"Pass" and "Fail" are rather stark assessments in the murky world of security vetting. It's a reasonable bet that we'll never see the Mandelson document from UKSV, but I bet it talks about risks, rather than saying "He's a spy", or "He's only in it for the money". One of the key concerns for the interviewers sent out by UKSV is the possibility of blackmail, for past, continuing or potential future indiscretions.
With any risk assessment, it's possible to mitigate. Or accept that the benefits outweigh the risks. Security vetting doesn't assess benefits. Whatever Sir Olly Robbins read in the UKSV Mandelson report, the 'process' entitled him to endorse a political appointment clearly already made by the Prime Minister. And you'd sort of expect that to be the case, if the vetting report is nuanced. It might be uncomfortable if the Security Service had ultimate but untransparent control over 'political' roles; Darren Jones is at risk of painting himself into a corner with this morning's 'rule change', announced on The Today Programme.
There are many people in and out of the Cabinet Office with 'security' in their remit. Patricia Dreghorn is the CEO of UKSV, Vincent Devine is the Government Chief Security Officer and Head of the Government Security Function, Sir Laurie Magnus is the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Cui bono, at this stage, if Mandelson's failure to pass vetting is made public ?
PS One presumes Matt Brittin 'passed'.
No comments:
Post a Comment