(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat the Statement the Prime Minister made earlier today:
“With permission, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.
Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with the House that while this Statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.
I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating the House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that the House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.
I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the humble Address Motion of 4 February.
In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.
I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that
‘when we are making appointments from outside the civil service … the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post’.
At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson
‘did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance’.
After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.
The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.
To be clear, for many departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.
I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before he took up his post that the UKSV’s recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Peter Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.
In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:
‘The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington’.
When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about this last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.
On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:
‘The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February’.
It went on to say:
‘Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy’.
Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issues in question.
In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. As I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025. I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making a statement to the Select Committee, again in 2025.
On top of that, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.
I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world: in Ukraine, the Middle East and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is a tortuous and, frankly, somewhat embarrassing Statement—stable door after stable door pushed shut long after the obvious national security risk had bolted through them. The Prime Minister is still answering questions on the Statement in the other place; it would surely have been better if it had been repeated here in prime time, at a time when your Lordships had had a chance to digest the Prime Minister’s words, the reactions to them, and the response of Sir Olly Robbins tomorrow. We made that reasonable request, and the Government rejected it. Will the noble Baroness, our Leader, give an assurance that, if asked, she will come back to this House tomorrow to answer questions on Sir Olly Robbins’s response to today’s account of events?
The noble Baroness must know what everybody knew—apart from, it seems, the Prime Minister—that Peter Mandelson was totally unsuitable to be our ambassador to the USA. The Statement’s repeated defence, as we have just heard, is that the Prime Minister would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known his vetting had failed. But you did not need vetting to see that Mandelson was a proven liar. You did not need vetting to see that he was twice forced to resign in disgrace from government. You did not need vetting to hear that he revelled in the company of what he called the “filthy rich”, from whatever dubious nation that might be. You did not need vetting to know that he was a known associate and defender of the convicted paedophile, Epstein. You did not need vetting or process—you needed gumption, judgment and common sense, and you cannot subcontract those things to a Whitehall committee. Was there no one at any stage in this who asked the simple question, “Is this wise?”
The Prime Minister says that Mandelson lied in the course of his vetting. Should we be surprised? Well, no, though it seems the Prime Minister was. That is the crux of the matter. What is absolutely staggering is the truly spectacular scale of the failure of judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing such a man. It embarrasses the Labour movement, which does not deserve to be embarrassed in such a way. No amount of casuistical argument, such as we have just heard, can efface that personal responsibility. One man picked Mandelson, one man pushed him, and the issue is not the “who knew what when” about Mandelson’s vetting, but what everybody knew about Mandelson before he was appointed, all of which the Prime Minister ignored.
This is a Prime Minister on his third Cabinet Secretary—three in under two years. A legion of advisers has been selected, then shoved out of No. 10 as scapegoats for some panic or crisis of confidence. Is not the truth that it is always someone else to blame? I valued the old conventions that Ministers took responsibility. Civil servants were rarely named in this place and never blamed. Whatever happened to those conventions? Why was an outstanding ambassador shoved out of Washington to make way for the likes of Mandelson? It is because the Prime Minister wanted it, and wanted it quick. Why was the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, sacked? It is because the Prime Minister wanted a scapegoat, and wanted it quick. Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister wanted his man Mandelson, come hell or high water, and the Civil Service sought to accommodate his instructions?
Can the noble Baroness tell the House this: did Sir Olly Robbins act against the law, against the Civil Service Code or outside proper process in any way in enabling Mandelson to go forward, despite vetting advice? If so, will she tell the House his specific offences? If not, can she say on what grounds Sir Olly has been fairly dismissed?
The Prime Minister has admitted that he was aware that vetting had not been done on Mandelson when he named him. We know that the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, advised him to wait for that to be done. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that advice? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Prime Minister or No. 10 at any stage asked about the vetting and Mandelson’s links to China or Russia? Is it true that the National Security Adviser warned that the process was “weirdly rushed”? Is it true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said just this weekend, that there were “time pressures” to get Mandelson cleared? Is it true, as the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend, that officials were instructed to give “priority clearance” to Mandelson?
It looks as if, on the Prime Minister’s wishes, the process for Mandelson’s clearance was put in what was called—how was it in the Covid era?—the VIP lane, and we all know what became of that. Due process was followed by Sir Olly; that has not been challenged. All the problems arose from the undue haste of the Prime Minister to force through his man and glad-hand it with him in No. 10.
