The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, ambassadorial appointments go through an extensive process, which includes national security vetting. This is a robust process to which thousands of civil servants are subject each year. As noble Lords would expect, it is none the less kept under continual review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and addresses any shortcomings. That is why yesterday we announced that direct ministerial appointments for senior ambassadorial roles must now pass security vetting before they are confirmed or announced.
Lord Pack (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The other part of the process is the due diligence process that the Cabinet Office undertook for the ambassador to the US. How many other appointments have the Government made following the same or a substantially similar process as was used for the ambassador to the US? Do the Government have confidence that the outcome of the process was correct in all those other cases, given the problems we are now aware of with how the process worked in the case of the ambassador?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have no reason to believe that there are any other such issues— I think we can all accept that this was an exceptional situation—but that does not mean we should not review our processes and make sure that any changes that ought to be made are made. As the noble Lord suggests, this may not be the only occasion on which this kind of incident happens. We want to make sure that these processes are as strong as possible.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of ambassadors are appointed from within the service and therefore, perhaps over several decades, their competence and loyalty has been tested? The Question therefore refers perhaps to the very few people appointed from outside the service, and of course that process should be very rigorous.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The process ought to be rigorous in all cases. There are occasions when people are appointed from outside the service. I think the former head of mission in Cuba was a former Conservative MP, and there are Members in this place who have been high commissioners in Australia and South Africa and have done an incredibly good job, as the vast majority of our ambassadorial appointees do. But it is right that we look at this extremely carefully in light of what has happened and, if there are changes that need to be made, that we make them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I experienced the process for many years. Even as a Minister of State you gave references and had views, but ultimately it was a decision taken by the Foreign Secretary and then passed on to the Prime Minister—that process is very much established. I pay tribute to other Permanent Under-Secretaries who sit in your Lordships’ House and from whom I learned the process. Surely the fix here is that any political appointment, irrespective of the Government, is also put through that very same vetting process. That will resolve many of the issues the Government are now facing.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My understanding is that that is the case. I think the only difference here is around the timing of the vetting and the announcing; the actual vetting process was the same. There is now another process about making sure that the documents we all need to see in order to assure ourselves of this are available, because this is a public confidence issue as well. I hope that can be done in good time, and the ISC has taken responsibility for doing that.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Mandelson episode shows that party and personal loyalties can obstruct robust scrutiny. To prevent repetition of this kind of debacle, Parliament must ratify all ambassadorial appointments. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very much in favour of parliamentary oversight, but I think the scale of that undertaking needs to be properly understood by any parliamentary body that may wish to undertake such a thing. I have not heard anybody say that all our ambassadorial appointments should be subject to such a process; I think I would need some persuading.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can I just ask the Minister to clarify a point? She mentioned that Lord Mandelson went through the due diligence. She then said—I think I heard her right—that he was appointed and then the developed vetting took place after that. Why was that the case?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think what I said—I hope it is what I said; if it is not, I will clarify it—was that it was an announcement. The changes announced yesterday by the Cabinet Office were around making sure that that does not happen in future. Although it does not affect the vetting in substance, clearly it creates a perception and there is a risk there. We wanted to remove that, so we have announced that already. When there are further changes, which almost inevitably will arise as a result of the reviews that are being undertaken, there will be subsequent changes as well.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Can I press the Minister on what she said about being in favour of public appointments having parliamentary scrutiny? We on these Benches strongly support that. It sounds a very welcome thing, not necessarily for all our ambassadors but certainly for all senior public appointments. After all, we are supposed to be a parliamentary sovereignty and the idea that these are entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister clashes with the myth, at least, of parliamentary sovereignty. Can she explain a little more about whether this is now government policy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Government policy as regards the narrow issue that the noble Lord raised has not changed. That is not to say it cannot or will not ever change as a consequence of the considerations being made now. It is possible for the Foreign Affairs Committee to summon an ambassador and to want to hear from them. That is available under existing arrangements. I take his comment that he feels that Parliament should have greater input and greater oversight of many of those things. I think that is a welcome suggestion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, in his resignation letter, Morgan McSweeney said:
“When asked, I advised the Prime Minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that advice”.
The interesting words there are “When asked”—so Mr McSweeney did not originally suggest the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House who did.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I honestly do not know who originally had the idea; I bet they wish they had not. I am afraid I cannot enlighten the noble Lord. As far as Morgan McSweeney goes, he has done great service over very many years to the Labour Party, and by extension to this country. He remains someone who many of us hold in high esteem, and we wish him all the very best.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I realise that this is a very trying experience for the Minister and the Benches opposite, but I do not think there has been an issue over vetting if we look historically at the appointments that have been made from the Foreign Office and for ambassadors of this country. The real issue is about the decision taken by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appointed a person—Lord Mandelson—as the ambassador to the United States of America knowing, and admitting he knew, that he was still in touch with a convicted paedophile. That is the nub of this Question. Will the Minister acknowledge this and, in turn, when looking at the vetting process, make sure it is probably the right way around?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will correct the noble Baroness; the Question today is specifically about vetting. I note that there is a sharp difference with the Prime Minister we have today, who takes responsibility for the decision he made. He has apologised for the decision that he made and is taking measures to put it right. The apology that he made was received and accepted by one of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. If it is good enough for her to go on broadcast media and say that, it is good enough for me. I want to see measures put in place that will put this right and mean that this can never happen in the future. That is what the Prime Minister is focused on, and I think that is what the country wishes him to do.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I appreciate that this is a Question about vetting, but behind it is potentially a question about political judgment. When choosing an ambassador for any country, rather than having an elaborate problem of vetting, one might google. When I googled this, I found out that that particular potential ambassador was friends with somebody running an international sex trafficking gang in which young women were exploited and abused. Therefore, although I want there to be good vetting, I suggest that maybe the problem is not vetting but one of political judgment. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What I do agree with the noble Baroness about—I commend her on doing this—is focusing her question on those women and girls who were victims of a heinous paedophile. That is the right thing to do. Obviously, and the Prime Minister would be the very first person to say this, this was a bad decision. When you make a bad decision in life, especially when you are the Prime Minister, you have a choice. Some Prime Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place and told barefaced lies about it. Ours did not, and I am proud of him for that.