience. Crucially, shortly after the political appointment of Baron Llewellyn was made, he was called to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2017 to give evidence.

Let us contrast the British way with how the United States makes its ambassadorial appointments. It is common for American Presidents to reward political donors or allies with ambassadorial posts. Donald Trump’s choice for new ambassador to London is a case in point: he is an investment banker and a donor to the Republican party, not a career diplomat. By 3 September, Donald Trump had appointed 67 ambassadors in his second term, 61 of whom—more than 90%—are political appointees.

In the United States, such appointments are subject to public scrutiny. Every US ambassador must first appear before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, submitting detailed disclosures on their background, finances and potential conflicts of interest, before facing direct questioning in a public hearing. In the United States, only after that confirmation hearing does the nomination proceed to the full Senate, where a confirmation vote is required. That ensures a level of transparency and accountability that is absent from the UK system.

Our system is set up for the appointment of senior civil servants, who receive vetting on a rolling basis. The Foreign Affairs Committee was not afforded the opportunity to question Lord Mandelson, either in public before his appointment or subsequentially. With the appointment of Lord Mandelson, we saw neither the professionalism of the appointment of a British civil servant nor the scrutiny associated with political appointees in the US system.

We should also look hard at what has happened in US-UK relations since Lord Mandelson took up his post last December. On Ukraine, Lord Mandelson’s line was arguably closer to the US than to the UK, prior to his appointment as ambassador. He spoke frivolously on the Kuenssberg programme about

“whatever happens to the fringes of Ukraine territory”.

That was not the British Government’s position. In March this year, after his appointment, Mandelson said that President Zelensky should be

“more supportive of US peace efforts”.

Those remarks were so out of step that Ministers were forced to clarify that the comments did not reflect British Government policy.

On the middle east, we know that the UK and US Governments have taken different approaches to the conflict, which leaves us wondering in what circumstances the UK position has not been portrayed correctly in Washington DC.

Trade is another area of concern. On 1 April, I gave the First Reading of the UK-USA Trade Agreements (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill arguing for stronger parliamentary scrutiny of any trade deal. While parliamentary scrutiny of any transatlantic partnership with the United States is essential, it is also essential with appointments to the role of ambassador. My instinct is that the UK ambassador to the US should be a professional British civil servant or an official.

[David Davis]

The hon. Member has made a theoretical argument and a general argument, but the actual argument is that Karen Pierce was a brilliant campaigner who would never have made the mistakes made by Lord Mandelson, which he alludes to, and she should not have been replaced.

[Richard Foord]

I agree wholeheartedly. I commend the right hon. Gentleman on calling this debate in the first place, and he is right. It was rumoured that Karen Pierce wanted to or was at least willing to stay on in post for another year, and she would have represented us in an excellent manner, which we know was characteristic of her.

The Prime Minister has extensive powers to appoint senior officials. Usually the civil service commissioners lead this process to ensure that the selection is on the basis of merit. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, or CRaG, allows the Prime Minister to bypass that check on his power, and in this case it has had disastrous consequences.

As I conclude, I have two questions for the Minister. Will the Government give a commitment that in future any political appointment to a senior diplomatic role will go before the Foreign Affairs Committee for scrutiny before the appointment is confirmed? Will the Government amend section 10(2) of CRaG to ensure that diplomats, like senior civil servants, are appointed on the basis of merit and “fair and open competition”?

International Day of Democracy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake]

I would agree. I will come on to some of the ways in which we can strengthen our democracy later. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member. This movement cannot be supported in espousing anti-British values.

My constituency is home to Soho, built from the ground up by migrants and the LGBT community living, working and organising together. It is home to the City of London, whose status as a heart of business and growth has been strengthened by waves of refugees fleeing persecution, such as the 16th-century Huguenots. It is home to Fitzrovia, the heart of artistic and academic excellence from generations of freethinkers. This is the London that I know and love, and this is the country that I know and love, and that the leaders of far-right movements want to take away from us.

We have seen what it looks like when our rights and freedoms are taken away in the experience of those such as my constituent Jimmy Lai, who as of today has been detained unlawfully for 1,721 days for standing up for freedom in Hong Kong. That China would feel emboldened to imprison a British citizen, a journalist, a grandfather, and put him through a sham trial is completely unacceptable.

Our rules-based international order, which upheld fundamental human rights, has decayed at a remarkable rate. Some in this country would degrade it further by withdrawing from and dismantling the European convention on human rights, which the United Kingdom founded and which enshrines fundamental British values such as the right to life, and the freedoms of speech and thought, on an international level.

