It’s a fair point particularly when you think about the spy and other scandals from Fuchs/ Cambridge 5 onwards.
(I’m not sure those waiting months to take up jobs in the civil service would agree but that’s more the getting a laptop / pass side rather than this)
Watch now!
Robbins describes the atmosphere / message from no10 on vetting: "It wasn't just 'please get this done quickly', it was also 'get it done'"
Technically the King - but on Blair's recommendation when he first became a Cabinet minister.
The Cabinet is effectively a sub committee of the PC. Got an explainer here on what it is and why some other people (opposition leader) are made PC precisely so they can be briefed on matters on national security.
So it was a fair consideration. www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/pr...
Lords fair enough. But privy counsellor is the constitutional basis upon which a lot of people, ministers, opposition leader, see material that is fundamental to their work.
It’s not a ‘they’re an ok person because they’ve been made a PC’ it’s ’we are legally able to because they are PC’
Robbins says that before no10 published it last weekend, he had never seen a traffic light system from UKSV and wasn't aware that it was used.
OR reveals there were several discussions no10 had with him about finding Matthew Doyle a Diplomatic post... describes how uncomfortable he felt with it all.
And we will be delving into everything we know and don't know after this session in a IFG expert webinar at 12.30 - must watch!! www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/peter-...
Got a meeting - passing the baton to @hannahkeenan.bsky.social and @timdurrant.bsky.social
NB - kind of goes to the point some MPs made yesterday of Robbins judgement then and in retrospect (that concerns about Mandelson's propriety should have been a red flag) being treated same way as Starmer's judgement in appointing despite the due diligence.
Says this borderline decision to go ahead was not unusual - his department was very experienced in dialogue with UKSV and so very experienced at deciding to proceed with mitigations. i.e. saying it was not unusual to proceed despite UKSV concerns. Thornberry getting angry....
Robbins says the risks weren't related to Epstein. Never saw the UKSV document itself, whatever the risks that had been flagged were, they were explained to Robbins verbally and then discussed. Was told that UKSV were leaning towards not giving clearance but it was borderline.
Robbins pushing back on the idea of vetting being a 'fail' or his response being an 'overrule'. Says the process is set out in guidance - that FCDO makes the decision, UKSV is advice and FCDO then examine that and consider their own mitigations.
I assume Thornberry is pushing on what exact records exist in order that she can ask the Govt for whether those records have been produced in Humble Address but glad we've moved on.
Robbins (rightly IMO) refuses to name officials but says (also rightly given how it works) that the private office would only have been chasing because they were receiving pressure (from advisers one assumes).
the 'pressure' was private office to private office.
Thornberry asks which private office?
Robbins: No10.
"The vector i was most conscious of was No10"
Robbins says there was a debate between FCDO and CO about whether he should be vetted (Mandelson was privy counsellor and in Lords) that his predecessor had to push on.
Robbins says he walked into a situation where there was "very very a strong expectation"... that Mandelson needed to be in post as soon as possible. Says handover briefing he was given was generally dismissive of the vetting process.
Robbins starts with his own framing. Starts with the due diligence report by the CO - suggesting he feels that the Mandelson propriety qs had been asked and answered, but the committee should ask specifically.
Looks like Thornberry has chosen to start with this question.
Agree v much with Hannah's key questions. Would add a 1.a. How does Robbins explain his decision, revealed yesterday, not to share with Wormald when Mandelson was sacked and Cab Sec supposedly went seeking to find out about the process?
Olly Robbins is in front of the foreign affairs committee in an hour's time to give his side of the Mandelson vetting story. He is expected to say he followed the rules but here are the 5 things I'm looking for: 🧵
Have a look at the privacy notice. Worth noting it does talk about sharing, but with other bodies/ depts etc - ministers not mentioned (that is where CRAG is relevant). Don't think it specifies conclusions of vetting as opposed the data underlying it. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64b11a...
No lawyer - to repeat. But the UKSV privacy statement talks about how this personal data be handled.
And the PM has twice said that Romeo and Little were quite right to wait a month and consult legal advice before telling him they now knew the outcome of the original vetting.
Yes good point
But i can also imagine that two sets of lawyers 'is there legal risk if i disclose x?' vs 'is it legally possible i be told about x?' could come to a different conclusion... www.gov.uk/government/p...
Privacy statement is here. I'm no lawyer so others can review it. We don't know if Robbins consulted any legal advice, or if thought he already knew it's legal obligations on him as sponsor dept.
www.gov.uk/government/p...
Another question for tomorrow is whether Robbins had been led to believe that No10 wanted process expedited. Given we all know vetting can take a while, it would be interesting to know if Robbins received *any* indications from No10 that they wanted this to get a move on.
Yes. Those being vetted are assured that their data will be held “in the strictest confidence”. That undoubtedly gives rise to an enforceable legal duty of confidence.