Ambassador to the United States

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The reality is that the Prime Minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, and in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage, because Lord Mandelson is someone who described himself as the “best pal” of a paedophile and advised that paedophile to use his time in prison as “an opportunity”—truly shocking.

There are two separate issues that require proper examination: first, the judgment of the Prime Minister, and secondly, whether he inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday in responding to the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the judgment of the Prime Minister. We know now that as he made the personal decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, he received a two-page document outlining some of his links to the paedophile, and yet he carried on with that decision to appoint him. He made the appointment in that knowledge. That is woefully incompetent judgment.

Last week, in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails about Lord Mandelson’s links to this paedophile, the Prime Minister made the judgment—as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic—not to ask the questions about what was in the emails. That seems to me an absolute failure of judgment. He then made the judgment to come to this House and say he had confidence in the man about whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it inappropriate to ask the detail of. The whole point of lawyers and barristers is that they do due diligence, but no—not our Prime Minister.

That brings me to the critical issue of whether the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. He said two things to the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said twice that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, and yet he knew the day before about a cache of emails, which he did not want to know the detail of, on Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein. The day after, the Prime Minister fired Lord Mandelson. Is it credible to believe that one can have confidence in a man, given those two facts that came about within a 24-hour period?

Secondly, even more significantly, the Prime Minister said that “full due process” had been “followed during this appointment”. We now learn that that is not the case, because the due process was carried out after the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson and after it had been announced to the world at large. Those two things cannot be true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint, or it was carried out afterwards—it was not carried out “during”.

For that reason, regrettably, I conclude personally that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons and the British people. Therefore, the Prime Minister needs to come to the House and give absolute clarity on what he knew and when, why he made those decisions, and why he chose not to ask for detailed forensic investigations at the appropriate time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate and he has just popped up now to try to intervene.

National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of individual Departments, and it reports back to them. It helps Departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites, and there are established processes within national security vetting to consider any security concerns raised and to manage such risks appropriately. Importantly, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures were followed in this case.

[Richard Tice]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way.

To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal.

A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week. I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [Interruption.] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress.

Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.

[Richard Tice]

Last week, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in Lord Mandelson. This week, does the Minister express his confidence in national security vetting?

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to correct the hon. Member as we have had days in court on this issue. That is one of the reasons—[Interruption.] There was the non-binding judgment in the International Court of Justice. He also forgets to mention the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the votes in the United Nations and all the other legal processes. The fact is, it is our view—indeed, it was the view of the previous Government—that a legally binding judgment would inevitably follow. Leaving such a key national security asset in that way is not responsible; no, the responsible thing to do is to secure the base with our allies, and that is exactly what we have done.

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

While China might support this terrible deal, let me tell the Minister that the British people do not support this appalling deal, giving away our strategic security asset and paying tens of billions of our taxpayers’ money in the process. Our taxpayers will be suffering tax rises for that in order that the Mauritians get tax cuts. Since the Government are in the mood for U-turns, why do they not take the hint and U-turn on this terrible Chagos deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not take any lessons from a party that fawns over Vladimir Putin.

Middle East

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This morning I sat in my office with Eli Sharabi, who managed to get out of a Hamas cell but lost many family members during that journey. He talked about the starvation he experienced—he went down to 44 kg, having been 70 kg when he went in. It was humbling to hear his story and to be reminded that the humanitarian catastrophe affected everyone in Gaza, but he did say that those from Hamas who were holding him ate plentifully while they watched him and others with him starve.

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

Given that there is a consensus, I think, across the whole House that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, it seems that there is a lack of willingness to recognise that negotiations, after many years, have patently failed to yield results. Will the Foreign Secretary join Reform and me in thanking the United States and Israel for degrading the Iranian nuclear weapons programme?

[Mr Lammy]

I had two conversations with Secretary of State Rubio yesterday, and I hope that he would say that we have established a good working relationship over the period, and the hon. Gentleman will know that I have a longer-standing relationship with Vice President Vance. To be clear, the United States’ position is that we are at war with Iran’s nuclear programme. This was a targeted attack. It is important to understand the efforts to degrade, but we have not yet had that assessment as to their effectiveness.

Gibraltar

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that. There was palpable excitement, when speaking to businesses in Gibraltar yesterday morning, at the opportunities that would arise. Of course, for small and medium-sized businesses, there will be some change. It is important, and we have discussed this with the Chief Minister, that we can support those businesses on trade, on skills in particular and on the opportunities that exist on both sides of the border.

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

I want to probe the question of whether Spanish border officials have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar. I just want absolute clarity for everybody in this House: do Spanish officials have a veto or not? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary comment on the dispute resolution mechanism and whether there is a regular review clause?

