I can see (just about) that civil servants might be under an obligation ordinarily not to pass on to politicians information given to them by the security services about individuals. I can also see that a decision on a qualified negative report might be to go ahead and appoint/hire if the department thinks the pros outweigh the risks.
What I don’t believe is that if a politician or SPAD or civil servant outside the department asks for the vetting result and the reasons for the department’s decision, it could be ignored.
And that’s not even being said in this case. Starmer is saying he was never told, not that he was lied to, even by omission, or explicitly stonewalled. The FO’s answers to the questions should be either frank or be clear that the law prevents the answers being given (which I very much doubt). Either way Starmer would have known where he stood. He couldn’t have made statements about proper process and clearance on either basis.
I just find it utterly implausible that Starmer didn’t asked the questions at the very least in the aftermath of the sacking or that the answers were not given one way or another.
As has been pointed out, Starmer announced the appointment before the vetting and before Robbins was in post. Did Starmer seriously appoint Mandelson (the announcement is on the record) without checks and take no care to follow up, relying only on his own ‘good’ judgement about a man who had been sacked twice from government and was known to have hung around Epstein?