Starmer-Mandelson latest: I was told to ‘get on with’ appointment but PM knew risks, ex-Foreign Office chief says

Sir Keir Starmer has pleaded with Labour MPs to vote down a Commons motion to launch a sleaze inquiry into the Peter Mandelson vetting saga on what will be a crucial day for the future of his premiership.

Sir Philip Barton makes it clear that Mandelson had been appointed properly before the vetting process and was essentially in place as the ambassador.

This is underlined by his admission that there was no contingency plan in place had Mandelson not passed security vetting.

It paints a picture of a fait a complis in the appointment which was hidden from top civil servants in the department and not consulted on.

Again this asks questions about Sir Keir Starmer’s judgement in making the appointment rather than whether he has misled parliament.

But the lack of the contingency plan does undermine Sir Keir’s claim to MPs that he would not have gone ahead with the appointment had he known security vetting was failed.

Sir Philip Barton is being asked about the fact that Peter Mandelson was announced as the next US ambassador before he underwent vetting.

This, he tells MPs, is not the usual process.

Normally ambassadors undergo vetting and then their appointment is announced publicly.

Under questioning from MPs he admits it would have been a “crisis” if the government had had to announce that it was sending a different ambassador, because Mandelson failed vetting.

“It would have been a crisis,” he said.

Sir Philip Barton has directly contradicted Sir Keir Starmer over the timing of security vetting in an appointment process.

The prime minister has insisted that with political appointments it is “normal” for vetting to take place after an appointment.

But Sir Philip has told the committee that it is normal for “vetting before announcement”.

He also has described how he was blindsided by the appointment and only informed after a decision had been made by Downing Street.

He also noted that Downing Street was “uninterested” in the vetting process.

The top civil servant at the Foreign Office at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment has said there was “absolutely” pressure on officials to vet Mandelson quickly.

Sir Philip Barton answered the question on whether there was pressure on civil servants in two parts, explaining whether there was pressure on the “substance” of Mandelson’s developed vetting case, and whether there was pressure for it to be done in a particular time frame.

He said he was “not aware of any pressure on the substance of the Mandelson DV case”.

But on whether there was pressure on how quickly the vetting was carried out, he said: “Absolutely.”

Jeffrey Epstein was a known “hot potato” issue for which Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador carried a risk, Sir Philip Barton has told MPs.

Asked what concerns he had before the appointment, the ex-Foreign Office chief said: “I think it was very much along the lines of what I just said, around the possibility of his known connection to Epstein, causing an issue subsequently.

“Obviously, I didn’t know what was actually going to happen, because Epstein was such a toxic, hot potato subject in US politics itself, including in the election campaign.”

The former chief of the Foreign Office said he had been worried about Lord Peter Mandelson’s link to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but there was no way for him to raise his concerns before the peer’s appointment as “I was presented with a decision … and told to get on with it”.

“There was no space for dialogue,” Sir Philip Barton told MPs.

“I had a concern that a man who demonstrably from the public record at the time – and it was clearly much bigger than we all knew – had a link to Epstein, and that Epstein through both the presidential election campaign in the US and more generally in US politics, had been and was a controversial figure, and I was worried that this could become a problem in future…

“That is a very candid account of probably what I was thinking at the time, but there was no space or avenue or mechanism for me to put that on the table.

“A decision had been taken. It was a political decision.”

Sir Philip Barton has been asked about the claims that Morgan McSweeney, the now sacked Downing Street chief of staff, told the Foreign Office to “just f***ing approve it” in regards to the Peter Mandelson appointment as ambassador to the US.

But Sir Philip said that he wants to make it clear he “never received a direct phone call from the Downing Street chief of staff.”

The playing down of the comment takes some of the heat out of the idea that Downing Street just wanted to push through the appointment come what may.

Sir Philip Barton has said that No 10 was “uninterested” in Peter Mandelson’s vetting process.

The top civil servant at the Foreign Office at the time of Mandelson’s appointment was asked whether the government was “dismissive” in their approach to his vetting.

He told MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I wouldn’t use the word dismissive. The word I would use is uninterested.

“I think people wanted to know all the practical steps required for Mandelson to arrive in in Washington, on or around [Trump’s] Inauguration date. It needed to be completed at pace as it were.

He added: “No one said to me, ‘Look, Philip, the prime minister, notices some risks around this. Can you really, really make sure that the vetting is done rigorously?’”