Former foreign office chief was told to ‘get on’ with appointing Mandelson despite his worries over links with Epstein
The former chief of the Foreign Office has said he had been worried about Lord Peter Mandelson’s link to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but there was no way for him to raise his concerns before the peer’s appointment and he was told to "get on with it."
Listen to this article
Sir Philip Barton told MPs today: "I was presented with a decision … and told to get on with it”.
“There was no space for dialogue."
“I had a concern that a man who demonstrably from the public record at the time – and it was clearly much bigger than we all knew – had a link to Epstein, and that Epstein through both the presidential election campaign in the US and more generally in US politics, had been and was a controversial figure, and I was worried that this could become a problem in future…
“That is a very candid account of probably what I was thinking at the time, but there was no space or avenue or mechanism for me to put that on the table.
“A decision had been taken. It was a political decision.”
He said: “The normal order is vetting and then announcement.”
Asked if he knew why the process was reversed in Lord Peter Mandelson’s case, he told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “No, the timing of the announcement was driven and decided by No 10.”
Sir Keir Starmer is facing claims he misled Parliament for saying that “full due process” was followed in Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
Read more: Social media platforms to face ‘some form of age limit or restriction’
He also said that the Cabinet Office initially suggested Lord Peter Mandelson did not need high-level security clearance to be US ambassador.
Sir Philip told the Foreign Affairs Committee of MPs: “As we were taking forward the practical steps required, the Cabinet Office initially said that as Mandelson was to use the technical phrase from the guidance a ‘fit and proper person’, as a member of the House and Lords, he did not require developed vetting.
“I mean, to be honest with you, I thought that was odd and insufficient. I had been deputy ambassador in Washington, and therefore occasionally charge-d’affaires.
"I knew very well to do the job effectively, you have to be party to some of the deepest secrets that the UK Government holds.
“But I also recognise that the situation was unusual, and I therefore asked for advice, although it was pretty clear in my mind from the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) security team. They came back to me after discussions with the Cabinet Office, and said that their advice was that he should have DV (developed vetting), and I absolutely agreed with that.”
Elsewhere in his evidence, Sir Philip told the committee he had learned the Government wanted to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post on December 15, 2024, and that a “due diligence” process, but not developed vetting, had been carried out to deem him suitable for the job.
Sir Keir Starmer had been “made aware of the risks, and had accepted those risks and decided to proceed”, Sir Philip added.
Sir Keir Starmer has pleaded with Labour MPs to reject a bid for a parliamentary sleaze inquiry into the Lord Mandelson vetting scandal as he faces another moment of peril over the future of his premiership.
The Commons will vote on Tuesday on whether the Privileges Committee should consider if the Prime Minister misled the House by claiming “due process” was followed in appointing the former Labour grandee as US ambassador despite failing his security vetting.
A large-scale effort appeared under way by Monday evening to rally support from the back benches, with former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown also urging the party to back Starmer.