Speeches by Mohamed.

“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?”

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

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

“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…”

“Could it have happened in this situation?”

“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?”

“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?”

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

“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?”

“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?”

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

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

“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 …”

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

“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, …”

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

“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…”

“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 …”

“Could it have been a possibility?”