Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney, two of the most senior figures involved in the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.
Their testimony added further detail to the account of how Britain’s most senior diplomatic posting came to be filled by a man who had failed his security clearance.
Barton, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, and McSweeney, Sir Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, appeared in successive sessions before the committee of MPs.
Their evidence came days after Sir Olly Robbins — sacked by Starmer after it was revealed the Foreign Office had ignored security officials who advised Mandelson’s clearance be denied — told the same committee that officials had faced “constant pressure” to push the appointment through.
These are the most significant claims made by McSweeney and Barton…
No 10 was ‘uninterested’ in vetting process
Barton told the committee that Downing Street had appeared “uninterested” in the vetting process.
Sir Olly Robbins told the same committee last week that No 10’s attitude towards the process had been “dismissive”.
“I wouldn’t use the word dismissive,” Barton said. “The word I would use is uninterested. People wanted to know that all the practical steps required for Mandelson to arrive in Washington by inauguration date needed to be completed at pace. And that was the interest.”
Barton also claimed that the Cabinet Office had initially argued Mandelson did not require developed vetting at all, on the basis that he was a peer and a privy counsellor. Robbins had made the same claim last week – which the Cabinet Office denies.
“To be honest with you, I thought that was odd and insufficient,” he said. “To do the job effectively you have to be party to some of the deepest secrets that the UK Government holds.”
Pressure from No 10 was ‘set at the beginning and just carried on’
Barton told the committee that Downing Street had put the Foreign Office under pressure to complete Mandelson’s vetting within an accelerated timetable.
He said he had received a letter on 18 December 2024 from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary, adding it was unusual for him to be contacted in this way.
“That is what creates the pressure,” he said. “There were conversations around progress, but I think no one in the [Foreign Office] working on this can have been in any doubt of the urgency and the importance that No 10… attached to Mandelson being in DC in very short order.”
He later added: “In a sense the pressure was kind of set at the beginning and just carried on. It wasn’t a matter of did someone phone every day at 10 o’clock, it was more ‘this ambitious timetable had been set’.”
The Government had wanted Mandelson in post before Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, giving the department roughly a month to complete a process that can take six months or more.
Starmer had told MPs last week that “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case,” and told The Sunday Times over the weekend that was only the “everyday pressure of Government” to Mandelson.
Former Foreign Office permanent under-secretary Sir Philip Barton appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee (Photo: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire)Barton had ‘no space’ to raise concerns about Mandelson’s appointment
The former Foreign Office chief told the committee of MPs that he had concerns about Mandelson’s appointment from the moment he learned of it.
He explained that his knowledge of US politics from a decade of his work in the department led him to have concerns about Mandelson’s appointment because of his ties with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“I was worried that this could become a problem in the future,” he told the committee. “There was no space, avenue or mechanism for me to put that on the table.”
He said Downing Street had told him to “get on with it” regarding the appointment, adding: “It is just worth repeating that at no point did anyone consult me or ask me.”
“I was presented with a decision and told to get on with it. There was no space for dialogue.”
Lammy said he was going to talk to No 10 about Mandelson
Barton said David Lammy, the foreign secretary at the time of Mandelson’s appointment, promised him he would flag concerns with No 10 about the peer being made the ambassador to the US.
He told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I was asked what the foreign secretary said when I told him. He did not say, ‘Philip, please crack on, write to the King.’ He actually said: ‘I’m going to talk to No 10.’”
Asked if he had any further conversations with Lammy about the appointment, Barton said: “As I recall he and I had a brief conversation, I can’t remember whether it was December 17 or 18… It was inconclusive, so he wasn’t at that point saying he was content for me to proceed.”
He added: “I think the foreign secretary should speak for himself on his views and what was said, as it were. I at that point was doing my best to resolve the situation, establish what I was being asked to do by the top of the Government, and then take the bureaucratic steps necessary either way.”
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband had told Sky News earlier this month that he had told Lammy he was “worried about” Mandelson’s appointment and that Lammy “was worried about it too”, but that neither were asked by No 10 for their views on the matter.
Former former No10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee (Photo: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire)McSweeney: Starmer relied on my advice over Mandelson, and I got it wrong
Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, told the Foreign Affairs Committee he had made a “serious error of judgment” in recommending Mandelson for the Washington posting.
He added that he resigned in February because he believed “responsibility should rest with those who make serious mistakes”.
“The appointment of Mandelson as ambassador was a serious error of judgment,” he said. “I advised the Prime Minister in support of that appointment and I was wrong to do so.
“The Prime Minister relied on my advice and I got it wrong.”
He added that accountability in public life “cannot apply only when it is convenient.”
McSweeney made ‘risks’ of Mandelson appointment clear to Starmer
McSweeney said he had made clear to Starmer that there were “pros and cons and risks” to appointing Mandelson, pushing back on suggestions he had forced the decision through against the wishes of other senior figures.
“Everything I know about how the Prime Minister works is he will consult widely, he will take a lot of views on,” he said. “And if everyone else was opposed to this appointment but me, he would not have made an appointment such as that.”
McSweeney said he believed Mandelson was the strongest candidate because of his experience as an EU trade commissioner, given that securing a US trade deal was Starmer’s “top priority” at the time.
He added that Mandelson would likely not have been appointed had Kamala Harris won the US presidential election in late 2024.
McSweeney: I did not urge officials to approve Mandelson ‘at all costs’
McSweeney flatly denied that he had asked officials to skip steps in Mandelson’s vetting process or had pressured them to clear checks regardless of the outcome.
While admitting he was wrong to advise Starmer to appoint Mandelson, McSweeney said: “It is also important, however, to distinguish between what I did do and what I did not do.
“What I did do was make a recommendation based on my judgement, that Mandelson’s experience, relationships and political skills could serve the national interest in Washington at an important moment. That judgement was a mistake.
“What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate – explicitly or implicitly – that checks should be cleared at all costs.
He added: “I would never have considered that acceptable. These processes are in place to protect our national security.”
Hence then, the article about no 10 uninterested in mandelson vetting and six other new claims starmer faces was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( No 10 ‘uninterested’ in Mandelson vetting – and six other new claims Starmer faces )
Also on site :
- 1999 Box Office Flop Ranked Among ‘Best Movies of All Time’
- Efforts to eliminate hepatitis delivers gains but more action needed to meet 2030 targets
- Carrie Underwood Fans Do a Double Take at Her New Look Ahead of Taylor Swift Night on 'American Idol'