Afternoon summary
Zack Polanski, the Green leader, has said that he hopes to replicate the success of New York mayor Zohran Mamdani as he pledged to bring high streets back to life. On a campaign visit in Manchester, he said that he had met members of Mamdani’s team. He said:
It was a real privilege to meet with members of his team, and this has happened various times, hear how they were so successful.
I think the key point I hear over and over again though and agree with entirely is that it’s less about the tactics, sure his social media is phenomenal, his method of communication is phenomenal, but more than anything it was about the message.
It was about the message of communities coming together, challenging the wealth and power of multimillionaires and billionaires.
It was about communities finding their voice, communities being supported by politicians.
That’s what Zohran’s done to make New York a more affordable city and it’s what I intend to do in this country to make sure it’s a country that everyone can afford to live in.
For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.
Half of Welsh voters say they may change mind about how they vote in Senedd election before polling day, poll suggests
One of the features of modern politics is electoral volatility. Voters don’t stick to the same party. The Economist published some research recently saying: “In 2024 some 40% of Britons who had voted in 2019 switched parties, the highest share since the 1930s. If a general election were held tomorrow, by our calculations nearly 50% of voters would switch parties.” And there is some fresh evidence of that today in research published by Ipsos.
It has published polling relating to the Senedd elections in Wales. Summing up the findings, Gideon Skinner, head of politics at Ipsos, says:
Our latest findings suggest a Welsh electorate that is currently weighing its options amidst significant pessimism about the economy and public services, and dissatisfaction with the performance of the Welsh Labour government. While Plaid Cymru holds a slight lead in voting intention, have the most popular leader, and are strongest on standing up for the interests of Wales, they still have to convince the public they are ready for government and can deliver on the key issues.
But the poll also shows that more than half of respondents (polled at the start of April) said that, even though they had a preference, they might change their mind before polling day.
Knife crime down 10% in England and Wales in 2025, figures show
Homicides involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by police forces in England and Wales fell 21% last year, while overall knife crime dropped by 10%, the Press Association reports. PA says:
Some 172 knife homicides were logged by forces in 2025, down from 217 in 2024 and the lowest annual number since comparable data began in 2010/11.
The fall helped drive down the total number of homicides last year, which stood at 503, down 6% from 534 in 2024, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Levels of police-recorded knife crime are now at their lowest since the early stages of the Covid pandemic.
A total of 49,151 knife offences were logged by forces in England and Wales in 2025, down from 54,548 in 2024.
The figure is lower than the 49,190 offences recorded in 2021/22, but higher than the 44,728 in the first year of the pandemic, 2020/21.
Two-thirds of police forces in England and Wales (29 out of 44) recorded a year-on-year fall in incidents of knife crime in 2025.
They include the three largest forces: the Metropolitan police, where offences dropped 17%; Greater Manchester, also down 17%: and West Midlands, down 15%.
Nearly half of forces (20 out of 44) saw a fall in homicides, including the Met and Greater Manchester.
The latest ONS data also shows shoplifting offences fell slightly last year, down from 516,611 in 2024 to 509,566 in 2025.
The drop may reflect a change in the way shoplifting offences are recorded by police forces.
The latest episode of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly UK podcast is out. It features Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey talking about the Peter Mandelson vetting controversy.
Labour criticises Polanski after he says he's apologised to Corbyn for thinking he was tainted by antisemitism
Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, has revealed that he has apologised to Jeremy Corbyn for suggesting in the past that the former Labour leader was tainted by antisemitism.
In an interview with the New Statesman, Polanski, who is Jewish, blamed his previous thinking about Corbyn on this issue on the fact that he was “lost in the propaganda”.
Referring to 2018, when he posted a message on Twitter saying that as Jew he could not support Corbyn, Polanski said:
I think if I knew what I knew now – you can only do the best with the information you have at the time – then, yes, I would have supported Jeremy Corbyn at that time.
Referring to his tweet, Polanski said:
I’ve apologised to Jeremy privately about that.
Corbyn has been a lifelong campaigner for Palestinian rights and, when he became Labour leader, party membership surged. Some new members were particularly attracted by his criticism of the Israeli government and there were multiple complaints about some of these activists being antisemitic – as well as claims by Corbynites that these problems were being “weaponised” against Corbyn by his critics in the party and the media.
