Speeches by Mohamed.

“Okay. I will take us now to areas of conflicts of interest in the due diligence checklist. You said earlier that nothing jumped out at the due diligence stage, and that you were not aware of the extent of the problem. Did you look in detail at the due diligence checklist that was provided?”

“In the due diligence checklist, under professional financial relationships, it says that the retained role and interest in Global Counsel would have to cease—come to an end. Did you make sure that this took place, or at any point did you question that?”

“Could it have happened in this situation?”

“Could it have been a possibility?”

“The emails also reference that he had had briefings from senior officials at the FCDO. Were you aware of the content of those briefings?”

“None of the emails makes reference to him being subject to cleared vetting. It is almost as though it was, “He has got the job and we are just going through the process.” Was there anything in any of the documents that said it was all subject to satisfactory DV?”

“Would you foresee a situation where, if the final DV had been refused, that would have been rejected by the Cabinet Office? I cannot foresee a situation where that could have happened, given how he was treated, and when all the emails have implied that he has the job. Would you have foreseen a situation where it could …”

“I come on to another fact-finding call, this time with Jonathan Powell. He is recorded as saying that he raised concerns directly with yourself in relation to the reputation of Mandelson. You responded to him saying that “the issues had been addressed.” What issues had been addressed?”

“You referenced earlier the Cabinet Office’s “fit and proper” exemption. You said that you thought that was odd, insufficient and unusual. Did you reference your concerns to No. 10 or to the Cabinet Office?”

“A number of emails came out in the Humble Address that were from prior to Mandelson being appointed. Was it normal for No. 10 to be sending emails to prospective candidates?”

“So it could be linked to a cloud—it could be backed up somewhere?”

“Following on from colleagues’ questions in relation to pressure, what did that look like? Were you receiving regular phone calls?”

“One of the emails references that you had a discussion with Mandelson. What was that discussion?”

“Have you read the emails between Mandelson and Epstein in the JP Morgan report?”

“It was all in the public domain, so this is everything that the general public would have known. So was this not serious enough to require you to first of all look into the evidence, and secondly, report it to the Prime Minister?”

“Again, one of the emails references that an iPad, laptop and iPhone were given to Mandelson. Is it usual practice to give that to somebody who is not yet cleared?”

“Given the scale of the appointment, do you think that three questions were sufficient to interrogate Mandelson?”

“What were the themes of those three questions?”

“Final question from me. You said it was wrong to appoint Mandelson. Why is it wrong now, but it was right back then?”

“Okay, so questions were asked in relation to the JP Morgan report, but not enough to cause serious concern.”