Speeches by Ballinger.

“Did you say that to No. 10?”

“When you were appointed, after the election, what level of security clearance did you have?”

“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?”

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

“But in your tenure.”

“When you were appointed, after the election, what level of security clearance did you have?”

“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?”

“With any other external appointments, including political appointments, are there examples where somebody has started in post before they have received their DV and have had access to those materials?”

“Did you say that to No. 10?”

“Where might that thought have come from?”

“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?”

“You said yourself that because you and the National Security Adviser were appointed without DV, it was not unusual. Do you think that No. 10, when you were chief of staff, had a “dismissive” or an “uninterested” approach to security vetting because of your own experience?”

“We heard from Sir Philip this morning that he felt that the speed of the appointment was unnecessary: Karen Pierce was doing a good job, and the Administration would take some time to set up. In his evidence, Olly Robbins said that the whole process felt “weirdly rushed”. Why did you push for such a short timeline betw…”

“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?”

“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?”

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

“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.”

“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?”