Report: The appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States
Despite hours of testimony and the unprecedented release of over 1,500 pages of documents through the Humble Address, unanswered questions remain over how Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British Ambassador to the United States of America was allowed to go ahead, a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee finds.
It concludes that it is “difficult to understand how Peter Mandelson was appointed if he were a perceived risk to national security” with the Committee finding “no evidence” of what the mitigations in place were.
Process was not followed and the usual checks and balances were not made, the report concludes. The Committee calls for no public appointments to be announced or made without the appropriate security clearance first being granted.
Today’s report calls for a Foreign Affairs Committee veto on political appointments to Heads of Mission posts, and a compulsory pre-appointment hearing with the Committee.
Messages published as part of the Humble Address show the dismissive view held about the need for security clearance for Peter Mandelson to take up this post, as though officials were looking for reasons not to bother with vetting.
The report finds that record keeping throughout this process has been appalling and there is no audit trail of the decision-making which led to this appointment. The Committee concludes that the Civil Service Code has been failed.
The report sets out reforms to security vetting and due diligence:
- When a Prime Minister wishes to make a specific appointment, they should always build in time to consult the Head of Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Secretary.
- The Cabinet Office, in consultation with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, should set out a process for political appointments
- The due diligence report must be shared with the hiring department, and the department must be given the opportunity to contribute fully to the due diligence.
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry MP, said: “Despite my Committee’s extensive scrutiny and evidence gathering, and the thousands of pages published via the Humble Address, there are still unanswered questions as to how someone so clearly unfit was appointed British Ambassador to the United States.
“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.
“Mandelson’s appointment was an unmitigated disaster for the country. It should never have been allowed to happen, and it cannot ever be repeated. To prevent anything similar from happening again, no public appointments should be made without security vetting having already taken place.
“With the appointment announced, Mandelson on the payroll, and constant pressure from No. 10, it is no wonder that some civil servants in the Foreign Office felt the appointment was a forgone conclusion.
“But when our nation’s security is at stake, there can be no exceptions made, regardless of the individual’s public profile or sense of pressure. The lack of record keeping in particular is utterly astounding and a clear failure to abide by the Civil Service Code.”
“We are where we are, in part, because decisions were taken behind closed doors, with little to no external scrutiny. High-stakes political appointments to diplomatic positions need closer examination than internal ones.
On the rare occasion political appointments do occur, the Foreign Affairs Committee should be granted public pre-appointment hearings and an unconditional veto, to ensure an open and transparent process.
“Peter Mandelson’s appointment has been highly damaging for the Government, painful and offensive to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and it has diminished our country in the eyes of the world.”
