Robert Peston

This is how Mandelson flunked the vetting but still became US ambassador, and why there are lots of questions for the prime minister. What you need to know is that anyone appointed to a job where they will have access to government secrets, or has the kind of influence potentially valuable to the UK’s enemies, has to undergo what’s called developed vetting before getting the job. This involves being locked in a room with an anonymous official, often an erstwhile spook, and being asked impertinent and embarrassing questions. One former senior official tells me that in his vetting interview he had to reveal the porn websites he uses. Another was grilled on his religious beliefs and said he was asked whether he could be trusted to defend the UK given he spends a good deal of time in France. Both were approved to do their sensitive jobs. They also said that in every case they knew of where UK Security Vetting had advised that an individual should not be passed as fit and proper - where the recommendation was not to grant “Developed Vetting” status in the jargon - the relevant individual was “marched out of the building, never to return.” Not so Peter Mandelson. The government’s vetting experts at UK Security Vetting recommended he should not be granted security clearance for the hugely important and sensitive post of British ambassador in Washington. But they were over-ruled by the Foreign Office’s most senior official, Olly Robbins, the permanent under-secretary, and Mandelson took up the swanky post. Now I am told the foreign office is unusual, probably unique, in being able to ignore the advice of UK Security Vetting. The home office has no such discretion. But the foreign office exploits this power only rarely. Why did Robbins do so? Given that Mandelson resigned in disgrace last September, following revelations of his too-close relationship with the convicted late paedophile billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein, it was plainly a bad decision. Another question is why Robbins didn’t tell either the foreign secretary or the prime minister that Mandelson had been classified as a security risk. The prime minister learned this only days ago, says Downing Street. And the deputy prime minister, who was foreign secretary at the time, David Lammy, was informed only today! A third question is why Robbins didn’t tell Keir Starmer that Mandelson had flunked the vetting test shortly after Starmer held a press conference in Hastings in February this year - because at that press conference Starmer told a lie, albeit unintentionally, that Mandelson had passed the vetting process. Starmer compromised himself, and would have wanted to set the record straight forthwith. Mendacity, albeit accidental, is a terrible look for the head of the government. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, thinks he is so compromised that he needs to resign. There is no sign tonight that Starmer is set to take her advice. But if Robbins has embarrassed the prime minister by not telling him in a timely way that Mandelson flunked the vetting, it is difficult to see how he could keep his job. Obviously it would be a wholly different story if Robbins could prove that he did inform Lammy or Starmer. He has been summoned to give evidence to MPs on the foreign affairs select committee next week, so he can reveal all. Whatever happens, Starmer is damaged. Because he knew from an earlier scrutiny assessment, run by the Cabinet Office, that there were concerns about Mandelson’s proximity to Epstein and about his potential conflicts of interest stemming from corporate relationships of the consultancy he created, Global Counsel. Starmer repeatedly says he made a mistake in appointing Mandelson and that it was his fault. It won’t reinforce confidence in him that he didn’t apparently ask whether any concerns about Mandelson had been brought up by UK Security Vetting.