Polanski told the New Statesman that he believed antisemitism was used as an issue to attack Corbyn.
I say this now as a Jewish party leader where there’s constant accusations of antisemitism [towards me].
I take antisemitism really seriously, and so where there is antisemitism that needs to be dealt with robustly. [But] I’ve undoubtedly seen lots and lots of examples, particularly reported in the press, where it’s very clearly criticism of the Israeli government and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and isn’t antisemitism.
Polanski also said he felt some guilt about one of those being “unfair” to Corbyn over this issue at the time.
When I see a man who’s been an anti-racist campaigner most of his life … I just don’t think it passes the smell test to believe that he’s an antisemite.
Polanski said, as Green party leader now, he wanted to “push back against false allegations of antisemitism [in his party], but also make sure that actual antisemitism is also being dealt with”.
In response to the interview, Labour said that Polanski’s comment about criticism of Corbyn on this issue being “propaganda” showed that the Greens were not serious about tackling antisemitism.
Anna Turley, the Labour chair, said:
Zack Polanski’s rewriting of history is beyond the pale. Not only is it downright offensive, but it is completely wrong.
Labour has a proud tradition as an anti-racist party. But under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we endured the most shameful period in our history and the equalities watchdog found that we had acted unlawfully in our discrimination and harassment of the Jewish community.
For Polanski to dismiss that as ‘propaganda’ shows his own determination to court the worst of the worst into his own ranks.
Keir Starmer booted the antisemites out of the Labour party when he became leader. The Greens have now opened their arms to them. The contrast could not be clearer.
Updated
Global Counsel, lobbying firm set up by Mandelson, went bust owing £4.5m just before peer's arrest, figures show
The lobbying firm co-founded by Peter Mandelson collapsed owing £4.5m to creditors including over half a million pounds to HM Revenue and Customs, the Press Association reports. PA says:
Global Counsel went into administration in February amid the fallout from the scandal surrounding Mandelson’s historical links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Figures filed on Companies House showed the firm owed £4.54m when it went bust – with only £2.7m in assets for preferential creditors.
HM Revenue and Customs is among the list of creditors, with the taxman owed £645,789.
Administrators at Interpath were appointed in February for the London-based lobbying business, which said it suffered a significant financial impact from a swathe of customers cutting ties with the firm amid pressure over its association to the former politician and US ambassador.
This left directors with no choice but to bring in administrators, it said at the time, despite having insisted that Mandelson no longer had any shareholding, role or influence over it.
The firm’s collapse on 20 February happened three days before Mandelson was arrested by police following allegations the former Labour minister passed sensitive information on to Epstein during his time as business secretary.
Mandelson was released on bail and has not been charged.
At one stage, Mandelson had a 21% stake in Global Counsel, but is not listed as a creditor in the “statement of affairs” listing on Companies House.
Mandelson co-founded the firm with Benjamin Wegg-Prosser in 2010 after Labour lost the general election.
Mandelson stepped down from its board about two years ago.
Global Counsel has worked with a roster of clients including Palantir, GSK, Vodafone, OpenAI, TikTok and the English Premier League.
Updated
Private health records of half a million Britons offered for sale on Chinese website
The confidential health records of half a million British volunteers have been offered for sale on Chinese website Alibaba, the UK government has confirmed. Hannah Devlin has the story.
And here is an analysis of Cat Little’s evidence to the foreign affairs committee by Paul Lewis, the Guardian’s head of investigations. He says Little arrived at the hearing “armed with the most deadly of civil servant weapons: an audit trail.”
John Crace has written his sketch about Cat Little’s evidence to the foreign affairs committee this morning. It may have been hard work. “Cat’s USP is saying things that appear to be interesting on first hearing that turn out to be quite dull when you’ve had time to reflect on them,” he writes. “A talent that has taken her near to the top of the civil service.”
And here is some Guardian video from the hearing.
Shabana Mahmood has been in France today signing a new UK-France deal relating to intercepting small boats.
Here are some pictures from her trip.
Three hereditary peers have been sworn in as life peers, so they can continue to sit in the House of Lords, the Press Association reports. Hereditary peers are set to vacate their seats on the red benches during the next fortnight, as the current parliamentary session comes to an end. But Liberal Democrats Lord Addington and Earl Russell and independent crossbencher the Earl of Kinnoull will now retain their right to speak and vote in parliament as life peers.