The Statement reveals a world beyond “Yes, Prime Minister”—a bureaucracy of bizarre complexity, in which you cannot see the wood for the legalese, where people have to seek legal advice before they talk to each other, where there are inquiries into inquiries into inquiries, where the Prime Minister sits staggered, unbelieving and unknowing the heart of a system over which he has presided for two years, processing and reprocessing process, for all the world like Sir Humphrey Appleby.
We have not had time to assess in detail the minutiae of this Statement. We have not been permitted to hear Sir Olly’s side of the case before being asked to consider it. We will come back to those things, but what must be clear to all is the astonishing lack of judgment by the Prime Minister in making this appointment, the dire consequences of his undue haste, and the rank smell of the blame game and dumping on senior civil servants—things which should have no place in the conduct of good government.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, one thing I agree with in this Statement is the recognition of the victims of the crime of Jeffrey Epstein. We are able to know what we know about an appointment which should never have been made only because of the patience and the persistence of the victims, and they should be at the forefront of all our minds.
At the start of this, on 11 November 2024, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case—now the noble Lord, Lord Case—gave very clear and appointment-specific advice to the Prime Minister if he chose to make a political appointment for the ambassador in Washington. I quote from the advice published in the first release of documents on 11 March this year:
“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice”.
This advice was specific. It was not about seeking clearance after the appointment; it was about seeking security clearances before confirming the choice.
In the House of Commons, Ed Davey asked the Prime Minister why this advice was disregarded and Peter Mandelson’s appointment was confirmed, approved by the King and announced prior to necessary security clearances being acquired. The Prime Minister replied that the subsequent review of the process had confirmed that it was followed. This was a non-answer, because the process was the Cabinet Secretary providing advice, which he did, that the Prime Minister chose to disregard. In the bundle of papers released in March, there was missing a minute between this advice and a reference on 12 December, a month later, to Peter Mandelson being referred to as the lead candidate. Can the Leader confirm that Parliament has been presented with all the information between the advice from the Cabinet Secretary in November and 12 December, when it was indicated that Peter Mandelson was now the lead candidate? Why is there no record of what the Prime Minister did with the advice issued on 11 November?
Just a few days later, on 18 December, the Palace was informed of the decision to appoint Mandelson, contrary to the advice that necessary security clearances should be acquired. What is all the more concerning is that we were told that the Prime Minister subsequently regretted making the appointment as a result of Mandelson’s lies in the due diligence process. But that an appointment was made in the first place, when the Prime Minister had been given the advice on 11 November on due diligence in respect of Peter Mandelson, is staggering. I remind the House of what that advice on the due diligence process was, and I remind the House that this was the lead candidate for appointment. It stated:
“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's House while he was in jail in June 2009 … In 2014 Mandelson also agreed to be a ‘founding citizen’ of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, and funded by Epstein”.
Surely this information alone should have been the basis on which, prior to any announcement, the Prime Minister should have decided that the reputational risk was too high, given the ongoing legal and congressional actions in the US at the time. He did not. The Prime Minister made a decision to set aside advice on acquiring vetting approval prior to making the announcement on 20 December and to set aside the reputational risk linked with Epstein’s crimes. Can the Leader confirm that the Foreign Secretary had seen the due diligence checklist report, as on business conflicts and the Epstein links, when he said in the government press release on 20 December:
“It is wonderful to welcome Peter back to the team”?
The Statement today puts all the blame on FCDO officials and none on accountability of Ministers. The Prime Minister stated today that
“given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations”
after Mandelson had been announced and his name had gone to the Palace two days before the press release. Given the seriousness and significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept the Prime Minister’s rationale for disregarding the advice given to him on 11 November that vetting should be acquired before the appointment, not before taking post. But quite astonishingly, the Prime Minister says
“if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment”.
But the appointment had already been made. Now, we must assume that there are questions on the accountability to Parliament.
The Prime Minister’s Statement today refers to the letter that the Foreign Secretary, alongside the Permanent Secretary, Sir Olly Robbins, provided to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which said that vetting
“concluded with the DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up the post”.
This misled Parliament, and the Government are saying that those who are accountable for that should not be the Ministers but officials—dismissed. We will hear from the sacked official, but the Prime Minister’s Statement alludes to other officials prior to Sir Olly taking up his post, and we are left with the uncomfortable position where only people who cannot answer to Parliament will be blamed, and no Ministers who are accountable to Parliament will be held to account. We await the work of parliamentary committees and the ISC, and I suspect we will also await the ministerial adviser report. Other Ministers have been held to account for what they have told Parliament; surely it must be the case that the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government are held to account also.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions in the time available. First, in response to the noble Lord, Lord True, who complained about the timing of the Statement, he usually asks me to repeat Statements made by the Prime Minister as soon as possible. It was my judgment, given the seriousness of the issue, that we should do it as soon as possible. He said about doing it in prime time; I think the House is pretty full to hear the Statement, and it is right that it is so, given the seriousness of it. He asked if I will come back tomorrow. I will always repeat the Prime Minister’s Statements in this House and take questions from your Lordships on any issue raised by the Prime Minister in the normal way and take questions in the normal way.
