MPs seek veto over political ambassadors after Mandelson row
The FCDO’s senior civil servant, Sir Olly Robbins, was sacked by Sir Keir Starmer over Lord Mandelson’s security clearance earlier this year.
After Sir Olly was sacked, there was an “atmosphere of pressure” and “constant chasing” at Number 10 while checks were carried out.
“No public appointment should be announced or made without first obtaining appropriate security clearance,” the report said in its recommendations.
The report said documents released about the process showed officials had a “disdainful view” that Lord Mandelson would need to undergo security clearance before assuming office.
In its report, the committee said it was tasked with determining “what constitutes ‘due process’ when it comes to political appointments.”
The report said that after investigating what happened in Lord Mandelson’s case, “the Committee had every impression that this was being made up as it went along.”
“Lessons must be learned. An appropriate process for political appointments must be determined[s]and this should include an evidentiary hearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee,” it reads.
The report stated that the committee should have the right to veto “if the appointee is not considered to meet the required standard”, adding that mandatory pre-appointment hearings “will only apply to political appointees and not to Heads of Mission recruited from within the civil service”.
It was also stated that these candidates must face a mandatory evidence session before being appointed.
The report criticized Number 10 and the FCDO’s “appalling” record keeping and argued this could have been mitigated by a pre-appointment hearing with the committee.
“Even if Peter Mandelson had not answered all of our questions honestly, at least there would have been a public record of his statements, which we do not currently have,” the report added.
Other suggestions include:
-
A formal process should be established for political appointments to ambassadorial posts
-
The Prime Minister should always consult the foreign minister and the head of diplomatic services before making a political appointment to an ambassadorial post.
-
Senior civil servants should be informed of the findings of Sir Adrian Fulford, who is currently reviewing the National Security Review.
-
FCDO should improve record keeping on these appointments
Dame Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said there were “still unanswered questions about how someone so unfit was appointed as Britain’s Ambassador to the US”.
He described Lord Mandelson’s appointment as “a complete disaster for the country” and called for measures to ensure an “open and transparent process” in the future.
“Processes were rushed or not followed. The usual checks and balances were not carried out. Vital security checks, which are an integral part of our national security, were seen as a nuisance,” he said.
Responding to a BBC request for comment, a government spokesman said changes had already been made to the way the vetting process for political appointees was implemented.
“The Prime Minister has commissioned an independent review of the National Security Review system, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, to ensure lessons are learned.”
Lord Mandelson appears to think the investigation was conducted in a highly partisan and biased manner. He seems to believe that his mission was not a disaster and that he had some notable achievements.
