Former foreign office permanent secretary Philip Barton appeared before MPs in parliament on Tuesday. (Alamy)
4 min read
The former head civil servant in the Foreign Office has told MPs that Downing Street showed an “uninterested” attitude towards the security vetting of Lord Mandelson.
Speaking to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday morning, Sir Philip Barton also said he felt at the time of Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US that it “could become a problem” given the peer’s links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Barton, who left his post shortly after Labour entered government, said there was pressure from No 10 to complete Mandelson’s appointment as soon as possible, but sought to stress that there was no pressure on the “substance” of Mandelson’s vetting.
Asked whether he would agree with his successor in the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, who last week told the same committee that No 10 was “dismissive” about Mandelson’s vetting, Barton said: “I wouldn’t use the word dismissive, the word I would use is uninterested.”
He said that there was a lack of “interest” in issues highlighted by the vetting process.
“No one said to me: ‘Look, Philip, the Prime Minister knows there’s some risks around this, can you really, really make sure that the vetting is done rigorously?'” he told MPs.
“It is always rigorous anyway”, he continued. “But that wasn’t the sort of thing being communicated. The sort of thing was: ‘Fine, he needs vetting, make sure it’s done in time’.”
Barton is the latest senior figure to intervene in the saga surrounding Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington.
Opposition parties have accused Starmer of misleading Parliament over whether due process was followed in the appointment process, as well as the question of what pressure Downing Street put on the Foreign Office to formalise Mandelson’s appointment.
Asked this morning whether full due process was followed in his view, Barton, after a long pause, said it was “not for me”.
“It is for others, Members of Parliament, to come to a view on that.”
Later today, MPs will vote on whether to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee on the question of whether he has misled Parliament.
Starmer has apologised for the original decision to appoint Mandelson but insists that due process was followed throughout the process. He has described the House of Commons vote on Tuesday, spearheaded by the Conservatives, as a “political stunt”. The government is expected to win it.
Last week, Robbins — who was sacked by Starmer as Foreign Office permanent secretary over his role in the affair — said UK Security Vetting felt the Mandelson case was “borderline” and was “leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”, but that the Foreign Office deemed the risks manageable. He sought to stress that Mandelson did not ‘fail’ vetting.
However, in evidence that put more pressure on Starmer’s judgement, Robbins said the Foreign Office had faced “constant pressure” from the No 10 private office to process Mandelson’s appointment as soon as possible.
Speaking this morning, Barton said there was “pressure to get everything done as soon as possible” because No 10 wanted Mandelson in place in time for the start of the second Donald Trump presidency, adding that “the die was cast”. However, he sought to stress to MPs that there was no pressure on the substance of that vetting case.
Barton also denied that he received a call from Morgan McSweeney, who was then the chief of staff to Starmer, urging him to complete Mandelson’s appointment quickly.
“I didn’t receive any direct calls from the chief of staff during my time as permanent under secretary,” said Barton.
“I’ve really racked my brains, and I cannot recall Morgan McSweeney swearing in a meeting at me.”
This is a reference to reports that McSweeney told Barton to “just fucking approve” Mandelson’s appointment to Washington.
Barton admitted to the committee that he felt “conflicted” over not being consulted on Mandelson’s appointment, adding he believed it is “reasonable” to expect the head of the diplomatic service to be consulted.
“On the face of it, it is reasonable for the head of the foreign office to be involved in the thinking around what is our major, top, bilateral ambassador post,” said Barton.
“On the other hand, given clearly the Prime Minister was deciding to make a political appointment, it is also reasonable that civil servants would not be directly involved in discussions around what is a political appointment. Because, in the end, that is a matter for elected politicians.”
Barton also said he felt it was “off and insufficient” that the Cabinet Office said Mandelson didn’t require security vetting before being appointed.
He told MPs that people around Trump felt “blindsided” by the decision to appoint Mandelson, rather than continue with Karen Pierce as UK ambassador to the US.