I think the noble Lord has got slightly confused between vetting and due diligence. There is no evidence that Peter Mandelson lied during the vetting process because we do not know what the vetting process had said. The Prime Minister said that he feels that he was not given accurate answers during the due diligence process, and he said that appointing Peter Mandelson was the wrong decision, for which he has apologised.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for raising the issue of victims, because too often we have just political debates. This started when the Epstein files were released, and I do not think, had those Epstein files not been released, we would have known the extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. Certainly on the issues around the information he was sending to him and the depth of the contact, we were not aware.
What we are talking about here is a failure of government, and it is extraordinary—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is a failure of good governance, in that there should be information made available to Ministers who are taking decisions. The fact that it was not made available is, as the Prime Minister said, extraordinary. Sir Chris Wormald has reviewed the process that was taken and it was correct. I will correct the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that Peter Mandelson did not getting vetting approval. The whole point is that he was given vetting approval; that is why people are quite astounded by this. The UK Security Vetting form—which is on the Government website for people to see—has two blocks; there is green, amber and red; and it has what the issues are and then what the recommendation is. The recommendation on that was not to give vetting, but the Foreign Office made the decision that it could pass the vetting.
It is one of those things that is a recommendation, but the vetting was then granted by the Foreign Office, so he was granted that vetting. No one could imagine that, with that information—when the Prime Minister and other Ministers are being asked and they are given the information that he has had the vetting—somebody did not flag that concerns were raised and that the recommendation was not to grant that vetting. The Prime Minister apologised for the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but in this case I think he is quite right to be angry and concerned that he was not informed of the red flags that were raised.
I was asked about what Olly Robbins did wrong. It may be that he lost the confidence of Ministers by quite clearly not giving the information. In terms of the process that was available, I think most of us think that there is an issue of judgment in how Ministers and officials would deal with information they are given. He had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. But I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House who had had that information would have considered it appropriate not to provide that information to the Prime Minister and other Ministers who were making the decisions.
This has been difficult. It is a difficult way forward for the Government, but the Prime Minister’s decisions on changing the process so that we do not have such a process in future—it should be absolutely clear that due diligence and vetting have been passed before any appointment is announced—would be a more sensible way forward. The review that Sir Adrian Fulford is taking forward should shine a light on this and look for a better way forward.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to up to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. This is set out in the Companion, in chapter 6, pages 86 and 87—paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her repetition of the Statement made by the Prime Minister earlier. I went to the other place to listen to the Prime Minister, and I have listened again to what the noble Baroness has had to say this afternoon. I find it impossible to work out, from both the original Statement and the repetition, why on earth the Prime Minister wanted this man to be the ambassador in the United States in the first place. Every dog and cat in the street knew that Lord Mandelson was a wrong ’un. What went wrong?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that he made a wrong decision, but I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that the number of people who praised the decision at the time and then criticised it later is quite surprising. Yes, all evidence shows now that this was the wrong candidate for the job, but part of that would have been exposed had this process been more open and transparent for Ministers. If they had had more information, we may have seen a different outcome.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, the totally new twist to this long-running saga is the discovery that the Foreign Office officials failed to give any information about this failed vetting to their ministerial masters, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. So far, I find this as mystifying as everybody else. Surely by this afternoon, Olly Robbins and other officials have been asked to give their explanation for this incredible behaviour. We cannot do anything or know where we go next on this extraordinary feature of this multifaceted case until we know what on earth induced these senior and responsible civil servants to do anything as irresponsible as to withhold this from the Prime Minister. As the noble Baroness the Leader and the Prime Minister are giving Statements today, can we be told—because they must have asked this question and had an answer—what the answers are and tell us what explanation and what reason Olly Robbins and the FCDO have been giving for completely withholding this information?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right. When you see the multiple opportunities to inform the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary that the recommendation from UKSV was that the vetting would not be granted, it is extraordinary that it was not passed on to Ministers. The reason for the Statement today is that the Prime Minister said he wanted, as soon as he had more information, to present it to the House at the earliest opportunity, and he has done that.
I understand that Olly Robbins is giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow and there will be information available after that. I do not want to paraphrase—like the noble Lord, I am looking at the papers and reading it—but I think he thought he was doing the right thing. I have concerns that his interpretation of the law may not have been right, because it seems extraordinary that he could withhold information of this seriousness from Ministers.
