Speeches by Mohamed.

“Okay. There was a fact-finding call between the general counsel to the Prime Minister and Matthew Doyle, in which Matthew Doyle is reflecting back on some of the conversations. It was noted in the call that Lord Mandelson is a personal friend of Matthew Doyle, that Matthew Doyle had a number of conversations with you, …”

“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?”

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

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

“Do you not think that was a failing in your role as the chief of staff to bring it to the Prime Minister?”

“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?”

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

“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?”

“If these were not part of the due diligence process, did the Prime Minister have any understanding of the depth of concern that was raised in the JP Morgan report?”

“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?”

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

“Okay. I will reference some of them. These are all in the public domain and were from 2019. Epstein says, “was Petie helpful?” That is in relation to the intention to sell a Government asset. Epstein emailed Mandelson saying, “I like to see my suggestions come to fruition.” In 2010, Mandelson shares the guestlist for a…”

“Nobody thought to bring the content of the report to the Prime Minister as well.”

“I want to take us back to a couple of questions that the Chair asked earlier in relation to Matthew Doyle. In the note to the Prime Minister on 11 December, the “Director of Communications” is recorded as saying of Peter Mandelson that he was “satisfied with his responses to questions about contact” with Epstein. Matth…”

“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?”

“Did you trust Matthew Doyle’s judgment in relation to that particular—that he was “satisfied with his responses to questions” in relation to Mandelson’s contact with Epstein?”

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

“You do not recall any issues being addressed.”