Richard Foord’s killer question

On a question concerning how much pressure No 10 was putting on the FCO to approve Peter Mandleson, Richard Foord MP asks a killer question. 

21 April, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Oral evidence from Sir Oliver Robbins KCMG CB

(Former Permanent Under-Secretary at Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office)

Extracts from the transcript:

Q610   Richard Foord: Thank you very much, Sir Olly, for appearing before us. You have explained that a lot of these decisions were made before you were appointed as permanent under-secretary. I am curious to know: why did Sir Philip Barton’s tenure as permanent under-secretary conclude eight months before it otherwise would have?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t know for sure. Philip and I have of course talked a lot, especially in that handover week, and I remain in touch with him and am proud to call him a friend. It is not completely unnatural that a new Government and a new Foreign Secretary respect and accept the permanent under-secretary that they have in post when they arrive, but after a while—I don’t know whether this was more Mr Lammy or Sir Philip—having eased the new Government in sensibly and supported them in their early months, one side or the other suggests it is time for a change. If you want to know more about that, I think you will probably have to ask Mr Lammy or Sir Philip………..

……Q612   Richard Foord: In that time when you were the designate permanent under-secretary, what conversations did you have with advisers or officials that might have led you to believe that Lord Mandelson needed to take up this role regardless of the outcome of developed vetting?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I can say with certainty that it was never put to me that way. As I hope I have said clearly to the Committee, I certainly did arrive to an atmosphere where this was not just, “Please get this done quickly,” but, “And get it done.” That was, I think, a pretty unmistakeable feeling. As I hope I have also been clear to the Committee, I don’t think I allowed that to cloud my judgment; certainly, the security team did not.

Q613   Richard Foord: I want to look at a couple of pieces of evidence, one of which was released in the tranche of documents—volume 1 of the return to the Humble Address. This is a December 2024 email from the No. 10 private secretary for foreign affairs, Ms Terry. She wrote on 20 December 2024 to Lord Mandelson: “I understand you haven’t received the attached forms yet which Morgan mentioned to you this morning…we are here to help as needed.” Why would it be necessary for the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to have a conversation with an ambassador who was about to take post about joining forms?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t know. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t privy to those conversations—sorry. Having got that out of the way, to try to be more helpful, the Chair said in her opening questions that Mr McSweeney and Mandelson were close; I therefore suspect that Morgan was in touch with him, congratulating him on his appointment and then telling him he would have some paperwork to do.

Q614   Chair: It was more than paperwork; it was conflict of interest forms.

Sir Oliver Robbins: I agree. Of course, when I arrived in post, this was a part of the process I then had to oversee. It was an important and occasionally difficult part of the process, but all I am trying to explain is that I suspect that when a friend talks to an appointee that they are congratulating, it is, “The officials will be in touch with some stuff you have to do.”

Q615   Richard Foord: Going back to the point when Sir Philip was still permanent under-secretary, it is reported by Sam Coates that Morgan McSweeney, the chief of staff, rang Sir Philip and said in terms stronger than those that I can use before the watershed—

Chair: I think you should.

Richard Foord: Well, I will just say that it was, “Just approve it,” with a term stronger than that.

Chair: “Just fucking approve it.”

Richard Foord: Does that accord with your impression when you took over from Sir Philip?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I recall Philip saying to me—certainly, Philip’s handover to me has contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure and a certain dismissiveness about this DV process, which I hope I have tried already to be honest with the Committee about. I don’t remember Philip using those words. Also, I am proud to say Philip is probably not the sort of person who would report them verbatim.

Q616   Chair: Can I ask you, because it came up in the evidence you gave in answer to Edward, about Matthew Doyle? We probably should ask you who at No. 10 suggested that Matthew Doyle be given the post as head of mission somewhere.

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t know what the origin of the suggestion was and I don’t know exactly who was behind it or how serious it was. It was serious enough for the No. 10 private office to ring up the head of the diplomatic service and ask for a forward look of available head of mission jobs. That is the point at which I thought I needed to lay down some markers.