The very reason and the purpose for such a process of vetting is that those making the decisions have the information they need on which to make those decisions, and if they are not given that information, I think most people will just find it extraordinary. There would be, I think, a natural assumption that when you go through this process, those who are making the decisions have access and information provided to them. If any red flags were raised by the vetting process, they should have been provided to Ministers. But there will be the opportunity; there is a Select Committee tomorrow, and we may hear more about this.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the humble Address that Parliament passed gave the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, the responsibility to consider those documents that, if released, would affect national security or international relations. This February, we asked the Cabinet Office to prioritise all the documentation relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. When we received that information, there was no documentation concerning his vetting. We raised this with the Cabinet Office, only to be told that it did not exist. Last Thursday, the Guardian indicated that the document did exist. We have now received it and will consider it this week at one of our meetings. Now we have the vetting documentation to consider, but I have asked the Cabinet Office about the decision-making process in the Foreign Office to reject the recommendation in the vetting of Peter Mandelson. Again, the Cabinet Office has told me that nothing exists. If it does exist, could my noble friend somehow expedite that information and ensure that it gets to the ISC as quickly as possible?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and his committee for their work on this. He underlines our concerns; the humble Address was very clear that all information should be provided. In terms of information that is missing or was not available at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made this point, and I apologise for not answering it before—the Prime Minister has made an absolute commitment that all available information should be made public under the humble Address. National security information will be referred to the committee and anything that the police consider could be essential for a prosecution, and, if disclosed, would damage a potential one, may be delayed. The Foreign Office has gone back to the FCDO and is very keen to get all available information. It may be that some documents that were not available in the first tranche should be available in the second tranche or later. I think it is clear to everybody—the Prime Minister was extremely clear on this today—that all information should be available and the humble Address should be complied with in full.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will join me in paying tribute to our many diplomats around the world who do a sterling job in representing our country. I have a very simple question. She talked about the judgment of the then permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Surely there was an onus on the Prime Minister not just to listen but to ask. Why did he not?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I agree that our diplomats around the world do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. Anyone who has had to contact our embassies at a time of trouble or difficulty abroad will know how professional and excellent they are. The noble Lord is right that this all comes down to judgment. The Prime Minister has apologised for his judgment in making the appointment, but others must stand by the judgments they made, be questioned on them and account for them. That is what is happening as we get more information. Those of us sitting on this side of the House trust the Prime Minister’s judgment. It takes a big character to stand up and say sorry when they have made a mistake. That does not always happen. It has not always happened in the past. On the big judgments, we look at the international situation, where the Prime Minister refused just to follow in the wake of President Trump and acted in the national interest. That shows true judgment. That is why we on this side of the House trust the Prime Minister’s judgment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we have had a lot of discussions in this House over the last year about employment rights and particularly about unfair dismissal. To be fair, a dismissal must have a valid reason—we cannot make a rigid judgment on the dismissal of Olly Robbins at this stage—but it must also follow fair procedure. That typically means investigating the issue, informing the employee in writing, holding a disciplinary hearing and offering an appeal. According to the press, Olly Robbins was dismissed in a phone call on Thursday night. Can the Minister confirm that due, fair procedure was followed? If not, can she explain why the Government are so strong on insisting that all other employers should follow it, but it does not apply to them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there have been times when the Prime Minister has said that he has had to act quickly, as when he sacked Peter Mandelson. I do not think any Member of this House raised due process when he was called and told that he would lose his position. I will look further into this, but I expect the Prime Minister would have been given advice on how to proceed. It is a serious matter when a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary say they do not have confidence in an official, but I expect due procedure to be followed as this goes forward.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her clarity and for repeating the Statement, as others have echoed. My question is about risk in the wider system. I speak as someone who has been through this system, understands how intensive the questioning was, and is aware that thousands and thousands of these clearances are processed every year for the security of the nation. Will the scope of the review include whether there have been other breaches or lapses in judgment in questions of clearance at the most senior level because of the volume of people who pass through the system, and where there might be other risks?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I think we are all relieved to know that he has been through the process. It is a very intrusive and robust process, which is why it is right that the details are not conveyed to anybody outside those undertaking it. However, the results and conclusions should be. My understanding is that Sir Adrian Fulford’s investigation will look at the process in the round. My noble friend makes an important point, because there are many positions that need this degree of developed vetting. It is robust and intrusive, but if information is not passed on in a timely and accurate way then the value of that process is not fair, including on those who go through it. I will double-check this, but my understanding is that it will be a full investigation into whether the process is fit for purpose or whether changes need to be made.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister ignored the advice of the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, to do the vetting before the appointment was announced?