Tag: unanswered questions

Foreign Affairs Committee: “unanswered questions” over Mandelson vetting

Report:  The appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States

Read the report [HTML]

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.”

mandelson-appointment-reportDownload

Labour’s handling of Foysol Choudhury MSP raises serious questions of Racism and Due Process

THE PUZZLING CASE OF FOYSOL CHOUDHURY

The administrative suspension and effective deselection of Scotland’s first Bangladeshi Muslim MSP—without a concluded investigation or formal complaint exposes troubling inconsistencies in Labour’s internal processes and raises wider concerns about Islamophobia and racial bias within the party.

The treatment of Foysol Chowdhury MSP by the Labour Party raises profound and troubling questions about fairness, due process, and whether institutional racism and Islamophobia continue to operate within the party (writes Cllr HABIB RAHMAN, Independent Councillor, Former Lord Mayor of Newcastle upon Tyne).

Foysol Chowdhury made history in 2021 when he became Scotland’s first Bangladeshi Muslim MSP. Since his election, he has served his constituents diligently, taken on multiple shadow cabinet roles, and built a strong reputation as a hard-working and effective parliamentarian.

Within the British Bangladeshi community across the UK, his political success was widely seen as a breakthrough moment—proof that politics could finally reflect the diversity of modern Britain.

Beyond politics, Foysol is a successful businessman, human rights campaigner, and philanthropist. He is also a devoted family man, married for over 30 years with two adult children.

In August 2025, Foysol underwent the standard reselection process for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. At a full members’ hustings held on 13 August, he received unanimous support and was democratically selected as Labour’s candidate for Edinburgh Northern.

What followed has been nothing short of a political and personal ordeal.

On 25 September 2025, Foysol was informed by email that he had been placed under “administrative suspension” by the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) following an alleged serious conduct complaint. No details were provided. He was not told the nature of the allegation, when it was made, who made it, or even whether a formal complaint existed.

Almost immediately, media speculation erupted, falsely portraying Foysol as a sexual predator and suggesting allegations involving a female staff member.

This speculation was later publicly corrected by the GLU, which confirmed that reports of sexual misconduct were false and that the matter related instead to an allegation of bullying. By that point, however, the damage to Foysol’s reputation had already been done.

More than three months later, Foysol remains suspended. He has not been interviewed, asked for a statement, or given any meaningful opportunity to respond. His solicitors were informed by the GLU in November that the “assessment could not be completed unless the complainant decided to submit a formal complaint”.

This raises an extraordinary question: how can an elected representative be suspended indefinitely on the basis of a complaint that may not even formally exist?

Despite this unresolved situation, Scottish Labour proceeded as though Foysol no longer existed. In December 2025, party officials announced that applications had opened to “fill the vacancy” in Edinburgh Northern, using an all-women shortlist. This is despite the fact that Foysol had already been selected by members and no finding had been made against him.

A shortlist of three candidates was approved, with a hustings scheduled for January 2026. Notably, the shortlist contains no candidates of colour. For a party that routinely speaks about diversity and representation, this is deeply concerning.

I want to be absolutely clear on one point. Foysol Chowdhury is a friend. However, as a lifelong campaigner against bullying and harassment, I would be among the first to condemn him if he were found guilty of bullying or harassment of any kind. No one should be above accountability. But accountability requires evidence, due process, and fairness—not whispers, leaks, and indefinite suspension.

I also speak from personal experience. I left the Labour Party in January 2024 after repeatedly challenging Islamophobia and racism within its structures. I did so in the hope that the party would reflect, reform, and improve. Sadly, I see no evidence that this has happened. If anything, under the current leadership, the situation has worsened.

There is also a clear and troubling precedent that exposes a double standard. I submitted a formal complaint to the Labour Party on 8 March 2022 against a sitting Labour councillor. Despite this, that councillor—who is white—was permitted to remain on the ballot paper as a Labour candidate in the May 2022 local elections.

The GLU delayed imposing any administrative suspension until after the councillor had submitted their nomination papers to Newcastle City Council. Only then was a 12-month suspension imposed. That councillor went on to win the seat as a Labour candidate, served the suspension period, and later returned to the party.

This stands in stark contrast to the treatment of Foysol Choudhury—a Black Muslim MSP—who has been suspended without a concluded investigation, without a formal complaint, and effectively removed from selection.

What we are witnessing in Foysol Choudhury’s case is an effective deselection without investigation, a punishment without a verdict, and a complete abandonment of one of Labour’s most prominent minority representatives. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this case would have been handled very differently had Foysol not been a Bangladeshi Muslim man.

Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour increasingly appears detached from the principles of justice, equality, and solidarity it once claimed to uphold. The handling of this case by Scottish Labour and the GLU risks reinforcing the perception that the party is comfortable sidelining minority voices when they become inconvenient.

The Labour Party must act urgently. Either there is a formal complaint that can be investigated promptly and fairly, or there is not. If there is no formal complaint, Foysol Choudhury should be reinstated immediately, his suspension lifted, and his democratic selection respected.

An unreserved apology is owed—not only to him, but to the communities who saw his election as a symbol of progress. Anything less will confirm the belief that Labour has failed one of its own—and in doing so, failed the values it claims to stand for.

Taken together, the evidence in this case leads to a deeply troubling conclusion: that racism and Islamophobia remain real, unresolved problems within the Labour Party’s internal culture and decision-making processes.

HABIB RAHMAN