A former top official at the Foreign Office expressed concerns over Peter Mandelson’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, describing it as a contentious issue. Sir Philip Barton, who led the department until January 2024, revealed that he was not involved in the decision to appoint Mandelson as the UK’s envoy to the US, a role informally known as the ‘Trump whisperer’. He highlighted his surprise that some within the Cabinet Office questioned the necessity of Mandelson undergoing the rigorous vetting process, labeling it as peculiar and inadequate.
During a detailed interrogation, Sir Philip disclosed that he and his team were instructed to proceed with Mandelson’s ambassadorial appointment without much consultation. He found it peculiar that the Cabinet Office initially believed Mandelson, as a House of Lords member, did not require full vetting. Despite his reservations about Mandelson’s reputation, especially regarding his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Philip emphasized that his concerns were disregarded, and the decision was made without seeking his input.
Regarding the clearance process, Sir Philip informed the committee that by December 15, due diligence had been completed, although Mandelson had not undergone vetting. The Prime Minister was reportedly briefed on the associated risks but decided to move forward with the appointment. Sir Philip acknowledged the pressure to expedite the vetting process but denied any direct interference with the case.
In a surprising revelation, Sir Philip admitted that it is not uncommon for civil servants to withhold information from government officials, a practice described as “extraordinary” by Dame Emily Thornberry, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He clarified that such actions are typically taken to facilitate decision-making and consensus within the government, particularly in situations involving disagreements between key figures.
Addressing concerns raised by David Lammy, the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Philip confirmed that there were apprehensions surrounding Mandelson’s appointment. However, he clarified that the final decision rested with No10, indicating that there was a degree of separation between the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister’s office in the appointment process.
When questioned about alleged pressure to approve Mandelson’s security clearance, Sir Philip acknowledged the urgency but emphasized that any accelerated timelines were in line with standard procedures. He reiterated that the absence of vetting approval for Mandelson would have resulted in a significant crisis due to the high-profile nature of the diplomatic role.
Finally, Sir Philip dismissed claims of receiving direct calls from senior officials pressuring him to expedite the clearance process, refuting suggestions of inappropriate conduct during his tenure. He maintained that the decision-making process was handled diligently, and any perceived controversies were without substance.