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Prime Minister received a number of items of advice. He receives advice every day on different issues. That has been investigated since and the then Cabinet Secretary said that the appropriate, right process had been followed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Roe, I have been through the developed vetting process. It is intrusive and extremely thorough, going line by line through your bank statements, with detailed and intensive questions about personal relationships and everything else. I was doing so for a ministerial appointment. It was made quite clear in writing that if I failed the vetting process, I could not be appointed or continue in that role. I have also chaired a public body where one of our committee failed the vetting process and was removed from office. Are ambassadors in some way separate from that process? I think that is the question that noble Lords would like answered.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Yes, there is a difference, although the process undertaken by UKSV may be very similar. A summary is provided, but it is not a pass or fail. It will look at concerns, whether low, moderate or high. On the overall decision, it can approve clearance, it can approve it with risk management, or it can be denied. The difference here is that the Foreign Office, on getting that recommendation, did not have to follow it. It did, and was able to, override it. The concern is that it did not inform Ministers of the outcome of the vetting. What has caused Ministers most concern is that, at the various opportunities there were to inform them that, although vetting was granted, it was against the recommendation of UKSV, the information was never passed on.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, is it possible that the reason the Foreign Office did not inform the Prime Minister that it had overruled the security advice—which it is perfectly entitled to do—was that it knew very well that the Prime Minister was so wedded to the appointment of Mandelson and had appointed him, as we have heard, prior to the vetting process taking place?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is hard to say what is in somebody’s mind when they make a judgment call. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he would not have made the appointment against the vetting recommendation. I do not think it should be the case that officials could make that judgment and not let the Prime Minister or other Ministers know that they are making that judgment. They might think they know what is in the Prime Minister’s mind, but they have to give the Prime Minister the information.
It is also the case that the Prime Minister was clear that, had he known this—and I think this also goes for other Ministers—there would have been a different outcome. What is the point of such a system if those who actually make the decisions on appointments are not given the outcome of the process?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would have not made the appointment if he had the information from UK Security Vetting. At any point, did the Prime Minister or those working for him ask what the result of the UK security vetting process was? If not, why not?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My understanding is that the Foreign Office was asked to provide this to No. 10 and the Prime Minister. I could not tell the noble Lord who asked who, but the information was requested as it had been raised. However, they were never informed that there had been a recommendation; they were told that the appointment had been passed by the Foreign Office, but were not told that it was against the recommendation of UKSV.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I first echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord True, who had some very searching questions. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the Statement today. My question is one that I have raised twice before. There will be long and thorough discussions concerning the vetting process. However, we know that, despite the vetting process taking place following the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States of America, at the time of the appointment, the Prime Minister knew that Lord Mandelson had remained friendly with a convicted paedophile. These are two separate issues. When we look at judgment, therefore, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House really consider that the Prime Minister showed any judgment at all?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have already been clear to the House that I trust the Prime Minister’s judgment. The noble Baroness is raising two quite separate things. On the first, the Prime Minister is clear that, when the due diligence process was undertaken, he was not given accurate information by Peter Mandelson. He has said that he would have made a different decision based on that information.
The issue of vetting is different and covers issues such as national security. It is inconceivable that, when the recommendation from UK Security Vetting was that clearance should not be granted, it was not accepted by the Foreign Office, and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were not told. I come back to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: what is the point of having this intrusive and robust process if the information is not given to those who make the decisions?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of whether the Foreign Office has turned down red flag security briefings on ambassadors before? How many times has this happened before? If it has, what is the point of spending money on security services if nobody listens to them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is not just ambassadors; a number of public appointments are made under this process, and this is something that must be looked at. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question; I do not know whether others know, but we need that answer as to whether recommendations have been ignored in other cases.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister used his considerable communication skills to make it clear that he wanted to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador. Why did he not use the same skills to make clear to officials that this would be only on the condition that Lord Mandelson passed the vetting process? If that had happened, the noble Baroness would not be at the Dispatch Box now and the Government would not be in this mess.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think it is reasonable that the Prime Minister should be given information. If you make an appointment to such an important position, the expectation is—as we all know—that it is subject to security clearance. The Prime Minister was told only that Peter Mandelson had passed the security clearance; he was never told that it was against the recommendation of UKSV. The fault-line is between the recommendation of UKSV and the decision that was taken to grant developed vetting. That line is what has caused the most concern. We will have to investigate it, look at the process in future and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, learn whether it has happened in any other cases.