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 refuted 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.
"... a controversy that has gripped Westminster to such an extent that it would ultimately bring down the PM." Peculiar phrasing.
FWIW, I think testimony that confirms what PM has said and shows Robbins to have been uncooperative in this, is not dull. Just unhelpful for confecting the next scoop.
