Speeches by Brandreth.

“I wanted to ask about the fact that back in September 2024, Lord Case—Simon Case—had written to the Prime Minister advising that security vetting should be carried out prior to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. However, the announcement was made on 20 December 2024, and it was not until three days later that security…”

“What was the normal order of process in place at the time? Would you say that the normal order would be vetting and then announcement, or announcement and then vetting?”

“Was there a contingency plan in place for what might happen if he were not granted security clearance?”

“And he was the one who ultimately will have made the decision, not being persuaded or doing what somebody else wanted him to do?”

“What about when he was special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territories?”

“I have a couple of final questions in relation to Matthew Doyle. We heard from Sir Oliver Robbins that the Prime Minister had inquired, as I am sure you are aware, about a diplomatic role for Matthew Doyle. Why do you think that the Prime Minister did not want David Lammy, who was the Foreign Secretary at the time, to …”

“You know the United States very well from your previous diplomatic role there, and you probably had links with people out there. Were you aware of any views expressed by the President’s transitional team about concerns about Mandelson being given that post, or about Dame Karen Pierce being moved on from the post?”

“That is okay. Thank you for your answer on that. I must say, it appeared to me that there was a significant amount of information that had come forward in the due diligence, but I think there may be some questions from others on that, so I won’t push on that now. My question was about Sir Oliver Robbins and the decisio…”

“I want to go back over some of the questions that the Chair asked you. I will ask some follow-ups and seek some clarification on some of them. You said that you were out in the States at the start of December prior to the appointment being made. When you were out there, in the offline conversations that you were having…”

“You clearly felt that Peter Mandelson was the right person for the job. You had recommended him to the Prime Minister, although you have said that you believe that the Prime Minister would have sought a wide range of opinions. Despite the fact that you ultimately resigned over your advice to the Prime Minister, would y…”

“You think that he will have sought sufficient information—that he wouldn’t have needed to carry out a fuller investigation, and perhaps suspend rather than immediately sack him from the job?”

“You mention, of course, the links to Jeffrey Epstein, which were in the media at the time. Did you have concerns about Mandelson’s business relationships with China and Russia?”

“Sir Oliver Robbins, the former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, has lost his job. When the PM was asked, he said that he did not accept the explanation as to why he overruled the verdict of security vetting, and that is why he sacked him. Do you think that somebody should be sacked for an error of judgm…”

“I have a few follow-ups.”

“I just want to check—you talked about the process that Jonathan Powell had gone through, as far as you understood, in terms of going through developed vetting before he took up the political appointment of being National Security Adviser. I understand that, prior to that, he was already a special envoy to the British I…”

“I want to check something with you. Despite being the head of the diplomatic service, you obviously were not asked by No. 10 or the Prime Minister, directly or indirectly, your view on Peter Mandelson’s suitability for the role. Had you been asked, would you have said that you had concerns about the reputational risks …”

“Thank you. Sir Oliver Robbins, in the evidence that he gave to this Committee, said that there was a feeling of “constant pressure” in the Foreign Office around the need to get Peter Mandelson into his position. Do you have any views on that? Were you aware—I appreciate that you were in the Cabinet Office—of this press…”

“As part of the Humble Address information, will there be any information that UKSV might have provided to Chris Wormald as part of his review into the vetting process?”

“Thank you. You shared some information around the claim that the Cabinet Office questioned the need for vetting, and you set out how you think that occurred and the correct, as you see it, interpretation of that. Are you aware of any special advisers who were suggesting that Mandelson might not have needed vetting? Has…”

“Okay. As we have talked about quite extensively, the FCDO is a “make recommendation” Department. In this instance, as we have now discovered, on the form UKSV essentially recommended against granting security clearance. The PM said when he found that out, he felt he should have been told. Is it your view that generally…”