A former top official at the Foreign Office expressed concerns over Peter Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, describing it as a sensitive issue. Sir Philip Barton, who led the department until January 2024, revealed he was not consulted about Mandelson’s role as the UK’s ‘Trump whisperer’ and raised alarms about the lack of proper vetting procedures for Mandelson. This was deemed “odd and insufficient” by Sir Philip.
During a detailed questioning session, Sir Philip disclosed that he and his team were instructed to proceed with Mandelson’s appointment as the ambassador to the US without thorough vetting. He found it peculiar that the Cabinet Office initially did not see the necessity for full vetting of Mandelson, based on his status as a member of the House of Lords.
Sir Philip acknowledged his concerns regarding Mandelson’s reputation, especially his association with Jeffrey Epstein, characterizing it as a sensitive matter. He emphasized that he was not consulted before the appointment was finalized in December 2024, and he expressed worries about potential future complications due to Mandelson’s controversial links.
Addressing queries about pressure to expedite Mandelson’s appointment, Sir Philip confirmed there was a sense of urgency to complete the vetting process promptly, although he clarified that there was no direct pressure regarding the vetting case itself. He highlighted the importance of swift decision-making in such high-profile appointments.
The discussion also touched upon the practice of withholding information from Cabinet members, with Sir Philip acknowledging that in certain circumstances, civil servants may refrain from sharing specific details to facilitate consensus-building within the government. He clarified that while it is not a standard procedure, it can occur in situations where differing opinions exist between government officials.
Regarding concerns raised by David Lammy, the former Foreign Secretary, about Mandelson’s appointment, Sir Philip did not dispute the existence of reservations within the government. However, he clarified that the final decision on the appointment was made by No10. There were no direct calls from the Chief of Staff pressuring for approval, as previously suggested.
Sir Philip underscored the potential crisis that could have ensued if Mandelson had not received security clearance for the ambassadorial role, emphasizing the importance of a timely clearance process to avoid any disruptions in the appointment. He noted the absence of a contingency plan in case Mandelson’s clearance was not granted.
In conclusion, Sir Philip highlighted the need for efficient decision-making processes in high-profile appointments, emphasizing the complexities and challenges involved in such diplomatic assignments.
