Speeches by Ballinger.

“Did you say that to No. 10?”

“As a permanent secretary, would you have said in another case—”

“But in your tenure.”

“Do you think that attitude, and because it is a different process for spads from civil servants—and I got DV when I was in the Foreign Office, as I think every other person does—contributed to you trying to expedite the process and having an uninterested attitude towards Peter Mandelson getting DV?”

“Finally, do you think the Prime Minister’s statement that “full due process was followed” is a fair description of what happened in Mandelson’s case?”

“Sir Philip, you have talked about the short timescale causing problems. Do you think there was a reasonable diplomatic reason why No. 10 wanted the appointment done by Trump’s inauguration?”

“Do you think the argument that Lord Mandelson would not need DV clearance because he was a Privy Counsellor was credible?”

“This whole thing is about security clearances and developed vetting; we have had a long conversation about the process. I think if you had had developed vetting at that point, when you were chief of staff to the Prime Minister, you would be able to tell us, and I am surprised that you are not telling us.”

“Where might that thought have come from?”

“You did not think to consult with the head of the diplomatic service on that timeline before you announced it and then put on pressure to deliver on that timeline.”

“Do you think the argument that Lord Mandelson would not need DV clearance because he was a Privy Counsellor was credible?”

“You said there were higher classifications of material that he would not have had access to. Before he received his DV, what level of classification was Mandelson able to access?”

“Thank you.”

“You had DV at the point that you were appointed chief of staff to the Prime Minister.”

“So there were no briefings he was given above that level of classification before he received vetting?”

“Did the intelligence agencies ever share any concerns with you about Mandelson’s appointment or his access to information?”

“Thank you. Knowing what you know now about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and everything else, do you think that the UKSV made the correct decision, and that the FCDO made the correct decision?”

“This whole thing is about security clearances and developed vetting; we have had a long conversation about the process. I think if you had had developed vetting at that point, when you were chief of staff to the Prime Minister, you would be able to tell us, and I am surprised that you are not telling us.”

“Does it change your view on the appropriateness of political appointments to ambassadorial positions at all?”

“Finally, do you think the Prime Minister’s statement that “full due process was followed” is a fair description of what happened in Mandelson’s case?”