Kemi Badenoch hits Keir Starmer with six Mandelson questions | Politics | News | EUROtoday

Mrs Badenoch requested the Prime Minister six questions, which she offered prematurely so as to get clear solutions.

Lord Mandelson was appointed as Britain’s ambassador to the US however was later fired after additional details about the previous Labour peer’s affiliation with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein got here to mild.

Sir Keir insists he was not conscious that Lord Mandelson had failed safety vetting.

In an announcement to the House of Commons, the Prime Minister mentioned Lord Mandelson was a “direct ministerial appointment” and that it was traditional for safety vetting to occur afterwards in such instances. No 10 has now demanded that the method be modified transferring ahead.

The Prime Minister advised MPs it was “staggering” that he was not advised Lord Mandelson had failed the vetting. In his assertion, he mentioned that No 10 and Parliament ought to have had this data “a long, long time ago”.

He advised MPs: “Last Tuesday evening, I found out for the first time that on January 29, 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, that Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the UK Security Vetting, that developed vetting clearance should be denied.

“Not solely that, the Foreign Office officers who made that call didn’t cross this data to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, to every other minister, and even to the previous cupboard secretary Sir Chris Wormald.

“I found this staggering, and therefore last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts, on my authority.

“I needed to know who made the choice, on what foundation, who knew, and Mr Speaker, I needed that data for the exact and specific goal of updating this House, as a result of that is data I ought to have had a very long time in the past, and it’s data that the House ought to have had a very long time in the past.

“It is information that I and the House had the right to know.”