The enormous controversy about the vetting process leading up to, and following, the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador in Washington reveals a labyrinth within Whitehall and our constitution – which is a revelation even to those of us who have been in public life for over half a century (Revealed: Mandelson failed vetting but Foreign Office overruled decision, 16 April).

Three quite separate elements can appear contradictory, but can all be true at the same time. So, Keir Starmer could have been entirely telling the truth at the dispatch box last September when he said that all processes had been followed.

It can be true that all existing processes were followed during the vetting process, but did not lead to any report back to the prime minister or other relevant ministers, because it has not been standard practice to notify politicians following such procedures. Of course, Peter Mandelson was not a civil servant, and the “normal” procedure was therefore not relevant to him.

Hence, it can also be true that a process which has been followed but not reported upon can be staggeringly breathtaking because, in following due process, the people who “need to know” are not notified. This begs the question as to what the point of a process is if it did not lead to an appropriate briefing to the prime minister that there were security risks in appointing Peter Mandelson, not to mention whether they should have been raised before – rather than after – his appointment.

All of this should surely not lead for a call for the prime minister’s resignation, but rather a complete shake-up of the whole system, and its relevance to the real world.

Finally, and perhaps perversely, Sir Olly Robbins, if following this Kafkaesque set of procedures did no wrong, he too is a victim of an outdated and deeply unhelpful way of conducting government.
David Blunkett
Labour, House of Lords