Keir Starmer was left unaware of sensitive information regarding Peter Mandelson's security vetting by two other top civil servants, including the head of the civil service.
As revealed by the Guardian.
The prime minister said on Friday that it was “unforgivable” and “staggering” that senior officials did not inform him that Mandelson failed a security vetting process weeks before his appointment as ambassador to Washington.
Olly Robbins was removed from his position as permanent secretary of the Foreign Office on Thursday after it was revealed that his department granted Mandelson developed vetting clearance against the advice of the relevant agency.
Now, the Guardian reveals that two other senior civil servants, including the cabinet secretary, Antonia Romeo, failed to promptly inform him when they learned that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had recommended denying clearance to Mandelson.
Putin’s regime crumbling as spies defect and Russia keeps relatives 'hostage'
The Cabinet Office maintains that there was no undue delay as the civil servants were engaged in “expedited checks” to inform the prime minister as swiftly as possible.
Downing Street has stated that Starmer was unaware of the vetting failure, which occurred in January 2025, until Tuesday of this week. However, the Guardian has established that both Romeo, the government's most senior civil servant, and Catherine Little, the Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary, have known since March.
Their delay in informing the prime minister raises concerns about whether his government is being managed by civil servants rather than ministers.
Romeo, appointed by Starmer in February, was informed about the failure by Little in March. Little is the top civil servant at the Cabinet Office, which includes UKSV. Her department has also been responsible for handling the “humble address” parliamentary motion that ordered the government to release “all papers” relevant to Mandelson's appointment.
The motion made an exception for documents prejudicial to national security or international relations, to be released to the intelligence and security committee (ISC).
A government source insisted Little “did not withhold the information” but was part of a complex process and was attempting to assess the risks of sharing highly sensitive information, including with the prime minister. The source added that Little informed Romeo of her plan to evaluate those risks, which Romeo supported.
This process seems to have taken weeks, with up to a dozen officials and lawyers aware of Mandelson’s vetting failure. Starmer’s statement suggests he was not formally informed by any of them until a few days ago.
The controversy centers on an extraordinary summary document produced by UKSV on 28 January last year, weeks after Starmer announced Mandelson as his ambassador to Washington.
The document highlighted highly sensitive concerns UKSV had about Mandelson and recommended that he should not be granted security clearance. This recommendation was overruled by the Foreign Office.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said that upon receiving the UKSV document following the humble address, Little “immediately undertook a series of expedited checks to be in a sound position to share the document, or the fact of it.”
Union chief blasts leaked proposal to 'ban' Border Force workers from strikes
The spokesperson stated that this included obtaining legal advice on what could be shared in the context of the humble address and evaluating whether the information would affect criminal proceedings.
Little also sought information from the Foreign Office about “the process they followed” when deciding to grant Mandelson security clearance against UKSV's advice, the spokesperson said. They added: “As soon as these checks were completed, the prime minister was informed.”
According to a government source, Little always believed that the outcome of the UKSV process should be made public, and the relevant document disclosed unredacted to the ISC. However, officials in her department have been divided in recent weeks over how to proceed and whether to release the document to the committee at all.
Before the story broke in the Guardian on Thursday, there was reportedly “no consensus” among officials. Some raised national security concerns and argued it would be “unprecedented” to release the UKSV file, even to the ISC, which includes nine MPs and peers, including Jeremy Wright, a former attorney general, and Alan West, a retired Royal Navy admiral.
Its members are sworn to secrecy under the Official Secrets Act and have access to highly classified material. According to one source familiar with debates in Little’s department, there were fears among some officials that there might be an attempted “cover-up” and the document would never be revealed.
Some officials noted that the UKSV document appeared to contradict statements made by the prime minister and his former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, which implied that vetting failures could partly be blamed for Mandelson's appointment.
Amid a deadlock among officials, some in government are said to have argued that precedent should be disregarded to disclose the UKSV documents to the committee, as anything less might violate the wishes of parliament.
The discussion over whether to release the documents to the parliamentary committee appears to have lasted for weeks. If Downing Street’s timeline is accurate, the prime minister was completely unaware it was even taking place.
By Wednesday of this week, one compromise under consideration involved providing unredacted versions of the document only to two ISC members, such as the chair and another member. Another option was showing the documents only to those committee members who were also members of the privy council, a historical body advising the monarch.
One source said Little is now expected to be asked to appear before the ISC in a closed hearing to answer questions. Lord Beamish, who chairs the ISC, has stated that the committee and parliament would take a “very dim view” if documents were withheld from its members.
A Cabinet Office spokesperson said Little and officials working on the humble address “have always operated on the basis of being transparent about the UK Security Vetting recommendation.”
Neither the Cabinet Office nor No 10 has disputed that there has been an internal debate over whether the materials could be withheld. This raises questions about the accuracy of public statements on Friday by the prime minister's chief secretary, Darren Jones.
A close ally of Starmer, Jones was asked on the BBC’s Today programme to comment on the Guardian’s report that “officials have toyed with the idea of not revealing all this to parliament.”
He replied: “That’s not true. All these documents are going through the humble address process, for which my department is responsible.”
Asked if he had misled the public, a source close to Jones insisted his answer was “clearly focused on the official government response to the humble address, which he clarifies later in his answer.”
On Friday evening, Downing Street published a summary of the meeting held on Tuesday when Starmer was informed Mandelson had been appointed despite failing security vetting.
The email, from his principal private secretary Dan York-Smith, stated: “The PM was unaware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV.”
It shows he instructed officials to establish facts so he could update MPs as soon as possible.
Money & Markets Editor
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