I also see threats to democracy at local level, in my work as a constituency MP. The frustration, disillusionment and disappointment with which constituents contact us is just a small signifier of the strength and depth of the malaise in our democracy today. We must confront head-on the fact that our democracy is at a crossroads. Voters increasingly feel that the social contract between them and their leaders is wearing thin, with only 12% of them trusting the Government to act in the popular interest, above that of their party.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on renewing our democracy. First past the post served Labour and the Conservatives well in the 20th century, but the blowing open of electoral politics by smaller political parties means that many more people are now feeling under-represented. Does the hon. Member accept that it is time to replace first past the post with proportional representation?

[Rachel Blake]

I welcome the hon. Member’s suggestion about reviewing and considering the alternative ways in which we can conduct our democracy. I will come on to some of that later.

People feel that their vote does not matter, and that politicians are not listening. People feel that the system is broken and does not work for them. But we are not powerless. We are not just a solitary ship being buffeted by the tides of change. We sit today in the mother of all Parliaments, where, despite some weaknesses, the UK remains one of the most advanced and resilient democracies in the world. Our democracy means everyone does have a say. This place has adapted with the times, whether that is with the extension of the franchise, the tempering of the monarchy and the Lords or, most recently, the devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK by successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments.

I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that promised generational change to our democracy—changes that this Government are enacting. We are extending the franchise to the 16 and 17-year-olds we already trust to pay tax and serve in our armed forces. We are tackling the influence of dirty money in politics, with new restrictions on foreign donations and improved transparency, and restoring independence to the Electoral Commission.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Please do not do that again. We are meant to treat each other with respect. This message is for all Members: if you are going to mention another Member, do them the courtesy of ensuring that they are first made aware of the fact.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have seen the high calibre of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments, so it is not obvious to me why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it appears that Lord Mandelson thinks that to govern is to schmooze. He famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter, not a quitter, yet he urged the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandelson did not do the decent thing and quit. Does the Minister regret the original appointment?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks about precedent. He will know that there is precedent, and we do have excellent ambassadors and high commissioners around the world—he and I have met many of them directly as they represent this country diligently. I have been clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I set out in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) the process by which we will make the determination on the recognition points that we set out in July. That point is very soon; the high-level week of the UN General Assembly is just weeks away. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, I am sure, to question me and other members of the Government after the Prime Minister has made his determination.

I do not think it is right that we should think of recognition as a punishment. If that is indeed the determination that we make, it will be a reflection of our long-standing commitment to a two-state solution. It is unlikely in and of itself to ameliorate the horrifying famine and the many other sources of agony that flow to the Palestinian people at the moment. That does not mean that, if the Prime Minister makes that determination, it may not be the right thing to do, but the House should not think that it will necessarily bring any immediate improvement in the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Qatar has used its good offices for diplomatic negotiations for many years. Taliban representatives secretly arrived in Qatar 15 years ago and subsequently attended peace conferences in Japan, Germany and France. If the UK and our allies let these strikes by the Netanyahu-led Government go, they could be a precedent for strikes on other intermediaries. How are the Government encouraging our allies to introduce sanctions on members of the far-right Israeli Government?

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out the consultations with our partners that will be happening today and, I am sure, over coming days. The hon. Gentleman is right about the role of Qatar over the years, including in the Taliban talks that took place there for some time, and we have discussed already the questions under international law about states striking other states.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the leadership that my hon. Friend showed on these issues before coming to this place; she continues to champion them now. On the Africa approach, and changes to development aid across the continent, whether they are made by us or by partners, either I or my colleague who leads on development will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Rapid Support Forces have trapped 260,000 civilians in El Fasher, half of whom are children, and many of whom are surviving on animal fodder. How are the Government working with allies to alleviate the effects on civilians of the terrible war in Sudan?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that I led the Sudan conference, at which I brought third-party countries together to discuss those issues, co-ordinate across them, and ensure that nothing is done to exacerbate the conflict on that continent. As I indicated earlier, I expect to do more as we head towards UNGA, and to gather those third parties so that we get a pause and can get aid in.

Middle East

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, yes, yes. I have spent time in Bedouin villages that would be entirely gone as a result of these abysmal plans, so of course I will continue to work with partners to oppose them.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In May the Government revealed in court that they, the Executive, had made recent assessments of the risk of breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. I say breaches, but the Government revealed that they had found only one possible breach of IHL among tens of thousands of airstrikes in Gaza across 11 months. Surely this proves that the FCDO does not have the capacity to properly assess all the possible breaches of IHL in Gaza.

