"The government's account of the vetting process is in doubt. Ministers say warnings were overridden. But experts say that's not how it works. Ministers hear the outcome, not the underlying intelligence, making scrutiny difficult once a decision is set."
"By endorsing Lord Mandelson's appointment in advance, Sir Keir seems to have made the vetting process about delivery not scrutiny. In those circumstances, problems don't get raised. They get buried by a system in which inconvenient facts cannot reach the top."
"Saying that the announcement was necessary before security vetting took place because the US had to approve of Lord Mandelson's appointment does not absolve ministers of their responsibility."
In February, the prime minister apologized for appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US, claiming he was misled. By March, Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged a mistake after evidence emerged of warnings about the appointment. Responsibility shifted to officials, particularly Sir Olly Robbins, who was ousted after reports indicated Mandelson lacked security clearance. The government's explanations conflict, raising doubts about the vetting process. Experts suggest that ministers are not informed of underlying intelligence, complicating accountability. The risks of Mandelson's appointment were publicly known, indicating a failure in scrutiny and transparency within the system.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]