Mandelson failed security vetting. Starmer says he didn’t know

You’re embroidering now ronin. Olly Robbins indicated no such thing, he merely said vetting was a Civil Service issue to deal with. It would appear this practice applies to all similar appointments.

Every word spoken by Olly Robbins indicates that Starmer doesn’t understand the vetting process and Starmer has not said a word to correct this.

ronib

Oh dear. To admit that as a former lawyer, Starmer didn’t understand the rules around vetting is staggering.

Sorry, when did KS state that?

Oh dear. To admit that as a former lawyer, Starmer didn’t understand the rules around vetting is staggering.

Delene100

Agree. I thought Olly Robbins gave an honest account of the situation he found himself in and he also explained why he couldn't answer a few of the questions due to national security.

The issue was that his interpretation of the rules was different from Starmer's. Starmer didn't lie.

Sarnia

Smileless2012

The wrong person has been sacked I agree ronib so why was he?

To save Starmer's skin. Pure and simple. Olly Robbins has legal advisors working on his sacking so this isn't over yet, not by a long chalk.

‘No greater love has he, who lays down his friends for his life’
😲😂

Delene100

Galaxy

Why are some peopke so keen for this to happen? Because my morality doesn't include supporting the appointment of a man who gave government information to a paedophile. I understand people have different morality but it just isn't mine. I was absolutely against the appointment of mandelson and said it would end in disaster. For what it is worth I think it will bring about the end for Starner.

Well Mandelson certainly helped to bring down Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and now he will bring down Starmer. So three Labour Prime ministers. I believe Starmer appointed Mandelson for what he thought was the right reason but he was wrong. Listening to Olly's testament in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning, Olly was thrown under the bus as he was only only in post for a week before this decision happened. I have come to the conclusion that Starmer lied as he was trying to please Trump. He announced Mandelson's appointment before security clearance was verified and put the Foreign Office in a very awkward position. This is not a good time to change PM but I think eventually Starmer has to go.

What did Starmer lie about? Sorry, but there isn't any evidence he did. Robbins' dismissal might turn out to be unfair, but that's a different issue.

I just hope if Starmer has to go we can have an end to this war first. Trump threatening more bombing again so not likely.

Good to know that the vetting is not outsourced.
Thanks twaddle

Agree. I thought Olly Robbins gave an honest account of the situation he found himself in and he also explained why he couldn't answer a few of the questions due to national security.

Galaxy

Why are some peopke so keen for this to happen? Because my morality doesn't include supporting the appointment of a man who gave government information to a paedophile. I understand people have different morality but it just isn't mine. I was absolutely against the appointment of mandelson and said it would end in disaster. For what it is worth I think it will bring about the end for Starner.

Well Mandelson certainly helped to bring down Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and now he will bring down Starmer. So three Labour Prime ministers. I believe Starmer appointed Mandelson for what he thought was the right reason but he was wrong. Listening to Olly's testament in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning, Olly was thrown under the bus as he was only only in post for a week before this decision happened. I have come to the conclusion that Starmer lied as he was trying to please Trump. He announced Mandelson's appointment before security clearance was verified and put the Foreign Office in a very awkward position. This is not a good time to change PM but I think eventually Starmer has to go.

I wonder how many were there in parliament heckling yesterday, whilst sitting on their own secrets.

I can remember looking this up when it was revealed that former Reform MP James McMurdock had a criminal conviction for violence and had served a jail sentence.

unlock.org.uk/advice/a-to-z-eligibility/

Apart from the police and miltary, which have their own vetting systems, MP is the only job that doesn't require any kind of checking.

Thanks for finding all that out, Graphite. Rory Stewart was right. It's quite frightening.

MPs are not vetted. They aren't even subject to DBS checks.

Neither ministers nor MPs are usually subject to national security vetting. When deciding who to appoint to ministerial or other government roles, the prime minister may consider advice from the cabinet secretary or the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics team. When ministers take up their posts they are asked to disclose any relevant information to the Propriety and Ethics team. In the case of MPs, they do not generally go through national security vetting, although they will be subject to their own political party’s vetting process before they stand as a candidate, and there are some limited exceptions: members of parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee for example go through national security vetting.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/government-security-vetting

It needs to change. Under the current lax system, MPs can be allowed access to places and to information which employees and volunteers or an organisation would not be able to access without passing Enhanced DBS and Barred.

I do object to the the comments about "grey suits". Women make up 49% at SCS level. I can assure you that they don't all wear grey suits.

Casdon

That’s worrying twaddle. I did know that the employment process was different for MPs, but I assumed the same type of security checks are done, particularly if they relate to threats to national security. If they aren’t, I think they should be

Write to your MP about it!

There would have to be some kind of checks for senior cabinet roles, but I don't think there's anything for ordinary MPs. They might have to have DBS checks if they're on their own with members of the public, such as in surgeries, but I'm not even sure about that.

That’s worrying twaddle. I did know that the employment process was different for MPs, but I assumed the same type of security checks are done, particularly if they relate to threats to national security. If they aren’t, I think they should be

Based on recent records, Patricia Dreghorn is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of UK Security Vetting (UKSV). UKSV is part of the Cabinet Office and serves as the government's central provider for security checks.

Maremia

Just a Point of Information.
This vetting firm must know a lot of 'secrets'. Who owns/contols them?

Developed Vetting (DV) in the UK Civil Service is primarily conducted by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV). UKSV is a specialized agency within the Cabinet Office that handles national security vetting for the entire government. The process involves extensive background checks, personal interviews, and financial investigations.

Google AI

Casdon

I’ve been thinking about the security vetting as a process, and I wonder, other than Johnson, how many other MPs have, or had security alerts which were not conveyed to the PM, or other party leaders? If I were one of them, I’d now want to know about any related to my MPs.

I'll need to check this out, but I don't think politicians face the same kind of intense vetting which civil servants do. Rory Stewart said something about Mandelson never having faced vetting because he'd been a politician, but being ambassador is a civil service role.

The permission which Johnson had withheld by Theresa May was different.

Just a Point of Information.
This vetting firm must know a lot of 'secrets'. Who owns/contols them?

I agree with Boz. Elections sometimes result in politicians who couldn't run a tombola. Usually senior civil servants know what they're doing, which is why they're given discretion to make important decisions.

Boz

GrannyGravy13

I am disappointed and cross that despite all the shenanigans of elections it appears our elected representatives are just faces and it’s the civil servants who are running the country…

Thank God that they do.
Think of all the horrors that Politicians try to inflict on us.
Think of Johnson and Truss.

The Civil Service is usually better educated and not wedded to Ideology, like the average politician who is often here to-day and gone tomorrow.

You appear to have forgotten the fact that the grey suits are unelected.

Smileless2012

I don't agree that is is a different issue Casdon. I agree with Sarnia that he sacked him to save his own skin.

I agree Graphite but will add another cause was KS's determination to have Mandelson in the role and for that appointment to be announced well before it should have been.

That’s not what I was saying, Smileless, you misunderstood my point I think. The detail of the reasons Olly Robbins was dismissed will be the subject of his unfair dismissal case. What that case will not do is to change or challenge the facts of the information already provided by him today. It may well be that his dismissal was unreasonable, and the PM will be criticised, but it is now established as a fact that he was not informed about the security vetting.