Ambassadors: Vetting Process

Baroness Foster of Oxton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.