Cabinet Office officials delayed telling Starmer about Mandelson vetting recommendation for almost three weeks – UK politics live | Politics

Little was asked why the Foreign Office wanted to see Mandelson’s UKSV report in September. (See 9.52am.)

She said she could not recall a reason being given.

Q: Why is there no formal record of the meeting where Keir Starmer decided to go ahead with the appointment of Mandelson?

Little said that she had carried out an “an information gathering process”, and that she was confident that she had received “all of the information that is within the scope of the [humble] address”.

She said it was normal for a record of a meeting like this to be kept.

Q: But there is no record of this meeting.

Little said there was some cases where she had had to undertake “further investigation”.

Q: Do you expect to see further information around this?

Little replied:

I would … We have undertaken further investigation.

Q: The security vetting covers security risks. Does it also cover reputational risks?

Little said that this is one of the issues the Fulford review will look at.

She repeated the point about how there are currently four parts of the scrutiny process. (See 10.24am.) She said there are overlaps, but they also look at different things.

Q: Do you know if the government is planning to make other political appointments to the diplomatic service?

Little said the humble address only covers Mandelson. She said she could not comment on other potential appointments.

Q: Will the humble address material cover the decision made by the PM to appoint Mandelson?

Little claimed that has already been published.

Q: Robbins told us last week that Robbins was given access to security material before his clearance was approved. Is that unusual?

Little said that was a matter for the department. Mandelson would have been given “interim clearance”, she said.

Ultimately, I believe that an exception was made for him to see certain information and that that is within the framework that the Foreign Office has.

Q: Are you aware of any other individuals who have been given DV clearance against a recommendation from the UKSV?

Little said that the review is looking at this. She says Darren Jones announced last week that in future clearance can’t be approved against the advice of UKSV.

Thornberry asks if there was anything that was in the direct vetting that was not covered by the Cabinet Office’s due diligence report.

She says, when she asked Olly Robbins, he would not say.

Little answers carefully. She says, speaking hypothetically, the UKSV report could contain more information, because it was a different exercise carried out for a different purpose.

Little was asked if she spoke to Ian Collard, head of the estates, security and network directorate in the Foreign Office, about the decision to grant vetting to Mandelson. As Henry Dyer explains here, he is a crucial figure because he was the person who advised Olly Robbins that, notwithstanding the UKSV concerns, the Foreign Office’s security team thought the risks around Mandelson could be managed and his clearance should be approved.

Little said she did not speak to Collard, because one of her officials did.

Q: Was the information given by Collard different from the information given by Robbins to the committee?

Little refused to say. She said the committee should speak to Collard directly. He is due to give evidence to the committee.

How Little’s evidence raises fresh questions about who owns UKSV documents

Henry Dyer

Henry Dyer is a Guardian investigations correspondent.

Cat Little’s comment (see 10.01am) that Robbins refused to give her access to Mandelson’s vetting report, and the Foreign Office’s note of its decision to grant clearance, is confusing given two other remarks.

The first is that, in the end, she managed to get a copy of the UKSV summary directly from UKSV, which she is responsible for overseeing. So why did she need to go to the Foreign Office for this, though she would have needed the department to provide the note of its decision to grant clearance. We have learned this was an email from Ian Collard, the department’s head of security. Collard has been called to give evidence to the committee.

The second is Little has said that in September 2025, after Mandelson was removed from post, it was the Foreign Office security team that came to the Cabinet Office to ask to see a “number of documents relating to the vetting file”.

It is unclear why both departments appear to have asked each other for the UKSV documentation.

Q: Do you think it is right that the PM was kept in the dark about the UKSV recommendations? Has he been properly served by the civil service code of conduct?

Little said that was not for her to “opine on”. She said the PM had set out his views.

Thornberry asked about reports covering whether or not Keir Starmer asked Robbins to explain why he had withheld information about the UKSV recommendations when he sacked him.

Andrew McDonald and Bethany Dawson sum this up in their Politico London Playbook briefing this morning. They write:

Lo and behold, a source close to Robbins tells the Indy’s David Maddox that the prime minister, while sacking the mandarin on the phone, did not ask Robbins for an explanation on why he didn’t share the vetting conclusions with him. The PM told MPs in the Commons on Monday he had asked Robbins for an explanation and that he didn’t accept it.

No. 10 was insisting last night the assertion from Robbins’ allies is misleading, because the PM’s office asked Robbins to provide an account of what happened before Starmer phoned him. But a senior government official was not willing to confirm Robbins had actually provided that account to Downing Street before the call took place … which means they are not denying the possibility Starmer sacked Robbins before he had explained his actions.

Thornberry asked if there would be a record of this.

Little said information about the PM’s decision making process on this would not be withing the scope of the humble address.

Asked if she thought there would be a record of the meeting where Robbins and the Foreign Office head of security agreed that Mandelson’s vetting should be approved, Little replied:

Civil servants are great administrators. We are famous for our record keeping, and the civil service code requires us, to take accurate notes, and to handle information within the legal framework.

Abtisam Mohamed (Lab) asked Little if she had ever seen a UKSV form (of the kind published by No 10 last week) before this process.

No, Little replied.

Q: And is it fair to say most senior civil servants never see these forms?

Little said that was correct.

Alex Ballinger (Lab) said there were two leaks relating to the vetting recommendations: one to the Independent in September, and then the Guardian leak, published last week. He asked who would have had access to this sort of information.

Little said there were four stages of the appointment process that were relevant: the due diligence scrutiny conducted by the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office; the conflict of interest checks carried out by the Foreign Office; the UKSV process; and vetting for top secret STRAP intelligence access.

Little said she saw the UKSV report on Mandelson on 25 March.

She said she dicussed it with the cabinet secretary, Antonia Romeo, shortly afterwards. But they did not tell the PM until 14 April.

Asked why it took so long to inform him, she replied:

I immediately sought legal … advice, because this is such an unusual thing for a government official to do, to handle that sort of security information.

I believe I have a responsibility to handle that sensitive information within the framework of both the law and the guidance that I’m subject to, and I did not feel that I could share that information until I understood the consequences and the authority that I had.

Asked to confirm that, on Mandleson’s form, the red boxes were ticked, Little said she would not comment on confidential information in a UKSV report.

Whittingdale asked how it could be possible for the Foreign Office to have the 10-page UKSV summary report on Mandelson, including the form with the tick in the red box saying clearance should be denied, but Robbins to say he was not aware of that.

Little said the Foreign Office had the document. She said she could not comment on what was or was not shown to Robbins.

John Whittingdale (Con) said Simon Case, the former cabinet secretary, said the vetting should be carried out before the appointment was announced. Olly Robbins said he thought the same. Is that the Cabinet Office view?

Little said the due process was followed.

(This backs up Keir Starmer’s claim to MPs, that “due process” was followed.)

Q: But the appointment was announced before the vetting had been carried out. Does the Cabinet Office support that?

Little sidestepped the question, saying she only became involved when implementing the humble address.

She said issues about when vetting was carried out would be looked at by Adrian Fulford in his review.