Speeches by Anderson.

“It is hard, having read the new document, to see what the changes are because I have not read the old document, but there is a process in here for a fireside chat. In a direct ministerial appointment in tier 1, if at a certain stage concerns are raised, there is the provision that “In reaching a decision, the Minister,…”

“Is that decision taken by Sir Olly or by you? As you hand over the report, do you have the recommendation, and then Sir Olly says yes?”

“In general, what is the end product of all that vetting? Does it all get put into one report? Who receives that report?”

“But in general.”

“So in that detailed interview—and in the one with the referees as well, I presume. That could be where it came out, too.”

“In general, in which part of those processes would the personal associations come up?”

“Where in that process is the conversation about what someone’s interests are beyond that—the personal interests, where Epstein would have come up in the vetting process? There were a couple of investigations at the end of that list: is that likely to be where the conversation would come up? Also, what is the end produc…”

“Sir Chris, process 2 is the standard process for developed vetting, which I understand is the level of clearance that a senior ambassador, such as the ambassador to the USA, would have. Could you give us some information about that process?”

“Yes.”

“I have a final question on that part of the process. Would it have been up to Lord Mandelson in that interview to declare anything, or would you have gone to that interview having done some work on what was in the public domain that you could question him about?”

“Was it you? Who did it?”

“You say “us”. Who was it that carried that out?”

“For this appointment specifically, Sir Olly, the Cabinet Secretary said that “a thorough process to understand and consider” Lord Mandelson’s “private interests” was carried out as part of “the usual ambassadorial appointments process”. There wasn’t a panel interview so who carried out that assessment? Having done so, …”

“In the interview for Lord Mandelson, was he given the opportunity? Was he asked, however it was worded: “Could you tell us anything that would bring the Government into disrepute?””

“The question that could be asked in the panel interviews, and that would be asked in vetting, is: “Is there anything that you know of in your background that would bring the Government into disrepute?” Would that be asked in the interview panel, or would it be saved for the vetting or the due diligence process?”

“For Lord Mandelson’s appointment, was it the same situation—he already had the security clearance and so did not need to be vetted? Was there any difference from the normal process for his appointment?”

“When in that process does the security vetting take place, normally?”

“We agree with you as a Committee that our thoughts are with the Epstein victims in all of this, as the background. Sir Olly, could you set out the normal process that the FCDO uses to appoint an ambassador?”

“Okay. Which part of the process do you think went wrong the most? We went through the different parts—the due diligence, the security vetting, the additional vetting, no fireside chat and the reliance on someone having to disclose after that—so which part needs to be changed the most?”

“I think we can all conclude that the system failed, so we are now trying to look at whether we can trust the system in future, considering the changes and what went wrong along the way. The part of the system I want to look at, one last time, is the part between the appointment and starting work, and then everything be…”