Former Foreign Office chief Philip Barton to give evidence to MPs about Mandelson appointment on Tuesday
Sir Philip Barton, another former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, will give evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee at 9am on Tuesday next week, the committee has announced. Barton was in post when the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US was announced, but he had left by the time the department had to decide whether or not to approve his developed vetting. It is thought he was not happy about the way his team was under pressure to push through the appointment.
Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, is also giving evidence to the committee on Tuesday, but a time for that has not been announced yet.
Updated
There is a lot of colourful detail in Tim Shipman’s cover story for the Spectator about the Peter Mandelson vetting controversy and the sacking of Olly Robbins. Shipman claims that, the day before it was announced the Peter Mandelson was going to be the ambassador to Washington, Keir Starmer sent the peer a text message saying:
You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances, … And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.
Shipman also claims that Starmer now thinks he went too far in what he said criticising Robbins after he sacked him in the Commons on Monday. Shipman says:
It will be a costly mistake. The ‘payoff to beat’ is the £370,000 paid to Philip Rutnam when he was forced out of the Home Office in 2020. But it is understood that [former cabinet secretary Chris] Wormald’s compensation (not yet revealed) was double or more than that (‘It will make your eyes bleed,’ says a source), and Robbins can expect even more. ‘We’re looking at half a million quid minimum to make this go away,’ says one serving official. Others think double that. ‘Olly was earning a million a year in the private sector,’ a friend of Robbins says. ‘He is a younger man, his loss of future earnings is higher and the price for the reputational damage is huge.’
Robbins’s supporters say he only really wants to serve in government. He told one friend: ‘I was an OK banker, but I was a brilliant civil servant.’ A former colleague predicts: ‘I think Olly will get his job back when we get a new prime minister.’
Updated
Karl Turner has now published a statement on X saying that posting his letter to the speaker about Keir Starmer earlier (see 1.24pm and 1.31pm) was an “administrative error”, that he has taken it down, and that he has apologised to the speaker.
MPs who want to raise an allegation of contempt of parliament with the speaker are required to do so privately.
Swinney says SNP would make supermarket price cap for essential foods 'urgent priority', and urges shops to act now
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
John Swinney has called on retailers to “do the right thing by people who are struggling right now” with food inflation, suggesting that major supermarkets should introduce the most eye-catching pledge of the SNP’s Holyrood manifesto before the party has even been re-elected.
The plan – to cap supermarket prices for essential goods such as bread and milk – was immediately slammed as a “potty gimmick” by retailers, while many constitutional academics cast doubt on whether the Scottish parliament would have the powers to legislate for it, putting them on another collision course with the UK government.
But today Swinney confirmed legislation will be in place this year – if his party can form a government after 7 May – and asked supermarkets to take immediate, voluntary action to support people before the new law is in place, with food inflation rising even before the full impact of the Iran War is felt.
Swinney said the legal cap on the cost of essential food items would be “a matter of urgent priority” after the election. He went on:
But that does not mean people are not struggling now – every time people get to the checkout with their messages, they are seeing the impact. So I am asking the large supermarkets to take immediate, voluntary action today – in advance of the new law being in place this year.
Here is a screengrab of the letter to the speaker that Karl Turner posted on X calling for Keir Starmer to be referred to the privileges committee. (See 1.24pm.)
Karl Turner joins Tories in proposing inquiry into whether Starmer misled MPs with PMQs comments about Robbins
Alexandra Topping is a Guardian political correspondent.
Karl Turner has joined opposition MPs in calling for Keir Starmer to face a powerful Commons committee to examine whether the prime minister misled parliament about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.
Turner, who was elected as Labour but who has currently had the whip withdrawn after making a series of interventions criticising Starmer and No 10, has written to the speaker of the Commons urging him to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, the same body which found that Boris Johnson had lied in the Commons over the lockdown parties scandal.
In a letter to the speaker posted on X (but later removed), Turner wrote that he was raising a “matter of serious concern regarding the conduct” of the prime minister during PMQs yesterday.
