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

"Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?"

A few years ago a young colleague, had his Police check come back that highlights an event in his past. As one of the managers I had to take him to one side to explain.
It was irrelevant to this post, so as it was my decision I let him carry on.
HR told me it was my call, as senior line manager. I was not not Head of Dept but trusted enough to make the right call.

ronib

My DH explained that the publication of the Epstein files scuppered Mandy and all associated with his appointment.

This has nothing to do with the Epstein files.

So something comes up in a police check and it can just be brushed off really I think that's strange What's the point of the police check And didn't Mandelson get appointed before his check was completed that's not making sense to me

The Bottom line was very interesting this afternoon.
The Guardian journalist who broke the story was being interviewed.
He used the words cover up several times.
These were not his words but the words of the person who contacted him.
From hearing that interview there are no doubts whatsoever in my mind.

The information would go to the Chairman of Governors I imagine. The school secretary knows most things but has no authority.

Allira above says it all One rule for one but not Starmer When Mandelson was given the job Starmer was grinning as though he was really happy the darkness guy had the job

TakeThat7

So something comes up in a police check and it can just be brushed off really I think that's strange What's the point of the police check And didn't Mandelson get appointed before his check was completed that's not making sense to me

Firstly, this kind of check isn't done until an appointment is made. The appointment letter will have a clause in it, stating that it is conditional on a satisfactory security check.

Secondly, this isn't a police check like a DBS. It's much more intrusive. The questioning and answers are strictly confidential. The public will never know why Mandelson was borderline.

eazybee

The information would go to the Chairman of Governors I imagine. The school secretary knows most things but has no authority.

No, it would not! Nobody except the designated person has any right to know why a person has failed a DBS check. It's doubtful whether a school secretary would be the designated person, but a member of senior management in a big comprehensive school might be.

Primrose53

But Starmer swept in promising he and his party would be the exact opposite of how he saw Boris. Transparent, honest, trustworthy. What a joke!

That’s a good point.

I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far isn't it!

We know Mandelson was breaching confidentiality by emailing Epstein sensitive government information. This came out a month or so ago. No idea how many others he leaked to. This would be reason enough to fail the vetting I would have thought.

This article from the Institute for Government explains the vetting process:

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

This is an extract for anybody who doesn't want to read the whole thing:

"It is worth noting that in the case of Peter Mandelson, security clearance was granted by foreign office officials. It appears that this was against the advice of UK Security Vetting; it was within the power of foreign office officials to make that decision."

In other words, Mandelson "didn't" fail vetting.

Silvergirl

We know Mandelson was breaching confidentiality by emailing Epstein sensitive government information. This came out a month or so ago. No idea how many others he leaked to. This would be reason enough to fail the vetting I would have thought.

Not if the UKSV didn't know about it at the time the vetting was carried out.

Word is that the concerns in the vetting process weren't about Epstein.

Cardamom

I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far isn't it!

It sounds like you aren’t up to speed with what has been happening. In fact a lot of changes have been made, or are proposed, to improve governance around the conduct of MPs, and the transparency of their actions. This is an AI lift, as the most expedient way of providing a list of the actions.

1. Restrictions on Outside Earnings and Jobs
Removal of "Loopholes": From late October 2024, MPs are banned from using their positions to advise employers on "public policy," "how Parliament works," or offering related consultancy services.
Outside Job Rules: While not a blanket ban, the rule changes stop MPs from acting as parliamentary strategists, strategists, or consultants.
Focus on Constituents: The government is pushing for higher standards, with the House of Commons Modernisation Committee established to examine further restrictions on roles that conflict with parliamentary duties.

2. Changes to IPSA Expenses and Office Running
Ban on Renting from Other MPs: The 2025-26 Scheme of MPs' Business Costs prohibits MPs from using public funds to rent accommodation from other MPs, their family, or connected parties.
Increased Winding-Up Period: Following the General Election, the period for closing down an MP's office (if they lose their seat) is increased to four months, allowing more time for staff, casework, and financial winding-up.
Staffing Support Changes: IPSA is implementing measures to allow for easier movement of staff between MPs, such as inter-office staffing loans, secondments, and recognizing past service with different MPs for redundancy and family leave pay.
End of Tax Advice Funding: From the 2024-2025 tax year onwards, MPs can no longer claim for accounting or tax-related services, as they are no longer required to submit a self-assessment tax return solely because they are an MP.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
+2
3. Parliamentary Modernisation and Transparency
Modernisation Committee: Chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons, this cross-party committee is tasked with reforming procedures, driving up standards, and updating working practices.
Transparency on Meetings: The government has made commitments to enhance transparency regarding who is lobbying ministers, aiming to end vague descriptions of meetings, though implementation timelines have been debated.
Electoral Reform: The government has signaled moves to tighten rules on political donations, including potential criminal penalties for false declarations by donors, as part of a "clean up" of politics.

