Senior Civil Servant Cat Little Provides Evidence on Mandelson Vetting
Cat Little, the highest-ranking civil servant at the Cabinet Office, has testified before the Commons foreign affairs committee concerning the vetting procedures applied to Lord Mandelson.
Despite concerns raised by vetting officials, the peer was granted security clearance for the position of UK ambassador to the United States.
The prime minister dismissed Lord Mandelson in September of the previous year after new information emerged regarding the extent of his association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Little's testimony follows that of Sir Olly Robbins, who was dismissed as the senior civil servant at the Foreign Office last week following revelations about the department's decision to grant Lord Mandelson security clearance.
Presented below are the key points from her evidence to Members of Parliament.
'Due process' was followed
On 10 September 2025, the day prior to Lord Mandelson's dismissal, Sir Keir Starmer stated three times in the House of Commons that "full due process" had been observed during the peer's appointment.
The prime minister has stated that at the time he was unaware that the Foreign Office had granted security clearance contrary to the advice of UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a specialist agency within the Cabinet Office.
Opposition parties have accused the government of misleading Parliament; however, Sir Keir has maintained that "full due process" was followed.
Cat Little affirmed this position in her testimony, stating to MPs:
"My view is that due process was followed... because the process as I've outlined to the committee, is that UKSV make a recommendation, and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV [developed vetting]."
This stance aligns with the typical role of civil servants, who represent ministers when providing evidence to committees.
Former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara explained earlier:
"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."
Vetting summary not shared
As the Cabinet Office's top civil servant, Little was responsible for overseeing the release of documents related to Lord Mandelson's appointment.
Earlier this year, MPs requested the publication of these documents through a parliamentary procedure known as a humble address.
During this process, she asked Sir Olly Robbins if she could access a document summarising the vetting agency's recommendation regarding Lord Mandelson, the Foreign Office's final decision, and any records related to the decision-making process.
She told MPs:
"It was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming."
Consequently, Little requested the information directly from security officials and received it on 25 March.
She did not share the information with the prime minister until 14 April, explaining that she first sought legal advice on handling such sensitive documents.
Sir Olly has defended his decision not to disseminate the vetting recommendation more broadly, arguing that doing so would compromise the confidentiality of the process.
No paper trail of No 10 'pressure'
In his evidence to the committee, Sir Olly stated that his department was "under constant pressure" regarding the timing of the vetting process completion, as Downing Street desired Lord Mandelson to assume the post promptly.
He maintained that his team did not yield to this pressure.
When questioned about these claims, Little said she could not comment on events in which she was not involved or on the atmosphere at the time.
However, she noted that in her role gathering documents for publication about the appointment,
"I've not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure."
Vetting file may have contained new information
Prior to Lord Mandelson's announcement as ambassador and before the comprehensive vetting process, the Cabinet Office conducted a "due diligence" review.
This review identified reputational risks warranting consideration, primarily based on publicly available information such as media reports. These included Lord Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Epstein following Epstein's conviction and his prior resignations as a minister during the last Labour government.
The document also highlighted potential risks related to clients of Lord Mandelson's Global Counsel lobbying firm and their interactions with the UK or US governments.
Repeatedly pressed on whether Lord Mandelson's security vetting file might have contained material not included in the due diligence report, Little declined to comment specifically on the file's contents.
However, she acknowledged:
"It could contain more information, by the nature of this being an exercise to assess different information, for a different purpose."
This is significant because while Sir Keir proceeded with the appointment after reviewing the due diligence report, the prime minister has asserted he would not have done so had he known that the vetting agency recommended against granting Lord Mandelson security clearance.
for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
