Jim Allister

Yesterday, the focus of many Members was to ask the Prime Minister why he never thought to ask whether Mandelson had security clearance. There was great reticence about asking that question, but today we discovered that there was no such reticence in No. 10 when it came to trying to meddle in this process. We heard from Sir Olly Robbins this morning that the message was very clear from No. 10: the Prime Minister wants this done “at pace”. The Prime Minister did not tell us that yesterday. He said it was nothing to do with him; this was an independent process. Never once did he tell us that his officials told the Foreign Office, “This must be done at pace.” We heard from Sir Olly this morning that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 and that throughout January there was “constant pressure” to get it done, some of it laced with expletives. Sir Olly told us that it would have been “very difficult” not to approve Mandelson. That is in the context of the meddling, the pressure and the insistence that it should be done and done at pace, and in a context where even the Cabinet Office, he reported, said there should be no need to vet Lord Mandelson. Think of it! This is a man who was twice dismissed and had a litany of black marks against him as a public official, and the Cabinet Office—at the heart of this Government—protested that there was no need to vet Mandelson. The appointment of Mandelson was an unbridled, unabashed display of cronyism of the highest and most disgusting order, and that is corroborated by what was happening in respect of Matthew Doyle at the very same time. In the early months of 2025, the Prime Minister, who wanted to rush through Mandelson’s approval, was also secretly, behind the backs of not just this Parliament but his Foreign Secretary, saying, “Could Matthew Doyle be found an ambassadorial post? But don’t tell the Foreign Secretary.” That is the circumstance that prevailed in the Prime Minister’s No.10, yet he comes to this House and tells us, “Nothing to do with me, guv. People didn’t tell me. I’m innocent because I didn’t know.” As a lawyer he should know that ignorance is no defence; as a lawyer, his training and instinct should be to interrogate, not to cover up. Sadly, what we have had in this case is a monumental failure not just of process, but of character, of judgment, and of leadership—and he should go.