[Mr Lammy]

It is axiomatic that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I made an assessment back in September that there was a clear risk—that was based on IHL assessments —and for that reason we suspended arms sales to Gaza. The machinery of government is working very well in the assessments we are able to make, notwithstanding how difficult it of course is to get all the evidence that is necessary.

Middle East

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 8 July, when he was asked what would happen if we did not see a ceasefire in Gaza in the coming weeks. He was also asked whether the British Government would take further measures against Israel. The Foreign Secretary was pensive, and said “Yes”—that the British Government would be taking further measures if the abomination in Gaza continued. Could he tell the House what those further measures are, or at the very least when we might see them?

[Mr Lammy]

We are doing everything we can in supporting our Qatari, Egyptian and US friends to get a ceasefire. The hon. Member will understand that, in looking closely at these issues, even if we are contemplating further measures, they work more effectively if we can co-ordinate allies.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I support the Foreign Secretary in his call for de-escalation. In April last year, the RAF participated in the shooting down of drones that Iran fired at Israel. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on why the UK acted to defend Israel from drone attack at that time, but did not do so at the weekend?

[Mr Lammy]

Each military situation is different. There was a particular context at that time of ballistic missiles coming in and a particular request. We had the assets that could support, and we obviously make those assessments, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, with our regional allies depending on the circumstances and the context.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has been adamantly committed to these issues. He sets out all the right objectives, and I confirm to him that I take on board that message.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Last October, Lord Cameron said that, as Foreign Secretary, he had been working up plans to sanction extreme right-wing Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. What took the Government so long?

[Mr Falconer]

I hear many reports of what was being done in the Foreign Office on these questions before I got there. I think the House will probably agree that, since we arrived in government, we have taken rather a different approach across a whole range of questions; we restored funding to UNRWA on my very first day as a Minister and took the other steps that we have discussed at some length. It is very interesting to hear Lord Cameron’s recollections, but I am not sure that we will be taking many lessons from them.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Normally we would congratulate somebody on securing a debate, but on this occasion it is such an absolutely miserable subject that all I can say is that I am as sorry as she is about what is going on. It is ironic that yesterday at 2.30 pm in this Chamber we were debating kinship care and adoption in the UK and British Government support for that. When I first heard about Russia’s “adoption” of Ukrainian children, I wondered whether it was an exaggeration on the part of the people speaking about it, but then we look at the evidence provided and it is absolutely going on.

Independent investigators at the Yale humanitarian research lab identified in March this year 314 individuals from Ukraine who had been placed in Russia’s programme of coerced fostering or adoption. It describes in great detail the circumstances of those 314 children, but the scale is much greater than that. Russia’s children’s commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, has boasted that 700,000 Ukrainian children have been “accepted” into Russia since the war began. Those children are being re-educated in an effort to assimilate them into Russian society. There are at least 57 re-education camps spread across Russian-occupied Ukraine, Belarus and Russia proper.

This is an attempt to eradicate the national identity of Ukrainian children. Videos show children riding around on Belarusian tanks, in body armour and holding rifles. Reports suggest that the children are subjected to psychological coercion, denied their language and indoctrinated with Russian nationalist propaganda. Belarusian President Lukashenko has personally endorsed this so-called “humanitarian project”. Of the nearly 20,000 children recorded as having been taken, little more than 1,000—just 7%—have been recovered. Maria Lvova-Belova is subject to an international arrest warrant, as is President Putin, in relation to this alleged war crime, yet she can be seen on state television describing how proud she is to have adopted a Ukrainian boy from Mariupol.

While the Kremlin has been escalating these abductions, the international response has fallen somewhat short and in some cases has regressed. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Government pulled funding from the conflict observatory based at Yale University. The observatory, which was compiling evidence, had forensically identified satellite imagery and biometric data. It has tracked the identities of 30,000 Ukrainian children taken and their locations. The decision by Trump’s State Department to pull funding has rightly drawn widespread criticism.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I was in Helsinki last week as part of my role in the Council of Europe, attending a conference on the deported Ukrainian children, which was incredibly powerful. One of the most powerful things I heard was a gentleman from Yale University speaking of how the removal of funding would impact their vital work. Frankly, they were already doing it on a shoestring. Does the hon. Member agree that as a country we need to prioritise working with other nations to ensure that that work can continue, because it could end next month?

[Richard Foord]

Absolutely. The hon. Member is right that pulling support from the programme is not an act of impartiality; it is an act of complicity. I am sure the State Department of the United States must have done it very reluctantly, given the professionals who work there on the programme.

To summarise, a short reprieve for the programme is not enough. It must be preserved and fully funded, so that we have the evidence needed in the fullness of time to prosecute these potential war crimes.