Foreign Affairs Committee Calls for Veto on Political Diplomatic Appointments
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has urged for an "open and transparent process" concerning appointments to senior diplomatic positions.
Following the controversy over Lord Peter Mandelson's appointment as UK ambassador to the United States, Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee is advocating for a veto power on political appointments to key diplomatic roles.
In a report published on Thursday, the committee criticized the appointment process of Lord Mandelson, stating it "was being made up as it went along." The report highlights concerns about the procedures that led to Lord Mandelson's 2024 posting as US ambassador, a role he was dismissed from last year due to his connections with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The BBC understands that Lord Mandelson maintains he responded accurately to questions regarding his relationship with Epstein during the vetting process.
In April, it was revealed that Lord Mandelson received security clearance from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) despite concerns raised during his vetting. He underwent Developed Vetting (DV) after his appointment was announced but prior to formally assuming the role in February 2025.
Lord Mandelson was dismissed last year due to his links with Epstein.
Sir Olly Robbins, the FCDO's senior civil servant, was dismissed by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer earlier this year in connection with Lord Mandelson's security clearance. Following Robbins' removal, he reported an "atmosphere of pressure" and "constant chasing" from Number 10 Downing Street during the security checks.
The committee's report recommends that "no public appointments should be announced or made without the appropriate security clearance first being granted." It also notes that documents suggest officials had a "dismissive view" regarding the necessity of Lord Mandelson passing security clearance before taking up his post.
Committee Investigates Due Process in Political Appointments
The committee set out to determine "what constituted 'due process' when it came to political appointments." After examining Lord Mandelson's case, the report states, "the Committee has been left with every impression that this process was being made up as it went along."
"Lessons must be learned. There must be a proper process set out for political appointment[s], and this must include a scrutiny evidence session before the Foreign Affairs Committee,"
the report reads.
It further recommends that the committee should have a veto power "if the appointee is not felt to meet the standard required." The report specifies that compulsory pre-appointment hearings would apply only to political appointees and not to Heads of Mission recruited from within the civil service. These candidates should face a mandatory evidence session prior to their appointment.
The report also criticizes "appalling" record-keeping by Number 10 and the FCDO, suggesting that a pre-appointment hearing with the committee might have mitigated this issue.
"While Peter Mandelson may not have answered all our questions honestly, there would have been at the very least a public record of his statements, which we now do not have,"
the report adds.
Recommendations for Future Political Ambassadorial Appointments
- A formal process should be established for political appointments to ambassadorial roles.
- The Prime Minister should always consult the Foreign Secretary and the head of diplomatic services before making a political appointment to an ambassadorial role.
- Senior civil servants should be briefed on the findings of Sir Adrian Fulford, who is currently conducting a review of National Security Vetting.
- The FCDO must improve its record-keeping processes related to these appointments.
Dame Emily Thornberry stated there remain "still unanswered questions as to how someone so clearly unfit was appointed British Ambassador to the United States." She described Lord Mandelson's appointment as an "unmitigated disaster for the country" and called for measures to ensure an "open and transparent process" in future appointments.
"Processes were rushed or simply not followed. The usual checks and balances were not made. Vital security checks, integral to our national security, seemed to be viewed as a nuisance,"
she said.
Government Response and Lord Mandelson's Position
In response to the BBC's request for comment, a government spokesperson stated that changes have already been implemented regarding the vetting process for political appointees.
"The Prime Minister has commissioned an independent review of the National Security Vetting system, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, to ensure lessons are learned."
It is understood that Lord Mandelson views the inquiry as highly partisan and prejudicial. He reportedly believes his appointment was not a disaster and cites some notable successes during his tenure.
- Key evidence from sacked official at heart of Mandelson vetting row
- Officials deliberately withheld Mandelson vetting result from me, Starmer says
