Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on the way he has framed this discussion, because we are debating the impact of these tax arrangements in the overseas territories on UK communities. Every penny being shielded from paying the fair share in these places is a penny that is not getting into our NHS and is not going to support local schools or improve public transport.

Hard-working people in North Norfolk pay their taxes fairly, but thanks to the shady systems of places like the BVI or the Cayman Islands, the multimillionaires and multibillionaires can squirrel their money away and pay very little tax at all. With their shell corporations and subsidiaries, trusts and transfer pricing, the fat cats can get away without paying their fair share. It is a tax system that is “pay to play”, and the billionaires are playing all of us.

The BVI, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda all have something in common: up there, in the top left-hand corner of their flags, is the Union Jack. Many look at this as a legacy of centuries past, but it must actually represent the existing British responsibility for—dare I say, complicity in—tens of billions of pounds of corporate tax avoidance and abuse. We still hold power over many of these places, and we can take steps to force their hand if necessary. Orders in Council have been drafted previously, which can require our overseas territories to take this action. Governments have been understandably reluctant to take this step, not wanting to appear as the colonial hand reaching across the ocean to meddle in the affairs of its territories. But if we are to provide defence and security for them, stand up for their interests internationally and support them in their hours of need, it is not too much to ask that the Governments of those territories play fair.

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

The Panama papers, released in 2016, were so-called because the company whose papers were exposed, Mossack Fonseca, was headquartered in Panama. Is my hon. Friend aware that one out of every two companies listed in the Panama papers was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands?

[Steff Aquarone]

Yes, I am frighteningly aware, because I have tried to access these registers myself, and I have relied upon reports by other organisations to tell me what is really going on. When a country’s wealth in savings is a multi-hundred-times multiple of its GDP, that brings all this into sharp focus.

But to get back to my focus, when people in North Norfolk see their health services closing down, their children’s schools unable to buy glue sticks and the cuts to public services, and then they look at the billionaires and their yachts, mansions, football clubs and private jets, they smell a rat—they know something is not working here. Something has to change. That change is real, and it is possible, if the Government have the will and the guts to stand up for it. I hope the Minister and his Government can finally be the ones to end this scandal, secure money for our public services and stop these tax havens once and for all.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%. What is so wonderful about Britain is how, time and again, communities step into the void left by Government spending, but we cannot rely entirely on the charity and good will of others.

The UK’s contribution to global health, education and nutrition, which are the foundations of our stability, is being eroded. Nutrition-focused aid has fallen by 60% and education spending has declined by 83% since 2016. Aid for reproductive health has fallen by 68%, and primary education now accounts for only £71 million of the entire ODA budget. The list goes on, and they are not just statistics. They are classrooms that will never reopen; vaccines that will never be delivered; and children who will never have a fair chance in life.

As a member of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I have seen at first hand how aid and development are integral to our security. In recent weeks, we have seen the malign influence of China and Russia on our domestic politics. Those malevolent threats are already prevalent in the countries we support. We must not give them space to grow because, when we retreat, the vacuum is filled by those countries that do not share our values.

The strategic investments of Russia and China are already exploiting that space. China would have no difficulty stepping in to replace UK influence, especially in the global south, where its belt and road investments already run deep. But Beijing’s model of aid is transactional, not transformative. We should not be surprised when those nations fill the void, with motives far removed from our liberal and democratic values.

As Members of this House, we should never forget that the world watches what Britain does. When we lead, others follow. When we stand firm, others shrink back. Development and defence are not opposites; they are two sides of the same coin. Soft power—the influence we exert through compassion, diplomacy and culture—is what gives our country the moral legitimacy that has underpinned our diplomacy since the post-war era. It is what makes Britain a leader on the world stage. When we cut aid, we cut influence. When we weaken our global reach, we make ourselves less safe.