He said it was clear that the prime minister’s characterisation of the evidence given by Olly Robbins about the Mandleson vetting controversy was “at best, inaccurate and, at worst, misleading to the house”.
During PMQs, Starmer’s said no pressure was put on the Foreign Office to approve the vetting of Mandelson, using quotes from Robbins, the former Foreign Office permanent secretary.
The Conservatives, with the support of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, have been pushing for the privileges committee to intervene in the crisis, and are understood to be exploring a Boris Johnson-style motion which could see all MPs to vote on whether the committee should explore if Starmer was in contempt of parliament.
Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said that the privileges committee should examine if Starmer had misled parliament, saying testimony by Robbins on Tuesday “directly contradicts” assurances given by the prime minister in the Commons.
Stride told GB News:
Our belief is that the prime minister has misled parliament, because what he’s said in parliament is that that pressure was not applied, and he’s been contradicted by Olly Robbins.
At the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said Starmer did not mislead the house, and was “being very specific in terms of talking about the allegation that there was pressure around taking up the role regardless of the vetting outcome”. They added: “We’ve been very clear that wasn’t the case.”
Updated
Bibby Stockholm asylum barge contractor admits overcharging UK government £118m
The Australian company that ran the Bibby Stockholm asylum barge has admitted it overcharged the British government by £118m, Lauren Almeida reports.
Starmer brushes off reports of cabinet divisions over Mandelson scandal
In his broadcast interview this morning, Keir Starmer also brushed off suggestions that cabinet ministers do not support him over the sacking of Olly Robbins.
Asked if he thought the cabinet was united behind him, Starmer replied:
The cabinet is working really hard on a huge amount of issues and what we’re delivering at the moment.
We’re preparing for the king’s speech and all the further measures that we’re going to need to take the country forward.
And of course, the issue we discuss at cabinet a lot in recent weeks is the war on two fronts, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the developing situation in Iran.
What we discuss at cabinet is the international aspect of that, but also the domestic impact in relation to that and the measures that we need to take to ensure that we’re assessing the risks and making sure we’re protecting people in this country from those impacts.
When asked a similar question this morning, the Home Office minister Alex Norris just described stories about cabinet divisions as “a load of guff”. (See 9.18am.)
Starmer suggests Tories making false claims about his handling of Mandelson vetting row to derail Labour's domestic agenda
Keir Starmer has accused opposition parties of making false claims about his handling of the Peter Mandelson vetting row because they are trying to derail Labour’s domestic agenda.
The controversy has been in the news for a week now, with Kemi Badenoch in particular initially accusing Starmer of lying about what happened. All of the main opposition parties have called for Starmer’s resignation over this.
But, speaking to reporters this morning, Starmer said claims being made by his critics were wrong, and politically motivated.
He told reporters at an event in Newcastle:
I think it’s very important to see what’s going on here.
Last week, my political opponents were saying that there’s no way a civil servant wouldn’t have told me about the outcome of a developed vetting security exercise. Turns out my political opponents were completely wrong about that.
Then they said that I was dishonest. It turns out they were completely wrong about that.
They are now putting any allegation they can and I will tell you for why – they are opposed politically to what this government is trying to achieve.
We have introduced the Employment Rights Act to give people more rights at work, and the Renters’ Rights Act giving those in rented accommodation more rights is coming in very shortly, we’ve invested a huge amount in the NHS.
But my political opponents don’t like that and so you have these allegations that keep on coming.
Starmer also defended his decision to sack Olly Robbins, head of the Foreign Office, last week after learning that Robbins had not told him the UK Security Vetting officials who interviewed Mandelson were opposed to him getting clearance.
Starmer said:
I strongly think that the outcome of the security clearance exercise, the developed vetting exercise, was important and should have been brought to my attention, and could have been brought to my attention, and had it been brought to my attention before Peter Mandelson took up his post and I wouldn’t have appointed him …
[Robbins] makes it clear he took a decision not to give me that information. I think that was the wrong decision.
Swinney proposes £200 'culture pass' for every Scot turning 18 if SNP win Holyrood election
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.
John Swinney is bidding to counter Scottish Labour’s offer to overhaul Scotland’s arts policy with a promise to give every young adult a £200 “culture pass” to ensure older teenagers are not priced out of arts and music events.
