Former Foreign Office chief says he had concerns about Mandelson's Epstein links before US ambassador appointment

Former Foreign Office chief Philip Barton has told MPs he had concerns about Peter Mandelson's links to Jeffrey Epstein before the appointment as UK ambassador to the US, but was never consulted about the decision.

Giving evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee, Barton said he was not asked for his view before Mandelson was appointed. "At no point did anyone consult me, ask me. I was presented with a decision … and told to get on with it," he said.

Barton, who had been deputy ambassador to the US, said he knew the US well and was worried that Mandelson's links to Epstein could become 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."

When asked if he would have raised concerns had he been consulted, Barton suggested he would have done. However, he said he did not think his reservations contributed to his being asked to leave his post eight months early. He said he told the department he was leaving on 4 November, and the Mandelson decision was not announced until a month later.

Barton confirmed there was pressure on the Foreign Office to process Mandelson's security vetting quickly. He told the committee: "I don't think anyone could have been in any doubt in the department working on this that there was pressure to get everything done as quickly as possible." However, he said he did not believe the substance of the vetting decision was affected, saying he believed Olly Robbins and Ian Collard when they said their decision-making was not affected by pressure.

Barton said he was first told about the Mandelson appointment on 15 December 2024, but was not told it was being planned or that a decision was coming. When asked if he should have been consulted, Barton said: "In the end, this is an appointment to the most senior job in our foreign service. I was head of the diplomatic service. So I think it is possible, without asking me as a civil servant, I think it is possible [a civil servant] to be involved in a conversation, for example, around what are the requirements, what does the UK need in the period ahead and that sort of thing."

He also revealed that he was sometimes told by No 10 not to share information with the foreign secretary, describing this as "not unheard of" for permanent secretaries, though he said it was not standard operating procedure.

On security vetting, Barton said there was no contingency plan for what would happen if Mandelson's vetting was refused. He defended the process of giving Mandelson briefings before vetting was approved, saying it made sense to ensure he was ready when he officially started. He needed to be in Washington by 20 January.

Barton rejected claims that Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's then chief of staff, had sworn at him during discussions about the Mandelson appointment. "I didn't receive any direct calls from the chief of staff during my time as permanent undersecretary. So there was no call at all," he said.

The testimony comes ahead of a parliamentary vote on a motion referring Keir Starmer to the privileges committee over claims the Prime Minister misled MPs about the Mandelson vetting process. The government is expected to easily defeat the motion, with Labour MPs on a three-line whip to vote against it.