The Government have argued that the reduction is necessary to fund a rise in defence spending, to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027. Yes, we must invest in defence, but we cannot defend Britain by turning away from the world. We cannot keep our citizens safe by cutting the very programmes that prevent conflict and suffering at source.

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

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. This weekend, the Government announced £5 million for Sudan and £6 million for Gaza. By contrast, the Government are spending £2.2 billion of ODA on hotels to house asylum seekers in this country. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the money would be better spent on preventing conflict and keeping people safe in their own regions?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Purely on a value-for-money basis, it is wiser to spend money where people are, to prevent them from getting on the road, than to try to house them here.

Migration and global instability do not begin at our borders. They begin when climate change destroys livelihoods, when wars displace families and when hunger drives desperation. Compassion and prevention are not opposites of security; they are the foundations of it.

Climate change remains the single greatest threat we face. Carbon knows no borders; it does not respect treaties or national boundaries. If we cut funding to those on the frontline of climate vulnerability, we are cutting our own future resilience. Whether that is in the Caribbean, the Sahel, the middle east or the Pacific, our partners need leadership, and Britain should be that leader.

The Government’s commitment to meet their £11.6 billion international climate finance pledge by 2026 is welcome, but it is increasingly hollow if other aid streams are being dismantled. We cannot claim climate leadership while simultaneously cutting the very funds that protect vulnerable nations from its impact and help them to decarbonise sooner. The UK has always been at its best when leading with principle and pragmatism. We led on eradicating smallpox, on fighting HIV/AIDS, on girls’ education, on tackling modern slavery and, of course, on the creation of the United Nations.

Today we must show that same moral courage. The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of those values, they are a strategic mistake. Every pound we invest in aid saves far more in the long term, by preventing wars, stopping pandemics and reducing the need for emergency interventions. We live in a globalised society. Our economies, supply chains and security are inter- connected. Disease, conflict and climate crisis spread across borders with ease. To imagine that Britain can isolate itself from those realities is naive; if we fail to act abroad, we will pay the price at home.

I pay tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in some of the world’s most dangerous environments, and who risk their lives daily to deliver aid. They embody the best of British values, yet their work is getting harder. From Gaza to Sudan, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Ukraine, aid workers face extraordinary challenges. In 2024, one in eight people worldwide was exposed to armed conflict. Humanitarian staff have been detained, attacked and even killed, and entire operations have been halted due to insecurity. Our response to that sacrifice should not be to cut funding for their organisations—they deserve not only our gratitude but our tangible support. We must ensure that safeguards and funding are extended to humanitarian workers, who represent British values in the most fragile corners of the world.

The Government expect aid reductions to provide £500 million for defence in 2025-26, £4.8 billion in 2026-27 and £6.5 billion in 2027-28. That may satisfy Treasury spreadsheets, but it will come at the cost of lives, stability and influence. In the coming weeks, this House will debate spending priorities at the Budget. The timing of this debate could not be more important. It is a time of hardship and high costs of living for all. There are difficult decisions to be made, both domestically and abroad. But we should remember that the choices we make here ripple far beyond our own borders. They shape how the world sees us, and how safe, stable and prosperous our shared future will be.

Sudan: Government Support

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew]

I completely agree with the right hon. Lady and thank her for raising that point. A third of children under five in El Fasher are suffering from acute malnutrition, and some are resorting to eating animal feed and plant waste to survive. I would hope that everything possible will be done to allow humanitarian corridors to open for civilians to leave besieged areas, and to be assured they are not going from the frying pan into the fire. The supply of weaponry and military equipment is the oxygen keeping this conflict alive, and we as penholder should lead efforts to impose a binding, enforceable arms embargo across all of Sudan.

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

My hon. Friend urges an arms embargo, and for the UK to use its role as penholder at the UN Security Council, but Martin Griffiths has said that peace is likely to come out of the region through powers such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Does my hon. Friend think that the UK should be using its bilateral relations with those countries to bring peace?