The Scottish National party leader said the pass, which would be given to every teenager when they turned 18, was based on similar policies in Italy, France and Spain. It would cost about £10.8m to deliver.
“The days when Scotland’s cultural offering was out of reach to anyone based on their background must be over,” he said. Teenagers would be able to “enjoy the world-class cultural offering on their doorstep, supporting the creative industries and possibly opening up new horizons for young people.”
With inflation pushing up live music and gallery prices, it is unlikely £200 will go far but the SNP is also pledging to test whether a minimum wage for Scottish artists can be introduced, similar to Ireland’s successful scheme to give 3,000 artists €325 (£283) a week in three-year cycles.
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said earlier in April his party would introduce a pilot project to top up the incomes of 1,000 artists, musicians and cultural entrepreneurs to a minimum wage of around £14,000 a year.
Cultural groups have been pressing for such a scheme in Scotland, and with both the SNP and Labour committed to a pilot project projected to cost £30m, it seems likely one will start.
Swinney said the SNP would also reinstate the agency Screen Scotland as a distinct organisation to support the film industry, establish a film and TV school at a university and also a new national company for traditional music, on similar lines to Scottish Opera and Scottish Ballet.
Labour’s plans are more far-reaching. It argues Scotland’s arts sector needs a significant overhaul in funding and governance, by making arts and cultural companies eligible for enterprise and national bank funding, and by restructuring the government agency Creative Scotland.
Cat Little's evidence to foreign affairs committee - snap verdict
Readers, I’m afraid you deserve an apology. That was all a bit dull. Cat Little is a very senior civil servant, and she was giving evidence on a controversy that has gripped Westminster to such an extent that it would ultimately bring down the PM. But she did not say anything that will substantially revise our opinion of what happened. Her appearance also confirmed a Westminster truism; while ex civil servants can be extremely newsworthy talking in public, when serving civil servants are on the record, their default mode is boring.
From Keir Starmer’s point of view, boring is good. You won’t be seeing much of this on the TV news. And, with Labour desperate to talk about other things, that is a bonus.
On most points of substance, what Little said was helpful to the PM. She plausibly rebutted the claim that the Cabinet Office suggested Peter Mandelson did not need vetting. (See 9.47am.) She said that “due process” was followed in the Mandelson appointment (see 10.09am) – confirming what Starmer told MPs, and contradicting Tory claims parliament was misled. And she also appeared to criticise Olly Robbins for withholding information from her about the UK Security Vetting report. (See 10.01am.)
But she was not prepared to go as far as saying that the PM was right to sack Robbins. And at one point she suggested that, when Starmer did sack Robbins, he was doing so on the basis of limited information; he got rid of Robbins without having read the memo about what mitigations the Foreign Office proposed to put in place to handle the risks around Mandelson appointment, she suggested.
She also hinted – but quite vaguely (see 11.19am) – that No 10 has not been fully forthcoming yet about all the minutes relating to Starmer appointing Mandelson.
These are answers of interest to Whitehall specialists. But, to most people, the process points in relation to this story are irrelevant, because the key error was the decision to make Mandelson an ambassador in the first place. On the merits of that, the country has already made up its mind.
Updated
Little refuses to say if she thinks Robbins did anything wrong
Towards the end of the hearing, Little was asked if she thought Robbins did anything wrong when he decided to give Mandleson vetting clearance, and when he subsequently without information from the PM. Did he do anything wrong, or was he acting within his powers?
Little replied:
I’m not here to opine on that, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to give a judgment …
’m not going to be drawn into giving an opinion on the actions of one of my former colleagues. I do not think that is within the scope of my responsibilities in discharging the will of parliament in the humble address.
Little told the committee that the “final checks” were being carried out before the publication of the next tranche of material required by the humble address. She said she was grateful to the intelligence and security committee for the significant amount of work they were doing vetting this material.
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.
Little hints further information could be published about how PM decided to appoint Mandelson
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 Mandelson 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.
Updated
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 refuses to say if Robbins' account of how vetting approved likely to be backed by Foreign Office security chief
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 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 says she delayed telling PM about Mandelson vetting recommendation because she wanted legal advice first
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.
Updated
Little says due process was followed in Mandelson vetting process
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.
