The diplomatic vetting affair
The inside story of Foreign Office security vetting
Welcome back. In this week’s Gazette, the Mandelson appointment scandal and the inside story of security vetting at the Foreign Office.
Plus a limited-time 1-1 consultancy offer.
The Ambassador at Large Gazette is the insider’s guide to diplomacy. Written by a former British Ambassador to Vietnam and Cuba with 30 years experience. For professionals who need to understand how diplomacy actually works and how to do it. Upgrade your subscription here:
Prince of Darkness
I met Peter Mandelson when he visited Seoul during my posting there. I accompanied him on calls (and downtown shopping). Organising VIP visits is often a task for the “Political Counsellor” in a medium-sized embassy like ours.
At a seminar with South Korean policy-makers and academics, I introduced him as “The Prince of Darkness”. I didn’t know he’d fall into deeper darkness, or that 25 years on his appointment as Ambassador to the US would rock the British government.
His recruitment was controversial from the start. His departure, amid the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, was damaging. The revelation he failed security vetting before taking the job, and that Foreign Office officials apparently overruled that recommendation, has now cost the FCDO’s most senior civil servant his position.
To understand what’s happening, you need to know what vetting actually is.
What vetting is - and how it feels
I was “security vetted” when I joined the UK Foreign Office, and again every 10 (then 7) years through my diplomatic service. Each time it felt unnecessarily intrusive but not watertight.
Security vetting is a risk assessment. Developed Vetting (DV), the normal standard applied to diplomats with regular access to Top Secret material, involves detailed scrutiny of finances, personal relationships, mental health history, family connections, and potential vulnerabilities to pressure or manipulation.
It includes personal interviews and background checks that can take months. My first DV clearance took so long that I started the job at HQ in London without it, leaving my (much better paid) job in the private sector and taking a gamble.
“What happens if I fail the vetting?” I asked.
“We really hope that won’t happen.”
It feels personal because it is personal. The question it should ask is not whether you’re a good person (it sometimes seems you’re under that spotlight), but whether you could be pressured, manipulated or compromised.
It’s a human, imperfect system. The result: cleared, or not.
The basic classifications
BPSS (Baseline Personnel Security Standard): Basic identity, nationality, employment and criminal record check.
CTC (Counter-Terrorist Check): access to sensitive government sites or public figures.
SC (Security Check): regular access to classified material up to secret.
DV (Developed Vetting): frequent access to secret material. The level required for senior diplomatic postings. Reviewed at least every seven years, or earlier if circumstances change.
Higher level: some diplomacy roles require higher clearance on top of DV. An appointment as Ambassador to the Vietnam, Cuba - or the US - may be in this category.
These descriptions are simplified and unofficial. For details, consult official UK National Security Vetting guidance.
Clearance can be reviewed at any point. A change in personal circumstances, a new relationship, financial difficulty; any of these can trigger a fresh look. Denial or withdrawal of clearance can end a diplomatic career, or require reassignment to a lower-clearance role, career-defining roadblock for a diplomat.
At a later stage of my own career, a regular review turned up something the vetting officers found questionable. Called back for a further interview, I produced the additional paperwork they’d demanded and was able to address the issue to their satisfaction: cleared.
That’s how the system normally works.
What was extraordinary
Officials overruling a DV recommendation does happen. It’s rare, and for a reason: the integrity of the process depends on its independence from political considerations.
When the Head of the Foreign Office (“PUS”) told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee there was an “atmosphere of pressure” to get Mandelson to Washington quickly, and that No. 10 had been “constantly chasing” his team, he was describing exactly the kind of pressure the vetting process exists to resist.
Sir Olly said he hadn’t seen the detail of the vetting, was told the result “borderline” and judged, on advice, that the risks could be mitigated. The UK Prime Minister (PM) announced the appointment without the vetting process having concluded.
The firing of a PUS is itself almost without precedent. The PUS is responsible for the professional integrity of the whole service. Losing one in these circumstances sends a signal throughout the building and beyond.
(Asked about the ‘what’ in the DV process) “I won’t be drawn [...] I want to ensure anyone who goes through DV that they never have to worry [that] what they disclose goes anywhere it should not and therefore I didn’t see the contents nor would I expect to” - Sir Olly Robbins
Political appointees and vetting
Lord Mandelson wasn’t a career diplomat: he was a politician. Unusual, but not unprecedented. My successor in Havana was a political appointee. Lord Llewellyn went to Paris. Lord Mandelson went to Washington.
Senior ambassadorial appointments are exempted from normal competitive recruitment requirements. The Foreign Secretary, with the PM’s approval, can appoint directly, whether a career diplomat or an outsider.
Senior ambassadors are excepted from the requirement that appointments must be made ‘on merit on the basis of fair and open competition’. The Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister can recommend a direct appointment, either of a career diplomat or of a political appointee. - Gazette of 1 January
That exemption from competitive recruitment was never intended to extend to an exemption from security vetting. Those are two entirely separate processes, for good reason.
When political pressure on timing collides with the deliberate pace of a thorough vetting process, something has to give. In this case, it was the vetting process. The consequences are now playing out in public.
What it means
The row isn’t over. Next week the Foreign Affairs Committee hears from the PM’s former chief of staff.
It’s not really about the “Prince of Darkness”, but about whether the systems protecting sensitive information and the integrity of diplomatic appointments can withstand political pressure.
For career diplomats and international professionals, the answer matters. The credibility of diplomatic representation, and the civil service, depends partly on confidence that officials have been robustly vetted and aren’t compromised.
That confidence is harder to maintain today than it was a week ago.
1-1 Consultancy offer for Founder Members and paid subscribers
