Speeches by Anderson.

“With the benefit of hindsight and many months to look at this and to think about the whole process, where did the process go wrong? Was it at the early stage of even considering him, was it the due diligence, or was it the vetting?”

“I have one more question—one more piece of the puzzle—going back to access talks that you held before the election with people who were then shadow Ministers. Did the issue of political appointments, including the appointment of the ambassador to the US or appointing Peter Mandelson, come up in access talks, and would …”

“I appreciate your talking about the victims and survivors of Epstein at the beginning. I think I speak for the whole Committee in saying they are very much on our mind. Do you think the violence against women and girls aspect of this and the relationship with Epstein were downplayed during the conversations you had wit…”

“So they were the concerns that would have been raised by the due diligence form about the different things we can see here. Epstein, for example, was in that.”

“By your own admission it was a very unusual political appointment. The whole process tested the system to the limit. We are looking at how the system worked in this case but also at what we need to learn for the future. You were told quite late on in the process. Due diligence had been done, then you were told that he …”

“He said he would talk to No. 10 about that. Did you hear back from that before you then wrote that letter to say he was appointed?”

“Is there a precedent of you seeing a due diligence form or for asking—I know this is an unusual appointment, because the Cabinet Office did the due diligence, so you didn’t see it. Could you have asked for the FCDO to also do due diligence, seeing that you were going to be Peter Mandelson’s line manager and you were di…”

“In the due diligence, there are obviously issues that were then taken up in the security vetting, but there also issues about reputational risk. Would they have been part of the security vetting or would there have been another process to look further into the reputational risk, which is more a political decision than …”

“I suppose I am really asking this because I was a Minister. Every single conversation I had felt like it was definitely being documented very, very well, but I don’t know about chiefs of staff to Prime Ministers. Are all of their meetings documented in the same way that Ministers’ are?”

“In this case, in your role as chief operating officer going forward, and in looking at how we operate on this in the future—and that Ministers and the Prime Minister are given all the advice they need—this may be an area that is looked at. Unusual appointments like this are where it really comes to the crux, and there …”

“So do you think there are any missing documents around those decisions? Have you asked any questions about more evidence of meetings by Morgan McSweeney before he even said to the Prime Minister that he should consider going forward with even the due diligence and even the security vetting—so, the early stages? Do you …”

“Thank you. The next question is about the letter to Sir Clive Alderton, who is the private secretary to the King, from Philip Barton, recommending the political appointment of HM Ambassador. I know you have read so many documents. You can’t be expected to know the details of all of them, but in this document, it says: …”

“That is helpful, because we are seeing him next week, we hope. As you are gathering the documents, and you get them in and look at them, are you able to go back and say, “There seem to be some missing documents,” and investigate a little bit more in your document gathering?”

“Okay, that is clear. Thank you. My third area is around the due diligence itself. The document is there. Before publishing that, did you have to seek the same kind of legal advice, policy expert advice and propriety and ethics team advice that you had to about the security vetting? Was there any discussion about whethe…”

“So there was no indication that you should seek legal advice, as has subsequently been done, and be able to give to the Prime Minister? It was not the whole truth that Peter Mandelson had just passed the vetting process. The whole truth was that there were concerns along the way—you could not reveal any of them, but th…”

“My final question is about the most recent part of the process, and those times and moments that the Prime Minister talked about—those moments when he felt that he should have been told more before going to the House of Commons for Prime Minister’s questions and other things. I am thinking about the unusual parts of th…”

“My final question is about the most recent part of the process, and those times and moments that the Prime Minister talked about—those moments when he felt that he should have been told more before going to the House of Commons for Prime Minister’s questions and other things. I am thinking about the unusual parts of th…”

“So there was no indication that you should seek legal advice, as has subsequently been done, and be able to give to the Prime Minister? It was not the whole truth that Peter Mandelson had just passed the vetting process. The whole truth was that there were concerns along the way—you could not reveal any of them, but th…”

“My second question is about the meeting that you held on 29 January about the vetting. Did you hold that meeting because it was flagged that Peter Mandelson had not passed? If it was a clear pass—a green tick box in the form that you did not see—would you have even held that meeting or did you hold the meeting because …”

“When ambassadors are appointed, it is normal that they have been through the process—this is a separate issue. I understand that they would have been through developed vetting as a normal part of their appointment before that. But in those cases, is it usual to have a series of mitigations, and to then be working throu…”