Gaza and Hamas

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I think I have covered those questions already in this session, but let me be absolutely clear: all Palestinians are very clearly not part of Hamas. So many Palestinians want to see an alternative. They want to see this process succeed and to see the ceasefire hold, and that is where our focus is.

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

The Israel Defence Forces said this morning that they had

“renewed enforcement of the ceasefire”.

The strikes are reported to have killed 20 women and 46 children following the death of one IDF soldier. President Trump’s peace plan makes provision for Arab states to commit stabilisation forces. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he cannot provide a running commentary on such a stabilisation force, but does he share my view that after a ceasefire, the protagonists are the least well-placed to enforce peace?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not sure that I totally follow. The composition of the ISF is not yet determined, as I said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague. We will no doubt discuss this matter further in the House once we are in a position to provide a fuller update. A number of states have indicated some willingness to provide troops to the ISF. I will clarify for the House that we have provided military personnel into the region, but it was into the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which has a different tasking to the ISF. These are all complex questions that are very much in negotiation at the moment. When some of those matters are more clear and finalised, I am happy to return to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about the civilian attacks that we have seen, including the most horrendous attack on a kindergarten in Ukraine. She is right that we need to ensure that these assets are mobilised. Obviously a lot of that needs to be done in conjunction with the European Union, where many of the assets are currently held. The EU has had a series of discussions and made significant progress through the work done by the EU Commission. Many of the other individual nations are pressing to go further, and we are working closely with them to do so. We need to get this investment mobilised to support Ukraine.

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

The US President was willing to meet the Russian President in Budapest, in spite of the fact that we gave assurances in Budapest in that 1994 memorandum that have since been ignored. Although that meeting will not now go ahead, can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s latest thinking about future security guarantees for Ukraine?

[Yvette Cooper]

Security guarantees remain an important part of our support for Ukraine. One reason that the coalition of the willing was brought together was to set out what those security guarantees would be. That will continue to be the case, working with the US to do so. The most immediate issue is to ensure sufficient economic pressure, particularly on oil and gas, to bring Putin back to the table. While President Zelensky has said that he is willing to negotiate and support an immediate ceasefire, President Putin is simply escalating the war.

Korean War: 75th Commemoration

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I am reminded that it was only last month that we heard him pay tribute to the courage of his father in the battle of Britain. It is in the same spirit that we reflect on the Korean war, 75 years ago.

Seventy-five years on from the outbreak of the Korean war, we commemorate a conflict that is sometimes called the forgotten war. It is probably called that because it is in the shadow of world war two, which of course was so far-reaching that it affects everybody’s memory—it is very much in our memory today and will be next month, as we go into the period of remembrance. However, the Korean war is never forgotten by families who lost loves ones or by communities like those I represent, who sent their family members to serve.

Today’s debate marks the anniversary of the service of British forces who fought under the UN flag from 1950 to 1953. We remember it in particular because it was one of the first occasions when the newly constituted United Nations deployed a force under chapter 7 of the UN charter, which states that the UN can respond to

“any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”.

It was the absence of the Soviet Union at the UN Security Council that made it possible to deploy a force under the UN flag, consistent with the intention of the authors of the UN charter. What a pity it is that we now have a representative of Russia on the UN Security Council vetoing the rational motions that the UK seeks to pass.

For east Devon, the history of this conflict is personal. In Sidmouth, there is a plaque at St Giles and St Nicholas church that remembers Private David Hamson, who fell in Korea aged just 20. His name anchors that distant war in Sidmouth’s own story, given that the plaque stands alongside those of fallen soldiers from the first and second world wars. David Hamson was born in Sidmouth in 1932. He was called up for national service and joined the Devonshire Regiment, which was first deployed in Malaya to combat the communist insurgency that was taking place there in the 1950s.

