The revelations about the process by which Peter Mandelson was appointed to serve as Ambassador to the United States of America have once again raised questions about the suitability of the UK’s standards regime. Peter Riddell argues that ministers must be proactive, seeking to future proof the system through legislation, rather than reactively asking for reviews and tinkering with the rules when flaws in the system are exposed.

Scandals have been the drivers of change in public standards – cash for questions and cronyism, for example – and so it is proving again with the Mandelson/Epstein affair. This has so many layers, from the appalling abuse of vulnerable girls and young women by the rich and powerful to privileged access to commercial decisions, and appointments to public office that go wrong.

 In this blog I want to concentrate on the specific implications for standards. Robert Hazell has already written about the problems of removing peerages. But there are two other broad aspects—first, flawed scrutiny of appointments; and second, a review into lobbying, disclosure and access to government which the Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) has been asked by the Prime Minister to undertake as an urgent priority.

Whenever there is a scandal, there are angry demands that this must not happen again. On each occasion, rules are tightened, reducing one form of misconduct. But there is only so much that Codes of Conduct and the like can achieve in face of failures of judgement and human nature.

The government has been forced to publish the internal emails leading up to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK Ambassador to the USA in December 2024. This was in response to a parliamentary motion for a Humble Address proposed by the Conservatives but passed with wide cross-party backing. Mandelson was a rare political appointee rather than a career diplomat that would already have been heavily vetted a number of times before reaching this level. Instead, the documents make clear that there was a hurried and truncated process.

Laurie Magnus, the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, concluded in rejecting a Conservative call for an investigation of a possible breach of the Ministerial Code that ‘the documentation that has been made public indicates that the relevant process for a political appointee was followed’. Precisely – the processes for political appointees are less demanding than for officials.

The documents already released show that the civil service advice identified the main risks, notably about Mandelson’s already known association with Epstein after the latter’s first prison sentence. More evidence will be published—some is not being disclosed yet because of the police inquiries. But whatever these later documents reveal about Mandelson’s honesty or otherwise about his contacts with Epstein, it is already clear that at least the key risks were known, if not their magnitude. This points to a failure of judgement by the Prime Minister and some of his political advisers who urged the appointment. It appears that such political advisers rejected an offer by Cabinet Office civil servants to interview Mandelson about the already identified risks. These weaknesses were compounded by one-on-one unminuted discussions amongst political advisers, as well as the apparent failure of the Prime Minister to discuss the concerns with Mandelson directly.

The government has already promised to tighten the procedures for political appointees to bring them closer to those for career diplomats over vetting, in the number of interviews and in the processes for declaration of interests. That is necessary but not sufficient unless there is the political will.

Due diligence can always be improved. In my experience of five and a half years as Public Appointments Commissioner, what mattered was not just the formal requirements in the Appointments Code but also the willingness in practice of those conducting interviews and those appointing to challenge candidates. There is a reluctance to press what I called the ‘embarrassment’ question – asking candidates whether there was anything in their background or interests which would damage the reputation of the office they sought. It is not necessarily that such candour should prevent someone being appointed but any problems should be fully considered by ministers when deciding.

This issue has arisen over some recently appointed Labour peers, three of whom – not including Mandelson – have had to step aside in different ways because of past associations and conduct. This reveals big weaknesses in Downing Street’s vetting procedures. Responsibility for improving due diligence for peers should lie both with the nominating party, which should have to testify that they had identified and discussed reputational risks with the candidate, and with the House of Lords Appointments Commission which should have the resources to pursue any doubts. When selecting and recommending Crossbench peers, the Commission follows a rigorous process, involving a formal application, at least one interview, and taking up references, alongside a background propriety check. Its involvement in the process for political appointees is far weaker, comprising only the latter. In the event of a dispute when the Prime Minister insists upon going ahead despite the opposition of the Commission, the full correspondence should be published—in practice a strong deterrent.

The other major area raised by the Mandelson affair is over the access of outside business interests to government. What has been really shocking is the allegations that privileged commercial information was made available to Epstein and his network during the 2008-10 banking crisis. That has particularly, and understandably, infuriated Gordon Brown, who was Prime Minister at the time. This has focused attention on the apparently easy access by outsiders to ministers and their advisers via the proliferation of what are described as ‘non-corporate’ communications- notably private e-mails and WhatsApp messages. That links to the broader question of the lobbying of government and the activities of former ministers and officials.

The Prime Minister has asked the EIC to undertake a rapid review, by the summer recess, to establish:

‘Whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for ministers and senior government officials are sufficient and whether in the future, regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency should be used.

Whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient, including the government’s publication of monthly and quarterly integrity data; and the Register of Consultant Lobbying.

Whether the current Business Appointment Rules are sufficient, in particular in respect of managing potentially improper access to, and influence within, government.’

These are demanding terms of reference, especially in such a short time. Many of the issues have featured in reports by the EIC’s predecessor, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its 2021 report on ‘Upholding Standards in Public Life’, by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Commons, and by outside bodies including the Constitution Unit. The EIC has now published a call for evidence which focusses heavily on specific changes on lobbying, while examining general principles on Business Appointment Rules.

The key questions are around transparency. Too many contacts with ministers, officials and political advisers are still informal and either not, or insufficiently, recorded. The current lobbying rules are far too narrow and exclude most contacts. For a start, lobbying by in-house consultants needs to be recorded publicly, coupled with the purpose of contacts, Special advisers and a wider range of civil servants need to be included in disclosure. It should not just be formal meetings but also phone calls, emails and other forms of communication. And disclosure needs to be faster.

The regulation of the revolving door between Whitehall and the business world was overhauled six months ago—with a simplification of types of activity for those leaving public service, and a split of the former responsibilities of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) between the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards (who now advises Ministers about post-Whitehall employment) and the Civil Service Commission (which advises Crown servants). The Civil Service Commission has been charged with revising the Business Appointment Rules, and legislation may be required to give teeth to what is still essentially a voluntary regime.

This may be familiar ground but it does not make it any easier to agree workable solutions which do not inhibit perfectly legitimate contacts between government and outside bodies. Moreover, many of these proposals, particularly on lobbying, require primary legislation – and apart from the high profile, but largely marginal, issue of taking away titles from disgraced peers, and on some aspects of the elections bill going through parliament, the government has shown a marked reluctance to bring in legislation on public standards issues.

Baroness (Ruth) Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent has been given specific responsibilities as a new Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Cabinet Office for standards. During exchanges in the Lords on 17 March about the government’s response to the Mandelson allegations, she drew a comparison with the original Nolan report of 1995 and talked of ‘a once in a generation opportunity to get this right’. Questions were raised about ‘future-proofing’ the standards structure in face of the current political uncertainties. That requires a coherent strategy, backed by statutory entrenchment of the constitutional watchdogs and of changes to the lobbying regime, to match the current hand-wringing and shutting of the stable doors. And as always, it requires political will: Baroness Anderson will need strong support from those higher up the ministerial chain.

About the author

Sir Peter Riddell is an Honorary Professor of Political Science at the Constitution Unit, UCL. He was formerly a political journalist, director of the Institute for Government and Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Featured image: Peter Mandelson and Keir Starmer (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.