UPDATE: Little said:
So my view is that due process was followed, and if I might explain why I believe that it is because the process as I’ve outlined to the committee, is that UKSV [UK Security Vetting] make a recommendation and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV [developed vetting].
That is the process, and that is the process that is agreed with the Foreign Office.
Updated
Little says Robbins refused to give her access to Mandelson's vetting report
Little says in March she had a meeting when she asked to see the Foreign Office’s documentation about the decision to grant Mandelson vetting. She said she was asking because this was documentation covered by the humble address. She said was told that “that information would not be forthcoming”.
In the middle of March, I have a meeting with Sir Olly and a senior member of his team, and this is after the point that I’ve been told that this summary document exists.
I specifically ask to see this document and any decision-making audit trail around those judgments at the time. It was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.
Asked who was not forthcoming, Little replied: “Sir Olly.”
Little said at that point she decided to request the document directly from UKSV.
I took the very unusual judgment that I should directly request the information from UK Security Vetting.
And I did that because I go back to my responsibilities, to discharge the humble address, which is a responsibility that is unique to me and I take very seriously.
I felt that I needed to see some relevant documentation so that I could advise the prime minister as to whether we had fully complied and gathered the information that it’s available and within scope.
Q: Why did Robbins refuse?
Little said Robbins covered some of that in his evidence. She said she cannot talk about his decisions. “I can only talk about my judgments and decisions.”
Updated
Thornberry said that, in his evidence, Robbins said he tried to get access to that file, but was told he could not see it without a national security reason.
Little said she could not find an audit trail for that request.
Little said that in September last year, just after Mandelson was sacked, the Foreign Office requested to see his vetting file. She said she did not know exactly who saw that document.
Little said UKSV produces a report after the DV process with two recommendations.
One sets out the level of concern and the other sets out the overall recommendation on whether to grant developed vetting that is non-binding.
It is meant to be helpful information for the ultimate decision maker, in this case, the Foreign Office, to make a final decision.
She says the summary report from UKSV on Mandelson ran to about 10 pages.
Little dismisses Olly Robbins' claim that it was Cabinet Office that suggested Mandelson did not need vetting
Emily Thornberry, the committee chair, starts the questioning.
Q: What can you say about the vetting process for Mandelson?
Little says she does not have records of verbal meetings.
But she has seen an email trail.
She says there was an email dicussion about the process which she has seen.
She says the Foreign Office got in touch the UKSV and the Cabinet Office to see if Mandelson needed developed vetting (DV).
Because the presumption had been that, given Peter Mandelson had been a member of the House of Lords, that the long standing convention that he didn’t require develop vetting was assumed, and they wanted to get proper policy advice from experts on whether that was the case …
I should say it is unusual, although not unprecedented, for a political appointee to take up post as an ambassador.
What I can see is there is a senior official from the Government Security Group that goes back to the Foreign Office security team and advises two things. One, that this is a decision for the Foreign Office, and two, that they would advise developed vetting is sought.
This contradicts a suggestion made by Olly Robbins in his evidence on Tuesday. Robbins said he thought the Cabinet Office had asked if vetting was really necessary. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, told MPs on Tuesday afternoon that that was wrong, and that in fact it was the Foreign Office that asked if vetting was really needed.
Updated
Cat Little, head of Cabinet Office, gives evidence to foreign affairs committee
Cat Little is giving evidence now.
She says she has two key relevant responsibilities.
She is the official responsible for the government’s response to the humble address relating to the disclosure of the Mandleson documents.
And she is permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office, which means she is responsible for services provided to other departments, including UK Security Vetting.
But she was not involved in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.
And the sanctity of vetting is essential for national security. She says, although overseeing UKSV, she has nothing to do with its day-to-day operations.
Cat Little will only be able to say 'exactly what she's been told to say by ministers', former civil servant leader says
Helen MacNamara, the former deputy cabinet secretary, was on the Today programme this morning talking about the Cat Little hearing. MacNamara, who is best known to the public for standing up to Dominic Cummings, and for her evidence to the Covid inquiry about this, said there would be a limit to what Little could say. Addressing the presenter, she explained:
You said in your introduction there that Cat Little was going to give an account supporting the prime minister. That is literally her job. Cat Little can’t sit before the committee and say what she thinks or what her own personal opinion is. Her literal job is to sit there and say exactly what she’s been told to say by her ministers.