[Mr Lammy]

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has flown into Gibraltar airport, as I have, but if he flew into Gibraltar and there was an alert—I am not sure why there might be an alert in the Schengen system— I reassure him that as he is stopped by the Spanish border guards operating on behalf of the European Union, he would be handed back to the Gibraltese, where he might feel more comfortable. He would be able to access his rights and the legal system that he certainly feels comfortable with, which is ours. He would be able to return to the United Kingdom, where no doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him and many in this House would be rather pleased.

G7

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He will be pleased that maritime security was such a big discussion point at the G7, and I thank Canada for that. We are a great maritime nation working with our colleagues, and I assure him that there will be more on this issue in the strategic defence review, which is to follow.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It seems to me that Putin views the failure to seize the frozen assets as a sign of western weakness. If there are some reluctant countries, given that the Prime Minister is rightly leading a coalition of the willing, would he and the Government lead a coalition of the willing nations who will seize those frozen assets?

[Mr Lammy]

As right across Europe we see a cost of living crisis, it is right and proper that we pool our efforts, and that respective Treasury Departments and Finance Ministers are satisfied that seizing those assets would not have a detrimental effect on the global economy. Those necessary discussions are being held. The hon. Gentleman knows my emphasis, but I assure him that Europe is more united on these issues than Reform is currently.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the partnership between schools under pillar 9 is fundamental. It is what gives us the bedrock on which to build both the English language capability in Ukraine and, I hope, the Ukrainian language capability in this country.

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

It is to be hoped that, as has been said, President Trump can indeed bring significant additional pressure to bear on the dictator Putin to end this horrific war. Will the Foreign Secretary give additional reassurance to the British people that, although we have invested billions and billions of pounds in supporting Ukraine, we are committed to recovering it from the frozen assets of the Russian state in due course?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the hon. Gentleman understands history. He will know that after the second world war, we were in quite a lot of debt to the United States as a result of lend-lease, which it took us many years to pay off. Today, no trading relationship of ours is bigger than that with the United States: it totals over $300 billion, with $1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and 1 million British people working in US companies and 1 million Americans working in British companies. This partnership sets up something similar for the next 100 years. It is the result of war, but it has brought our two nations together. He is absolutely right to centre on how we can better use those Russian assets. That is a matter of close discussion across the European family.

Syria

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We recognise that many Syrians who have found a home in the United Kingdom are here specifically because Syria was not an inclusive place. As we hold out for that inclusive place, our intent is to work with partners to try to bring it about, but the truth is that this has to come from the Syrian people. The best we can do is to support public services and civil society. Long gone are the days when a P5 member such as ourselves could seek to construct the terms under which freedom is achieved. We have to work with partners on the ground.

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

We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on this fast-evolving situation. He has referred to the opportunities and risks for the many displaced Syrians who are looking to return to Syria. Will the Government be providing assistance to those Syrians in this country who wish to return to their homeland? Will the Government look to follow the example of European nations such as Germany, which has suspended asylum applications?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to say that that has not been put to me in the last few hours. The issue that has been put to me is the humanitarian need in Syria and the humanitarian support for its neighbours. I think the consensus in this House and the significant funds with which we have supported Syria should reassure people of our content to support people on the ground in the region.

Chagos Islands

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As someone who has been in the House a long time, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the procedures for dealing with treaties in this place. The treaty will be signed, it will come through this place, and it will have the appropriate scrutiny—it is only right that it does and that questions are asked. I am absolutely confident that when the full details of the treaty are provided to the incoming Administration in the United States, they will be absolutely confident that it meets US and UK national security interests and is in the mutual benefit of all parties involved.

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

If the incoming President Trump Administration confirm that they are against this dreadful deal, will the Government stop negotiations and apologise to this House, or will they try to force it upon our most important international strategic partner?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman will surely know that the convention is that we deal with one Administration at a time. We have very positive and warm engagement with President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance’s incoming Administration. We look forward to discussing these matters with them, and we will engage with the United States in the usual way. We are absolutely clear that this treaty is in the UK-US national security interests. It meets the security concerns, and it puts the base on a secure footing into the next century.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

In the mid-1960s, when Mauritius was granted independence, it agreed, as part of that deal, to relinquish all claims to this British sovereign territory, which we have owned since the treaty of Paris in 1814. Why does the Foreign Secretary see fit to do a deal with a nation that has reneged on a previous deal, and why are we selling a sovereign asset that we all agree is of great value for no money up front? We are paying them. It is negligent.

[Mr Lammy]

Because we have done a deal that secures the security of the global community. I cannot recall if the hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but I have to tell him that we found ourselves with no one supporting our claim in the family of the UN and the rules-based order. For that reason, the previous Government began the negotiations and it is absolutely right that we conclude them.