To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's revised staff vetting and oversight procedures, following the dismissal of some of its staff members due to their alleged involvement in the attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's revised staff vetting and oversight procedures, following the dismissal of some of its staff members due to their alleged involvement in the attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.

To ask His Majesty's Government what was the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development internal policy basis, for the decision to grant Lord Mandelson access to classified briefings at higher tiers from 6 January 2025, before his Developed Vetting was completed.

To ask His Majesty's Government what was the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development internal policy basis, for the decision to grant Lord Mandelson access to classified briefings at higher tiers from 6 January 2025, before his Developed Vetting was completed.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the vetting process for ambassadors is sufficiently robust.

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the vetting process for ambassadors is sufficiently robust.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish the details of the standard vetting procedures that ambassadors undergo before they are appointed.

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish the details of the standard vetting procedures that ambassadors undergo before they are appointed.

Lords motion to approve. Agreed to on question.

Lords motion to approve. Agreed to on question.

Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.

Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.