4. Staff Pay and Working Conditions
Annual Pay Reviews: IPSA continues to require MPs to review their staff salaries annually, with a focus on raising the salaries of junior staff who often lag behind the living wage.
Staff Pay Increases: IPSA announced that MP staff salaries would be automatically uprated by a certain percentage (e.g., 5% in March 2026), in line with pay increases for the MPs themselves, starting April 1, 2026.
No New Connected Parties: IPSA has continued its rule (started previously but enforced) prohibiting funding for new "connected parties" (family members) employed by MPs.

Note: The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is independent of the government, but updates its schemes in consultation with the House of Commons.

That is some list.
Pity the details are not better known and acknowledged.

I know. A lot has changed that people don’t know much about because it doesn’t hit the headlines, it’s in the small print. It’s important to learn from mistakes made by this and previous governments, and to put right known issues. It’s not making the government popular with fellow MPs, but it is the right thing to do.

I found another article written by the Institute for Governement:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/sue-gray-fix-centre-government

It was written in October 2024, but is just as relevant today.

I'm not sure whether people are aware how No 10, the Cabinet Office and various government departments work. Unfortunately,m there are problems with communication and hierarchies.

Moreover, Starmer still hasn't found himself an efficient Director of Communications, who would be responsible for PR and let the pubic know what's going on.

Moreover, Starmer still hasn't found himself an efficient Director of Communications, who would be responsible for PR and let the pubic know what's going on.
Yes it would be good for someone to get to the bottom of things. But KS himself is not overly clear on pubic affairs.

Just to be clear, regarding DBS, the law changed a few years ago. You can't get the information online anymore. You have to wait until the individual concerned brings you their disclosure copy and explains.

The printed form showing the disclosure is sent to the applicant only. If they want to explain it, usually the Headteacher will become involved. The secretary might indeed see it and read it when the person comes into school, and when a copy is taken.

Even if it is a clear DBS, the applicant has to bring it in for proof. Even if, in the case of a supply teacher, the agency has done the checks, the school will want to see the paperwork again.

PS I'm not making comparisons with the political appointment system, just clarifying what is being asked on here several times about school DBS checks.

DaisyAnneReturns

twaddle

Smileless2012

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

That's what I thought. In that case, he had no reason to tell Starmer anything and Robbins behaved professionally. Goodness knows what form the "leaning toward" took, but he was correct not to pass on tittle tattle. Not only that, but the original story is wrong! Mandelson didn't fail the vetting and this has been the biggest red herring ever!

It's all a bit weird. Everybody knew of Mandelson's reputation when he was appointed. His two sackings from the cabinet were in the public domain. As far as I can remember, the extent of his dealings with Epstein weren't fully known and I'm not even sure that the public was aware just how many friendships with powerful people Epstein had cultivated. Why has the story hit the headlines now?

It seems that the DV has been badly handled and there seem to have been misunderstandings, but nothing illegal has taken place.

Robbins appears to have acted professionally; without clear, substantiated concerns, there was no basis to brief Keir Starmer. Claims that Peter Mandelson was “leaning toward” something are too vague to justify passing on.

The vetting issue also seems mischaracterised. Mandelson didn’t fail DV clearance, so that framing is misleading.

His past was already public at the time of appointment, and while his links to Jeffrey Epstein are now under greater scrutiny, it’s unclear they were fully understood then.

Overall, this looks more like confusion and hindsight than evidence of wrongdoing.

overall, this looks more like confusion and hindsight than evidence of wrong doing

During various inspections and investigations I worked in, the conclusion, sadly, often was - well that was a c**k up, rather than a conspiracy.

Making things more complicated so the fit a particular agenda is rarely helpful

That's an impressive list casdon; but regrettably, it doesn't cover "Nobody told me" or "I knew but did it anyway". Which, whilst not falling within the parameters of your laudable list, is precisely why Starmer is where he is now.

Just to remind you of what you actually said Cardamon

‘I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far “

Starmer mishandled the Mandelson case but that does not mean no progress has been made in improving transparency and cleaning up politics, does it? Perhaps a less sweeping indictment would have been more fitting.

Casdon, please continue your calm, well informed posts

twaddle

This article from the Institute for Government explains the vetting process:

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

This is an extract for anybody who doesn't want to read the whole thing:

"It is worth noting that in the case of Peter Mandelson, security clearance was granted by foreign office officials. It appears that this was against the advice of UK Security Vetting; it was within the power of foreign office officials to make that decision."

In other words, Mandelson "didn't" fail vetting.

So why was he summarily sacked on Thursday?