Chris Mason: PM facing awkward hours ahead as Mandelson questions remain1 hour agoChris MasonPolitical editorAFP via Getty ImagesI occasionally like to kid myself that after 20-plus years of reporting from Westminster, I can’t be entirely surprised any more.Then, along came the row of the last few days after The Guardian’s revelations about Lord Mandelson, his vetting and the removal of the most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins.It all prompted a one-word question from many of us: how?How could so senior a civil servant be in possession of such apparently politically explosive information and not pass it on to the prime minister and others?And how could a prime minister, embarking on a high-profile and controversial appointment, be so insufficiently curious that he didn’t prise this information out of the government machine?Context is key here: in January of last year, Sir Olly had just arrived at the Foreign Office as its permanent under-secretary.Weeks before, his predecessor, Sir Philip Barton, had worked through the formal niceties of confirming Lord Mandelson’s appointment to Washington, such as writing to the King about it on the 18th of December.In other words, it was a done deal. Whitehall and the civil service were aware of Sir Keir’s wishes. We know that some vetting concerns had been raised with the Prime Minister. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 states that the secretary of state is responsible for managing the diplomatic service, but does not cover national security screening. This is a reference for the foreign secretary, and it gives Sir Olly’s anticipated defense, that the law says he should not reveal information gathered during the vetting. But on Sunday night the government released a statement outlining its interpretation of the act, claiming The government even read the explanatory notes to the Act in order to support their position. I suspect the prime minister will also refer to the Civil Service Code. This states that civil servants cannot “deceive, or knowingly mislead Ministers, Parliament, or others The Conservatives hope that Monday afternoon’s debate will “hasten squeaky-bum time for Labour MPs” by suggesting that Sir Keir beheaded more people than Henry VIII. The mood in the Labour Party has changed over the past few weeks. It is no longer as fervently angry. Now the question is whether this fiasco will raise the temperature again. “Let’s face it, this is bad stuff,” said one to me. Another says, “It reignites all the things that made so many angry with him in the first place.” The timing of the elections, which are just a few days away, could not be worse. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that Sir Olly may take legal action to challenge his dismissal. It’s not surprising that he was blasted out of the cannon so spectacularly by the foreign secretary and prime minister over the appointment of an Ambassador who had been signed off even before Sir Olly arrived at the Foreign Office. The people who have worked with him describe him as “a by the book man”, who has a distinguished career in the public service, and is “diligent and careful about processes and acting correctly.” The tone and tenor will be as interesting as his testimony. The document sent to him on the same day says “you should submit a new STRAP application form for your new position, at least 3 months before you are due to start at Post”.