MacNamara said the head of the Cabinet Office should not be giving evidence to the foreign affairs committee anyway.
The foreign affairs select committee is not the select committee that Cat Little, the permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, should be going to …
We spent a long time in really turbulent days during Brexit defending the principle that accountability in parliament is proper and that ministers are accountable, and the civil servants who work for them, are accountable for their committees. And this sort of vandalism, where the foreign affairs committee can just call whoever they like in public, [is improper].
Updated
Minister claims reports about cabinet divisions over Olly Robbins sacking 'load of guff'
Alex Norris, the border security and asylum minister, was representing the government on the morning news programmes. He was there to promote the new UK-France small boats deal being signed today. Rajeev Syal has the details.
Inevitably, though, Norris was asked about the stories like the one in the Guardian (see 8.45am) about cabinet divisions over the sacking of Olly Robbins. He opted for the outright denial strategy, telling LBC:
No, it’s a load of guff. If I had a pound, certainly under the previous government, for the number of times I saw cabinet stories in the papers, my St George’s pints would probably be more multiple than there will be in reality.
You would expect a junior minister to say something like this; he won’t get points for accuracy, but he will get credit for loyalty, which matters more to No 10.
But it was an odd comparison to make. Under the Tories, there were multiple newspaper stories about cabinet splits. But they were also largely true, which is why the Conservatives got through three prime ministers in the course of the last parliament.
In an interview with Sky News, asked if he expected Keir Starmer to lead the party into the next elecion, Norris replied: “Yes.”
UK undershoots annual borrowing target by £700m
The UK government budget came in below its annual borrowing target by £700m, official figures show – but the Iran war is likely to blow a hole in Rachel Reeves’s carefully calculated fiscal “headroom” over the coming months. Tom Knowles has the story.
Top Cabinet Office official to give evidence to MPs about Peter Mandelson’s vetting
Good morning. As Kiran Stacey, Pippa Crerar and Jessica Elgot report in the Guardian’s splash, “Keir Starmer is looking increasingly isolated over his handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal with divisions emerging in cabinet over his decision to sack the Foreign Office civil servant Olly Robbins.”
And this morning the saga continues, with Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, giving evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee about the Peter Mandelson vetting controversy.
The Little hearing is unlikely to be as revelatory as the Olly Robbins session on Tuesday. But Little is a key figure in this story, for two reasons. First, as head of the Cabinet Office, she is in charge of collecting all the documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US, and Mandelson’s communications with ministers and officials, which have to be published as a result of the humble address passed by parliament. It was in this capacity that she discovered the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) document that revealed that the UKSV officials who interviewed Mandelson for his developed vetting (DV) advised that he should not get clearance. At a meeting on Tuesday last week she reported this bombshell news to the PM. Here is the extract from the minute of that meeting released by No 10.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the humble address process, that file had been shared with Cat. On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
Second, UKSV is part of the Cabinet Office, which means she has oversight that entire process.
After Keir Starmer learned about this information, and after it was made public by a Guardian report, he sacked Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, on the grounds that he should have followed the UKSV advice in relation to Mandelson – or at least flagged up these concerns to No 10. As Robbins explained to the committee on Tuesday, he insists that UKSV can only make a recommendation, that the final decision was one for the Foreign Office and its own security team, and that he was fully entitled to conclude that the risks flagged up by UKSV could be managed.
Little may shed some light on this dispute, although we know whose side she will take. Unlike Robbins, she is still a serving civil servant; she works for the PM. It will be surprising if she says anything that will cause him significant embarrassment.
But these hearings are also interesting for what they tell us about the workings of the British state. The Cabinet Office is at the centre of the UK’s security network, and the DV process is one of the most secretive parts of this system. It will be odd if we don’t learn something.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, gives evidence to the foreign affairs committee.
9.30am: The ONS publishes crime figures for England and Wales
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a St George’s Day-related visit in the north-east.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Afternoon: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in Pembrokeshire, with the Welsh Tory leader, Darren Millar.
Afternoon: Starmer attends a military planning meeting at Northwood headquarters as part of strait of Hormuz coalition process
4.30pm: Lord Hermer, the attorney general, speaks at an Oxford University event alongside the Council of Europe secretary general, Alain Berset.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
