Former Foreign Office chief Sir Philip Barton said he was concerned about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which he dubbed a ‘toxic hot potato’
A former Foreign Office chief has said he was worried about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein – which he viewed as a “toxic hot potato”.
Sir Philip Barton, who headed the department until January 2024, said he was not consulted about the so-called Prince of Darkness’s appointment as the UK’s ‘Trump whisperer’. He also said he was alarmed that some in the Cabinet Office initially did not believe Mandelson should go through the developed vetting (DV) process. He branded this “odd and insufficient”.
And in an exchange branded “extraordinary” by Foreign Affairs Select Committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry, Sir Philip admitted civil servants are sometimes asked to withhold information from Cabinet members.
In a wide-ranging grilling, he said he and his department were told to “get on with” Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US. Here we look at some of the key points from today’s hearing.
1. ‘Odd and insufficient’ initial vetting position
ir Philip said it was “odd and insufficient” that the Cabinet Office initially did not think Mandelson needed to be fully vetted.
He told the committee that some officials felt he did not require vetting as he was a member of the House of Lords. The ex-civil servant said: “I mean, to be honest with you, I thought that was odd and insufficient.
“You know, I’d been deputy ambassador in Washington and therefore 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 recognized that the situation was was unusual.” He did not give any advice on the appointment, he said.
By December 15, due diligence had been carried out, but Mandelson had not gone through vetting, Sir Philip told the committee. He said: “I was told of a decision, I wasn’t asked for advice.
“I was told a due diligence process had been carried out. And as I think this is known now as the Prime Minister had been made aware of the risks and had accepted those risks and decided to proceed.”
2. Barton had concerns about Mandelson – particularly around Epstein
Sir Philip admitted he was concerned about Mandelson’s reputation – particularly his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
He described this as a “toxic hot potato”. The former mandarin stressed that he was never consulted about the appointment, which he only found out about on December 15, 2024. He told the committee: “I had a sense and an understanding of US politics, which gave me an idea of what might or might not be a problem further down the track.
“And so I had a concern at the time, at the time I didn’t know anything that wasn’t in the public domain. Obviously, we now know a lot more about Mandelson links to Epstein.
“But I had a concern that a man who, demonstrably from the public record at the time, had a link to Epstein… he had been and was a controversial figure, and I was worried that this could become a problem in future.”
He said: “At no point did anyone consult me or ask me. I was presented with a decision and told to get on with it.
3. Pressure to get it done quickly
Was pressure applied on the Foreign Office to get Mandelson in place, Sir Philip was asked.
Yes and no was his answer in a nutshell. He told the committee: “During my tenure, I was not aware of any pressure on the substance of the Mandelson DV (developed vetting) case.”
But that’s not to say the Government didn’t want it done swiftly. Sir Philip went on: “Question two was there pressure? Absolutely. And I’ve described it and have seen what the Foreign Office said to you last night and recognise what was said in that letter about the pressure to get it done, ie DV clearance by a particular time scope.
“So I said to you earlier, I don’t think anyone could have been any doubt in the department working on this that there was pressure to get everything done as quickly as possible.”
4. ‘Extraordinary’ revelation about withholding information
There was an “extraordinary” exchange as Sir Philip said it is “not unheard of” for civil servants to withhold information from Secretaries of State.
It comes after his successor, Sir Olly Robbins, alleged he had been asked to find a job for a key Starmer aide – but not tell then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Sir Olly alleged he was instructed to find an ambassador job for Matthew Doyle, the PM’s ex-communications chief.
Sir Philip said he has dealt with requests to hold back information – which chair Dame Emily Thornberry branded “extraordinary”. He told MPs: “I’m worried that everyone’s going to think that the centre of government spends its whole time conniving behind the backs of everyone else in government.
“And that’s not the reality. The reality is people trying to get on with delivering the business of the government. The vast majority of the time, I think my best answer to that question is it’s unusual.
“But in the end, and I’d say it’s particularly around things where you might have a disagreement, a policy disagreement or difference of view between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, it is not unheard of for permanent secretaries to try and work in a way which allows there to be a decision, and a consensus view in the government can then move out and take it forward.
“And in that sort of situation, it’s not unheard of for a permanent secretary to be privy to something that they don’t pass on to or ask not to rather pass on to their Secretary of State.
“So I would describe it as not unheard of, but I don’t want to give the impression that this is going to a standard operating procedure.”
Dame Emily said: “This is extraordinary. It’s absolutely extraordinary.”
5. Failure to approve Mandelson would have sparked crisis
It would have been a “crisis” if Mandelson did not get his clearance approved, MPs heard.
Sir Philip told the committee: “It would have been a crisis if we got to the point where he had no vetting clearance. That would have been a crisis – self-evidently, a publicly announced political appointment as the next ambassador to Washington not being able to go.
“That would have been a big problem.”
He went on to say there was no contingency plan if Mandelson had not been granted security clearance.
6. Concerns within Government about Mandelson?
Sir Philip did not contradict David Lammy’s claim that there were concerns about appointing Mandelson.
Last night Mr Lammy – who was Foreign Secretary at the time – told LBC there was “discussion within government”, but said it “ultimately it was an appointment by No10”.
He told the committee: “Let me put it this way.. he did not say, Philip, please crack on, write to the King (to confirm the appointment). He actually said ‘I’m going to talk to No10′”.
7. No ‘f***ing approve it’ demand from McSweeney
Did Morgan McSweeney tell him “f***ing approve it”?
No, Sir Philip told the committee. It had previously been suggested by the committee that the No10 aide had made a sweary call to the Foreign Office chief.
“I didn’t receive any direct calls from the Chief of staff during my time as permanent under-secretary. So there was no call at all,” the former mandarin said.
He went on: “It’s been in the media persistently or floating around the media since last September. There’s different versions sometimes involving a swear word, sometimes not. And I’ve really wracked my brains and I cannot recall Morgan Sweeney swearing in a meeting at me or indeed, just in general and outside.
“I don’t see any substance in this.”