Soon afterwards, volunteers were sought to reinforce the British operation in Korea, and David stepped forward. He was transferred to the Gloucestershire Regiment. In April 1951, his battalion took up positions in the hills outside Seoul, in the battle that has been reflected on several times this afternoon. He was facing China’s 63rd army, about 27,000 strong, as it sought to capture the South Korean capital. The Glosters, numbering just 652 men, held their ground for four days and nights, buying crucial time for the defence of Seoul. One can only imagine what that experience must have been like.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of British and international forces in the Korean war, as other right hon. and hon. Members have. Will he join me in also paying tribute to the extraordinary journalists who bravely sought to bring news of Korea to international and, indeed, Korean audiences? They include René Cutforth, for the BBC overseas services, who was one of the last journalists to leave Seoul in 1950, and Marguerite Higgins, an American journalist who won a Pulitzer prize—the first woman ever to do so—for the courage of her journalism in the Korean war. Will he also join me in paying tribute to the continuing work of the BBC World Service, which continues to broadcast in Korean to North Korean audiences today?

[Richard Foord]

We absolutely must pay tribute to journalists who continue to report in some of the most dangerous circumstances. Even this year, hundreds of journalists have lost their lives in conflict.

Private Hamson was among those who did not return from the famous battle of Imjin river. His courage and sacrifice embody the spirit of the Devonshire Regiment and the Glorious Glosters, to which he was transferred. His name is inscribed at the UN memorial cemetery at Busan, in South Korea.

In July 2023, a short service was held at St Giles and St Nicholas church to remember the Korean war. The Royal British Legion president, Ralph Hickman, and the Sidmouth Royal Naval Old Comrades association chair, Peter O’Brien, made speeches about the sacrifices made in a war that today has slipped from collective memory for some, perhaps, but not for us, and not for Sidmouth.

Ray Collins from Woolbrook, near Sidmouth, was present at that service two summers ago. A year after the 1953 armistice, he found himself in Korea with the Dorset Regiment. For nearly a year, his battalion was based along the 38th parallel—the tense frontier established at the truce. He says that there were occasional shoot-outs and a constant round of provocations from the north, but he said that it was the freezing conditions that proved the real enemy. When his national service ended, Ray became a leader of the Sidmouth army cadets, and served as its respected warrant officer for more than 30 years. His dedication and leadership earned him the British empire medal—a lifetime of service rooted in what he learned serving in Korea.

In total, 1,108 British servicemen lost their lives in Korea. Commemoration should sharpen our sense of the world that we face today. The Korean war was the first hot war of the cold war—a brutal struggle that asked whether free nations would stand firm against oppression and aggression, driven by a Soviet system prepared to gamble with lives while seeking to challenge democracy and liberty. Today, the Russian Federation is waging the largest land war in Europe since 1945. Its full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace on our continent. We cannot ignore the rhyme of history, with an authoritarian power once again testing the resolve of free nations. In remembering the Korean war, we honour those who fell, but we also reaffirm a simple truth: democratic nations must stand together against tyranny.

Ukraine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

The Foreign Secretary mentioned that Speaker Stefanchuk of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—was in the Gallery earlier today. He also met members of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, when he drew a parallel between western sanctions packages and versions of the Apple iPhone: it feels like we see a new one every other week. Rather than the gradual introduction of sanctions on Russia, will the Foreign Secretary work with the United States and other allies to introduce a sanctions package that will really hurt Russian oligarchs in the pocket?

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to see the strongest possible economic pressure on Russia—from every avenue, frankly. We have discussed that issue extensively with the US and Europe. I have discussed it with my Foreign Minister colleagues and the Chancellor discusses it with her Finance Minister colleagues. We want to see the strongest package. However, it is right to continue introducing new sanctions as soon as we have the evidence ready. I do not think that we should wait until more work can be done or more agreement reached. If we have the evidence to be able to introduce another set of sanctions, we should get on with it because we need to maximise the economic pressure as rapidly as we can to put pressure on Putin’s war machine.

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.

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”?

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.