Michael, I can just about understand why the Foreign Office might not have wished to give out the details of Mandelson’s failed vetting (though I would have thought that these could have been relayed to the PM on a confidential basis just in case Mandelson was ever considered for another job in government.. But what I fail to understand is why the Foreign Office decided to conceal the fact that Mandelson had failed the vetting. Does this supposed law of concealment only apply when someone has failed the vetting procedure but not when they have passed? It strikes me as complete tosh.There are two possible explanations in my opinion. One is that Starmer foolishly announced Mandelson’s appointment before he had been properly vetted. He then was told that Mandelson had failed the vetting, but unwilling to give up his choice of ambassador instructed the Foreign Office to reverse the decision. Subsequently, when the details of Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein were revealed, Starmer told Parliament that he was not to blame because Mandelson had been properly vetted. And now that the fact of Mandelson’s failed vetting has come out, Starmer in a fit of confected fury has sacked Olly Robbins for doing what he told him to do. However I find it hard to believe this version of events. Is it likely that Starmer would have risked his reputation by deliberately lying to Parliament, especially when the lie would be easily exposed given that many people, not least the security services, would have known about Mandelson’s failed vetting?The other explanation is that the Foreign Office actually wanted Mandelson as ambassador and decided to overrule the vetting decision. Officials then decided that they wouldn’t inform Starmer about the vetting because there was no need. After all, both they and Starmer wanted Mandelson. When the details of Mandelson’s improper relationship with Epstein emerged they decided to keep shtum even though they knew Starmer had made a misleading statement to Parliament, perhaps hoping that the failed vetting would remain secret. And now that the ‘Guardian’ has revealed the story, Olly Robbins and the other civil servants are trying to cover their backs by pretending that they were under a legal duty not to tell the PM about the failed vetting. I find this version more probable, though it is still hard to believe that Robbins and the other civil servants involved would have taken it upon themselves to reverse the decision of the vetting committee without informing anyone at Number Ten.
Steven Rose ● 2d