A recent report from the UK's Foreign Affairs Committee has recommended significant changes to the process of appointing political ambassadors, including granting MPs veto power over candidates who fail to meet required standards. This proposal follows scrutiny of the appointment of Lord Mandelson, whose security clearance for the role of British Ambassador to the United States became a point of contention.
The committee's report states that the process for Lord Mandelson's appointment "was being made up as it went along" and criticized "appalling" record-keeping by both Number 10 and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). It suggested that a pre-appointment hearing with the committee could have mitigated issues and provided a public record of the candidate's statements.
Sir Olly Robbins, the FCDO's top civil servant, who was dismissed by Sir Keir Starmer earlier this year over Lord Mandelson's security clearance, reported an "atmosphere of pressure" and "constant chasing" from Number 10 during the vetting process. The report emphasizes that "no public appointments should be announced or made without the appropriate security clearance first being granted."
Key recommendations from the committee include establishing a formal process for political appointments to ambassadorial roles, requiring the prime minister to consult the foreign secretary and the head of diplomatic services before making such appointments, and briefing senior civil servants on the findings of a review into National Security Vetting led by Sir Adrian Fulford. The FCDO is also urged to improve its record-keeping processes.
The committee proposed that candidates for political ambassadorial roles should undergo a compulsory evidence session prior to their appointment. Furthermore, the committee should possess a veto if an appointee is deemed not to meet the required standard. These compulsory pre-appointment hearings would specifically apply to political appointees, not to heads of mission recruited from within the civil service.
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed concerns about how someone she considered "clearly unfit" was appointed British Ambassador to the United States, describing the appointment as an "unmitigated disaster for the country." She called for measures to ensure an "open and transparent process" in the future, noting that "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."
In response, 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.
Lord Mandelson is understood to believe the inquiry was conducted in a partisan manner and disputes that his appointment was a disaster, citing some notable successes. He reportedly believes his appointment was not a disaster, with some notable successes.