3rd Special Report - The appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the United States: Government Response

This is the government's response, published 16 October 2026.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government agrees with the Committee on security clearance before appointment and on due diligence processes, notes its recommendations on staff conduct, record-keeping and committee scrutiny, and does not respond on vetting pending the Fulford review.

• On security clearance, the Government agrees, stating that appointments such as this "would no longer be made or announced" before the appointee has been granted clearance, which for FCDO Heads of Mission "will always be Developed Vetting".
• On due diligence for direct ministerial appointments, the Government agrees: any proposed name will be shared with the FCDO PUS and the FCDO "will conduct an open-source due diligence exercise" focused on reputational risks.
• On record-keeping, the Government notes the recommendations. An external review of FCDO knowledge and information management is due to report by the end of September, and the FCDO will update the Committee on its conclusions "in due course".
• On a Committee veto over political appointees, the Government notes the recommendation but says a veto "would not be appropriate" because it must "take responsibility for the appointment". The FCDO would welcome a conversation on pre-appointment scrutiny.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error