Speeches by Anderson.

“At the two dinners and lunches that you attended, did Peter Mandelson lobby you about becoming the ambassador to the US?”

“What was the outcome of that due diligence? Was that the important factor between the two, one going before another?”

“By PET—and by writing to you?”

“I know you were not there at the interview. Do you think he was asked enough open questions or had the ability to give the full extent of his relationship?”

“Finally from me, about the documentation of this process, decisions of this magnitude should not be done informally on the sofa. At previous Committee sessions, Members have become aware of a lack of some papers. Today, it has been referred to that the Prime Minister received a lot of views, and we do not have any pape…”

“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 …”

“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?”

“Just a bit more on the process: you were told about it in a phone call on 15 December, but you were not given the due diligence checklist, which we have in front of us—it is part of the Humble Address papers—that had already been completed. Did you see the conflict of interest paper at that time?”

“So it was a situation that needed to be resolved during that week. Do you think that the process of that week—the due diligence part of this and the timing of it—is evidence of pressure, of undue pressure, or of due process being followed?”

“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 …”

“Thank you for coming in to see us today. I am going to take you back to the very beginning of the process. It is famous that Peter Mandelson hosted dinners with political people at his house and in restaurants—it is widely reported. Did you attend any of those dinners in 2024 or up to your departure in 2025 at his hous…”

“So you were told by a phone call, then you were in the same meeting together and then you said, “I’ve been told that this is going to happen,” and the Foreign Secretary said that he would have words with No. 10 after that. Then did you hear anything back from that?”

“But have you had experience of people not passing due diligence? Is it a process that is a pass or fail then?”

“No—let’s make this very clear.”

“Who did you write the email to?”

“Just to be clear—I think you have been asked before about how you raised this with the Foreign Secretary—in that week of the 15th, you were told, and, on the 18th, it became public. Did you have a conversation with the Foreign Secretary during that week? This is the most high-profile appointment and it is a very contro…”

“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 any record of that meeting where you established that the Foreign Secretary was happy with that?”

“Did you attend any of Peter Mandelson’s private dinners that he hosted in his house or in restaurants? He held monthly dinners for political people. It is just reported; I have not been to any of these, and I don’t think anyone here has, but have you been to any of those dinners?”

“That was the due diligence report that is now in the Humble Address papers that we have all seen. Is that the report you are talking about?”