.png)
2 hours ago
1
Barton says he thought Mandelson's links to Epstein would make his appointment as ambassador difficult
Q: If you had been consulted, would you have raised concerns about Mandelson?
Barton suggests he would have raised concerns.
At no point did anyone consult me, ask me. I was presented with a decision … and told to get on with it.
He says he had been deputy ambassador to the US, and knew the US well.
But he says he had concerns that Mandelson’s links with Jeffrey Epstein could be a problem.
Epstein, through both the presidential election campaign in the US and more generally in US politics, was a controversial figure. And I was worried that [Mandelson’s links to Epstein] could become a problem in future – not because I was expecting that we were going to find out more, because to be honest I wasn’t.
I just thought that it was a potentially difficult issue politically in the United States.
Key events Show key events only Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Barton says he could see why No 10 wanted Mandelson in post before the inauguration of Donald Trump.
But he says he did not think that Mandelson had to start before 20 January.
And, in the end, Mandelson arrived after the inauguration.
Emily Thornberry asks if Jonathan Powell was vetted before his appointment was announced.
Barton says the Foreign Office was not responsible for Powell’s appointment as national security adviser.
Q: What about when Powell was appointed envoy to the Chagos Islands?
Barton says he can’t remember.
Barton backs Simon Case in saying Mandelson's vetting should have happened before his appointment
Paul Lewis
Paul Lewis is the Guardian’s head of investigations.
Barton has just given testimony that appears to be at odds with Downing Street’s position on the key question of due process.
The prime minister has always maintained that he was right to tell MPs that “due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment.
That claim has been under strain since the emergence of advice from then cabinet secretary Simon Case. It appeared to show he advised No 10 that security vetting should take place before Mandelson was announced as US ambassador.
Asked today which should come first – vetting of a would-be ambassador, or the announcement that they got the job – Barton was unequivocal. “The normal order is vetting then announcement,” he said.
Asked why that order wasn’t followed, he replied: “The timing of the announcement was driven and decided by No 10.”
Barton says he is not able to say that David Lammy, the foreign secretary, had seen the due diligence report on Mandelson before the Foreign Office recommended Mandelson’s appointment to the king.
Barton says he saw Mandelson’s conflict of interest form over the weekend of 4/5 January 2025.
He says he wrote an email that Sunday to his office about points he wanted addressed.
The form sets out potential conflicts of interest. The department then comes up with a plan to deal with it.
Q: Did you discuss your concerns about the Mandelson appointment with No 10 before it was announced?
Barton says, by the time he heard Mandelson was getting the job, “the die was cast”.
Emily Thornberry intervenes.
Q: But if he had failed his DV, you would have announced that?
Barton says there would have been a “body of material” then.
Q: If you had been in Olly Robbins’ position, would you have discussed your concerns about the Mandelson appointment with the foreign secretary?
Barton says he cannot answer that without knowing what the briefings were.
But he says he did discuss with Robbins the decisions that were being taken about how Mandelson would manage conflicts of interest, because Robbins would have to defend those decisions as he took over as permanent secretary.
Barton says as permanent secretary he was sometimes told by No 10 not to share infomation with foreign secretary
Edward Morello (Lib Dem) goes next.
He says the committee was told last week that the Foreign Office was asked to find a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle, but to not tell the foreign secretary (David Lammy).
Q: Were you ever told not to tell the foreign secretary about something?
Barton says that is unusual.
He says there are times when there are policy disagreements between the PM and the foreign secretary.
It is not unheard of for permanent secretaries, in a sense, to try and work in a way which allows there to be a decision, and a consensus view. The government can then move in 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 describe as not unheard of.
But I don’t want to give the impression that this is going to a standard operating procedure.
Emily Thornberry asks if this every happened to Barton. Barton says it did. Thornberry seems astounded, saying: “I learn something new every day.”
Barton says Foreign Office did not have plan for what to do if Mandelson's security vetting refused
Q: Was there a contingency plan for what would happen if Mandelson did not have his security vetting approved?
No, says Barton.
Barton defends Mandelson having access to Foreign Office and briefings before security vetting approved
Thornberry says Mandelson was getting briefings, and getting access to secret material, before the developed vetting took place. So what was the point of the vetting?
Barton says, to do the job properly, Mandelson did need DV clearance.
Q: He had access to the building. He was acting as though he had DV already?
Barton does not accept that. He says, in the period before DV clearance was given, Mandelson did not have access to parts of the Foreign Office building where DV was required.
But it did make sense to ensure he was getting briefings before he officially started.
Q: He was offered the job on 20 December. He needed to be in Washington on 20 January. You were doing everything you could to accommodate that?
Barton replies: “Within the rules.”
Barton says he was not aware of the boxes on the UK Security Vetting forms with boxes ticked recommending vetting should be denied. He says in his career he never saw forms like that.
(He is referring to the red box ticked on the Mandelson form, recommending refusing his security clearance. Olly Robbins and Ian Collard both said they never saw that form either.)
Barton says he believes Olly Robbins and FCDO security chief when they say vetting decision not affected by pressure
Q: But is it possible that general presssure on the Foreign Office to deal with this quickly meant that there was pressure to approve the vetting decision”.
Barton says that Olly Robbins told the committee last week that he did not feel his decision making was affected by the pressure.
And he says Ian Collard, the Foreign Office’s head of security, said the same thing in his letter to the committee published yesterday. (See 8.50am.)
He says he believes both of them.
