"Robbins is very unlikely to give details of the vetting process or what exactly officials discovered, given this is supposed to be strictly confidential."
"If the checks turned up only what was known about previously, Robbins can argue there was no need to pass the decision to No 10."
"Robbins' allies say Starmer had made his political preference clear by announcing the appointment before the vetting took place, and so it was Robbins' job to make sure the appointment went smoothly."
"The prime minister said on Monday it was staggering that neither he nor any of his ministerial colleagues or aides had been told that Mandelson had not passed his vetting checks."
Robbins is unlikely to disclose details of the vetting process regarding Mandelson's clearance, which is confidential. MPs may question whether new concerns were found or if only known issues were flagged. If only known issues were identified, Robbins can justify not informing No 10. However, if new information emerged, Starmer could argue for transparency. Robbins claims he followed established procedures, but defying UKSV advice is rare. There are allegations of political pressure on Robbins, but no evidence supports this. The prime minister expressed surprise at not being informed about Mandelson's vetting status.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]