Speeches by Whittingdale.

“So you think it should have been obtained before those steps were taken.”

“And actually, had approval not been granted, and the position were therefore revoked after agrément had already been obtained, would that have damaged our relations with the United States in your view?”

“You describe the dismissive approach of No. 10 in your letter, and you say that it came from the fact that all these steps had already been taken. Was there anything further that indicated to you that No. 10 really did not regard this as anything more than a formality that had to be completed?”

“Are you aware that anybody else, other than you and the director of security who took that decision, was aware that the decision went against the recommendation of UKSV?”

“I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker is coughing at me, so I will not give way. I fear that there is still more to come. I hope that I can say on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee that we will continue to pursue this matter.”

“I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers ad…”

“Thank you very much, Chair. Colleagues, I am going to move on to other aspects, but I just want to probe a little bit further on one or two of the answers you have already given, Sir Oliver. You have described to us the situation when you arrived in post and the extent to which various steps had already been completed,…”

“Thank you very much, Chair. Colleagues, I am going to move on to other aspects, but I just want to probe a little bit further on one or two of the answers you have already given, Sir Oliver. You have described to us the situation when you arrived in post and the extent to which various steps had already been completed,…”

“I’m afraid it doesn’t quite. Essentially, my question is: you took a decision in a meeting with just one other person present; was anybody else aware after that meeting that the decision had been to overturn or to go against the recommendation of UKSV, or was it simply reported, “We’ve had a meeting and we’ve decided t…”

“This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Member…”

“So you think it should have been obtained before those steps were taken.”

“I’m afraid it doesn’t quite. Essentially, my question is: you took a decision in a meeting with just one other person present; was anybody else aware after that meeting that the decision had been to overturn or to go against the recommendation of UKSV, or was it simply reported, “We’ve had a meeting and we’ve decided t…”

“But did you tell Ministers at all, or No. 10? You told them the outcome of your decision—the outcome of the meeting—but did you tell them about the recommendation made by UKSV?”

“A note was then circulated afterwards, saying what the decision was. Did that note simply say, “It has been decided that Lord Mandelson is to be granted clearance”, or did it say, “Despite the recommendation of UKSV, it has been decided”?”

“But leaning against is not the same as the decision. We are told that the decision—or the recommendation, rather—from UKSV was clear. The recommendation was denial. It was not leaning; it was denial.”

“Your team did that. The meeting you had was with only the director of security, so it would have been his officials who had broken it down, and he would have reported to you the outcome of that process.”

“But did you tell Ministers at all, or No. 10? You told them the outcome of your decision—the outcome of the meeting—but did you tell them about the recommendation made by UKSV?”

“And actually, had approval not been granted, and the position were therefore revoked after agrément had already been obtained, would that have damaged our relations with the United States in your view?”

“You describe the dismissive approach of No. 10 in your letter, and you say that it came from the fact that all these steps had already been taken. Was there anything further that indicated to you that No. 10 really did not regard this as anything more than a formality that had to be completed?”

“But even if you hadn’t seen the sheet, you didn’t know that the clear recommendation—final decision—of UKSV was “clearance denied”.”