The sacking of Sir Oliver Robbins over the vetting of Peter Mandelson is a complicated affair, so I’ll try to break down what we know, what we don’t know and what conclusions we can draw.

– Keir Starmer has said he accepts responsibility for the ‘mistake’ of appointing Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US, and insisted that the correct process was followed.

– On 5 February, in Hastings, the Prime Minister said ‘there was then security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise, that gave him clearance for the role.’

– The Guardian reported yesterday that the independent UK Security Vetting organisation had not passed Mandelson. This information was not relayed to Downing Street by the Foreign Office at the time.

– At a select committee hearing on 8 January, Oliver Robbins, then permanent secretary at the FCDO, made clear, without admitting that he knew Mandelson had failed, that the decision to grant him developed vetting (DV) status was made because Starmer had already decided to pick him for the ambassador role. Robbins said: ‘It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted to make this appointment himself. Therefore, I understand, the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it… The Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.’

– Mandelson was appointed before Robbins became the top mandarin at the Foreign Office, but the UK Security Vetting took place afterwards.

– Starmer was ‘absolutely furious’ that Robbins did not give him the full picture and, last night, fired him.

‘People are at breaking point’: on the road with the Irish fuel protestors

In defence of Olly Robbins

– Allies of Robbins hit back today, saying that the vetting process is so confidential that he had to make a decision about whether to grant DV approval to Mandelson and that, by law, he was not permitted to discuss the process with ministers.

– Other former mandarins questioned this, and said Robbins could have informed a senior minister of the fact that UK SV advised against the appointment, even if the convention was not to share the reasons why.

– On what grounds did Mandelson actually fail the vetting process? Was it to do with his former business interests in China or Russia, or his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein?

– On what basis did Starmer say, publicly, that Mandelson had passed his vetting? Did someone tell him that, or did he just make it up?

– Why did someone decide to leak the vetting outcome to the Guardian? Did they think Downing Street was in the process of covering it up?

– Did the independent vetting body simply raise red flags about the appointment, or did it provide a definitive statement explaining why Mandelson ‘failed’? The former........

© The Spectator