No10 knew Mandelson failed security vetting seven months ago

Downing Street knew Peter Mandelson had failed his security review for the role of US ambassador seven months ago; These concerns were first expressed by No10. Independent.

This publication revealed that on September 11 last year, MI6 failed to clear the Labor Party, largely due to concerns about its business links with China.

These concerns were ranked 10th but then communications director Tim Allen insisted: “The review was carried out by the FCDO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] normally”.

Now Downing Street is trying to claim Sir Keir was aware of the problem when documents detailing his appointment emerged this week.

The Prime Minister said it was “surprising” and “inexcusable” that he had not been told sooner, adding that he was “furious”.

But Alex Burghart, the Tory shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, accused Downing Street of lying about the current situation.

He said: “What Downing Street was told in September was said by at least one official. Independent – Mandelson failed his review. The Prime Minister now acts as if he doesn’t know the faith of the beggars. This is cover-up after cover-up, lie after lie. We cannot trust the words and judgments of this prime minister. “It’s time for him to face the music.”

Concerns raised by Independent It came on the day Sir Keir sacked Lord Mandelson over his links to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

According to a former senior cabinet minister, any security concerns would be raised privately between the head of MI6, the foreign secretary and the prime minister as part of normal practice.

But Downing Street now claims FCDO foreign secretary Olly Robbins failed to do so, a decision that led to his dismissal last night. However, Downing Street was aware that the issue had been raised in September. Independent.

Sir Keir insisted he did not know before this week and told reporters on Friday: “It is surprising that I was not told that Peter Mandelson had failed his vetting when he was appointed.

“It is inexcusable that I was not told that he had failed his vetting when I told Parliament that due process was followed. Not only was I not told, but no minister was told and I am absolutely furious about that.”

“What I plan to do is go to Parliament on Monday and set out all the relevant facts with real transparency so that Parliament can see the full picture.”

UK Reform Leader Nigel Farage said “nothing the Prime Minister says means anything”, adding: “He lied to the country and he needs to go.”

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch reacted at the time Independent“These latest revelations point once again to Keir Starmer’s appalling judgment and why it is imperative that all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment be released immediately.

“If it is true that Starmer or his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney overrode the security services as alleged, they need to immediately explain publicly why they did so.”

Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel, who received similar security briefings from MI5 as home secretary, said: “These are extraordinary statements. Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney’s appointment of Lord Mandelson, despite concerns raised by the security services, shows a blatant disregard for all national security considerations and a determination to support their Labor friends.”

But when asked whether Number 10 ignored security concerns flagged by the security services before Lord Mandelson’s appointment, the spokesman said: “No 10 was not involved in the security review process. This is led by the responsible agency at departmental level and any suggestion that Number 10 was involved is untrue.”

Former Tory foreign secretary James Cleverly, who has made several diplomatic appointments, insisted in a statement on X (Twitter) that all security and other concerns regarding Lord Mandelson would be presented to the foreign secretary and prime minister by officials and security services.

He wrote: “They would remind Lammy that Mandelson had resigned in disgrace twice before. They would remind Lammy that Mandelson had a long-standing relationship with Epstein. They would remind Lammy that Mandelson had extensive, complex and opaque business interests.”

“I have no doubt they will remind Lammy that he and the Prime Minister pose a significant reputational risk if they appoint Mandelson. I have no doubt they will publicly advise Lammy not to appoint Mandelson.”

“And it is now clear that Lammy and Starmer ignored that advice and appointed him anyway.”

Independent approached Downing Street for further comment.