47 resultsfor “UK Security Vetting recommendation on Mandelson”
Mandelson took up the job, given that vetting result? “I was told – let me be completely precise – that UKSV [UK Security Vetting] were leaning towards recommending
UK Security Vetting, a specialist agency within the Cabinet Office, began the vetting process in late December 2024, and on 28 January 2025, recommended Developed Vetting clearance should be denied. But Foreign Office officials went
UK or US governments. Repeatedly pressed over whether Lord Mandelson's security vetting file could have included material which was not in the due diligence report, Little said she could not comment specifically on what
security clearance by the Foreign Office against the recommendation of the government's vetting agency when he was made US ambassador. The government is under intense pressure to explain how Mandelson came to be granted
UK security vetting recommendations, while rightly protecting detailed sensitive vetting information, to allow ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to parliament.” Asked whether it had been a mistake to not follow
UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the government agency that did Lord Mandelson's vetting, did not relate to his previous relationship with Epstein, but did not say what they were about. Sir Olly insisted that
Mandelson’s vetting file, which was completed by UK Security Vetting (UKSV) on 28 January 2025, weeks before he was due to take up his post. Thanks to the Cabinet Office’s decision to publish
UK's then former top civil servant investigated Lord Mandelson's sacking last year. The repeated failure to divulge the result of Lord Mandelson's vetting process was "incredible", "staggering" and "astonishing", the prime minister
UK Parliament on Monday that, while the appointment was a mistake, he would have withdrawn the decision had he known the Foreign Office had overruled security officials’ recommendations not to give the job to Mandelson
Security Vetting] recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day … Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance.” This is a small
vetting officials recommending that he be denied security clearance. That disclosure came about only because of a process started by Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader. Earlier this year, she secured a [“humble address”](https://www.theguardian.com
UK Security Vetting (UKSV) document that revealed that the UKSV officials who interviewed Mandelson for his developed vetting (DV) advised that he should not get clearance. At a meeting on Tuesday last week she reported
security vetting checks. The prime minister is facing calls to resign over the revelation that vetting officers recommended against Lord Mandelson's being appointed as US ambassador, but that recommendation was overruled by the Foreign
recommending the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US. Morgan McSweeney, who resigned in February over the advice, said he felt the peer's experience as an EU trade envoy
recommendation from officials and grant vetting approval. The most interesting question is, why? And here it will get difficult for Starmer, because Robbins is likely to argue that he felt under pressure to grant vetting
UK Security Vetting recommendations." They even delve into the explanatory notes of the Act to try to make their case. I suspect the prime minister may also make reference to the [Civil Service Code
UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had advised that Mandelson should be denied clearance. Downing Street has said Starmer did not find out about the vetting failure, which occurred in January 2025, until Tuesday this week. However
UK political class once again – triggered by reporting by the Guardian that Peter Mandelson, a friend of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, failed security vetting during the appointment process as US ambassador – and it is unclear
recommendations. BBC News understands the vetting report returned a "no" verdict on whether a security clearance granting access to sensitive government material should be given to Lord Mandelson. He formally took up the ambassador post
UK Security Vetting (UKSV), then he wouldn't have pressed ahead with the appointment. That's because Sir Olly's implicit claim - contested vigorously now by No 10 - is that the political team in Downing