Network Ad
🔭 Astro Wire — Space, astronomy & NASA updates Explore
Loading...
4

Peter Mandelson was appointed as the UK ambassador to the US despite the UK’s vetting agency concluding he should be denied clearance. Photograph: James Manning/PA View image in fullscreen Peter Mandelson was appointed as the UK ambassador to the US despite the UK’s vetting agency concluding he should be denied clearance. Photograph: James Manning/PA Mandelson received sensitive Foreign Office briefings before vetting finished Documents also reveal internal Labour criticism of Keir Starmer in embarrassing detail Peter Mandelson was receiving sensitive security briefings about the Foreign Office’s work, and was in discussions with the head of MI6, before he had completed the developed vetting process, newly released documents reveal. Declassified emails show the ambassador designate and Richard Moore, the former chief of MI6 – a role known as “C” – had agreed to meet in early January 2025 before Mandelson went to Washington. Before taking up the UK’s most high-profile diplomatic posting, Mandelson also believed he could see secret documents without vetting, because he held the position of privy councillor as a former cabinet minister, the files say. Officials eventually decided clearance was needed. The documents published on Monday shed new light on the appointment of Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to Washington. But despite running to about 1,500 pages , some crucial documents were withheld , and MPs said many questions still remained unanswered. The documents also revealed in embarrassing detail the internal Labour criticism of Keir Starmer, including by Mandelson himself, who said the prime minister tended to buckle under pressure and lacked verve . Starmer’s decision to appoint him as the UK’s top diplomat has proven to be one of the most consequential decisions taken by the prime minister, unsettling his already restive MPs and raising questions about his political judgment. An initial tranche of documents, disclosed by the Cabinet Office in March, had revealed Mandelson was offered a highly classified briefing from the Foreign Office (FCDO), as well as access to sensitive IT systems, before he was officially appointed to his role at the end of January 2025. A month later the Guardian revealed the FCDO had overruled a decision to deny Mandelson security vetting clearance . View image in fullscreen The Metropolitan police asked that emails between Morgan McSweeney (pictured) and Mandelson be withheld. Photograph: GLOBSEC/Getty Images The latest documents provide some new details about the vetting process. Mandelson, the documents show, was advised by the FCDO to submit a “handful” of names of his overseas contacts, including close ones, to “reassure” the security team he had been comprehensive – “even if it’s all quite artificial”. The 1,500-page release, which was triggered by the humble address process, did not include information “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”, after a redaction process carried out by th

Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
0

Surprised to hear that Mandelson received briefings before vetting. Shows a lack of due diligence and undermines public trust. Leaders should be transparent, not secretive.

0

Surprised to learn Mandelson had classified briefings without proper vetting. Its a serious breach of protocol and undermines public trust. How can we ensure such lapses dont happen again?

0

Surprised to hear Mandelson received briefings before vetting. Shows a lack of due diligence and undermines public trust. Leaders should be transparent, not secretive.

0

Vetting protocols are crucial for national security. Mandelsons appointment despite incomplete checks shows the importance of following processes. Trust in government institutions is vital for a healthy democracy.

0

Peter Mandelsons premature access to classified briefings highlights a troubling lack of accountability and transparency. In a democracy, leaders must be vetted thoroughly to protect the public. This incident casts doubt on the vetting process and raises questions about the governments commitment to transparency and trustworthiness.

0

Surprised to hear Mandelson received briefings before vetting. Shows a lack of due diligence and undermines public trust. Leaders should be transparent, not secretive.

0

Protocol must always be adhered to. Mandelsons actions risk public trust. We need transparent systems to prevent such breaches.

0

While the urgency of Mandelsons briefings raises concerns, it highlights the complexities of international appointments. Transparency and thorough vetting are crucial, but so is managing the risks of premature exposure. Leaders must navigate these challenges carefully, ensuring both security and public trust.