Ambassador to the United States

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I wish to express my sympathy with all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Giuffre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend.

In listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities with the one that took place over many years concerning the appointment of Mr Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street, from the point of his resignation in 2011 to his conviction for phone hacking in 2014. It was an appointment that David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the information that subsequently came to light. For that reason, the question was constantly asked in this House and beyond: why did the security processes Mr Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking?

Some people pointed to the fact that, unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his appointment and, indeed, had to resign before completing that process. Yet when the issue was directly discussed at the Leveson inquiry, this was the exchange between Lord Justice Leveson and the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, which is important to recall. Lord O’Donnell said of developed vetting:

“I think some people have different understandings of what DV’ing would reveal. It wouldn’t have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.”

Lord Justice Leveson replied:

“No. It’s concerned with whether you’re likely to be a risk.”

Lord O’Donnell then said:

“Whether you’re blackmailable, basically, yes”.

David Cameron relied on that exchange in this House after Andy Coulson’s conviction on 25 June 2014, when he said, first—and I think, correctly—that Coulson’s security clearance was a matter for the civil service and not for the Prime Minister, and secondly, that even if Coulson had been fully DV-ed, it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking.

I mention this now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson’s security clearance, or that of Dominic Cummings for that matter, but simply to remind Opposition Members that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this Government or the particular appointment of Lord Mandelson. They would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today’s debate.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Slinger]

I will not—[Interruption.] I will give way.

[Monica Harding]

This really is not hard. Is it not enough to know that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Was that not enough to prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador?

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am setting out for the House very useful context within which this debate—[Interruption.] It is useful. Hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but it is useful context.