McSweeney admits advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson was 'serious error of judgment'

Morgan McSweeney is giving evidence now. He starts with an opening statement, which he begins by recognising the harm done to Jeffrey Epstein's victims. He talks about the importance of public service. "I've spent much of my working life trying, in whatever role I held, to make this country fairer, stronger and more successful. I have always believed public service is a privilege. It brings responsibility and scrutiny, but it also brings a meaningful chance to improve people's lives. That is what motivated me in government." He moves on to Mandelson. "The appointment of Manderson as ambassador was a serious error of judgment. I advised the prime minister in support of that appointment and I was wrong to do so. As I said in my resignation statement, I resigned because I believe responsibility should rest with those who make serious mistakes. Accountability in public life cannot apply only when it is convenient. The prime minister advice relied on my advice and I got it wrong." McSweeney says Mandelson was confidante to him, but not a mentor. Emily Thornberry is asking the questions. Q: Mandelson was an indispensable confidante to you, wasn't he? McSweeney says Mandelson was a confidante – but not a mentor. "I didn't regard him as my mentor. I first had a conversation with Peter Mandelson in 2017. I don't think I really started to go to him for advice until about 2021. And I was 44 years of age then. So I didn't regard him at all as a mentor." McSweeney says, if Kamala Harris had won the presidential election, he does not think Keir Starmer would have wanted to appoint Mandelson. McSweeney says he never told officials to ignore vetting procedures, or ensure Mandelson passed 'at all costs'. In his opening statement, McSweeney went on to say he did not tell anyone to ignore vetting checks. He 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 judgment that [Mandelson's] experience, relationships and political skills could serve the national interest in Washington at an important moment. That judgment 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, the checks should be cleared at all costs. I would never have considered that acceptable. These processes are in place to protect our national security." There weren't any bombshell surprises in Philip Barton's evidence to MPs. It was not quite up there with Olly Robbins evidence, which contained some genuine surprises. But, if Robbins scored 8/10 on the damage to the PM index, then this evidence was at least a 6/10. It was not at all helpful. For at least three reasons. First, Barton said quite a lot that strongly backed up the impression given by Robbins that this was a bad appointment pushed through with unseemly haste. Barton's comments about knowing that the Mandelson's Epstein links would be difficult, and never having encountered such a red flag-heavy appointment, were striking. Barton also made new points that in effect showed No 10 did not care about the vetting. At one stage he said this to describe Downing Street's approach to vetting. "I wouldn't use the word dismissive, the word I would use is uninterested. I think people wanted to know that all the practical steps required for Mandelson to arrive in Washington by or around the inauguration date, needed to be completed at pace." And this is what he said about what would happen if Mandelson failed vetting. "It would have been a crisis if we got to the point where [Mandelson failed vetting]. 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." Starmer claims that, if he had known that UKSV officials recommended refusing vetting, he would have blocked the appointment. Barton's comment shows how much pressure the system was under to avoid this. Second, Barton refused to confirm Starmer's claim that due process was followed. Even as I write, Kemi Badenoch will be incorporating this into the speech she will give in the Commons this afternoon because it backs her case that MPs were misled. And, third, Barton made it fairly clear that he could not support the decision to sack Olly Robbins – now seen as another grievous error by the PM. Barton says Mandelson affair has damaged relations between ministers and civil servants. Q: Do you think this affair has damaged relations between ministers and civil servants? Barton says that is an important question. "The British system of government works best when civil servants and ministers, including the highest level, work together effectively to deliver the elected government. They've got slightly different jobs and roles, and responsibilities. And whenever that isn't happening, that isn't happening effectively, then you're not able to deliver as well … So I do think there's a challenge now, and I think it's incumbent on all of us … to try and get back to a situation where the government of the day and the civil service of the day have trusting relationships, understanding." Barton says he does not want to say the relationship has broken down. But there are "challenges", he says. Q: Do you understand why Olly Robbins was sacked? Barton says he cannot answer that. He says he has not seen the letter Robbins was sent. Barton welcomes the fact that Adrian Fulford is reviewing how the vetting process works in the light of this controversy. Barton declines to say if he thought correct process followed when Olly Robbins sacked. Q: Was the right process followed in the sacking of Olly Robbins? Barton jokes about how the committee is saving the hardest questions for the end. He goes on: "I don't think I can answer that question. And it may become a matter of formal legal dispute. When I was permanent undersecretary, there were a number of very serious disciplinary cases during my time leading to dismissal and they all involved some process. But only the PM knows fully what happened," he says. Q: Was Mandelson briefed on matters relating to China before he took up his post? Barton says Mandeslon would have been briefied on some matters relating to China, but not the most highly sensitive ones. Barton says Mandelson's appointment raised more red flags than any other he oversaw as Foreign Office chief. Q: Is there any precedent for this many red flags being raised about an ambassadorial appointment? Barton says that is impossible to answer. He can't cover what other governments have done. They do sometimes make bad appointments, he says. But he says, for appointments while he was permanent secretary, he can't think of a precedent. Barton declines to back PM in saying 'due process' was followed in Mandelson appointment. Q: Do you think due process was followed in the appointment of Mandelson? Barton says it is not for him to answer. That is a matter for MPs to take a view on (because it is at the heart of the privileges debate today). He goes on: "The bit I was responsible for, up until I stepped down on Sunday 19 January, that was proper process, done at pace as we were asked … It was unusual for the announcement to be made before he vetted." 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.