When it comes to ex-fcdo chief tells mps he had concerns over mandelson’s epstein links, sir Philip Barton, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, expressed deep concerns regarding Peter Mandelson's connections to Jeffrey Epstein during a recent session with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Barton revealed that he felt significant pressure from Downing Street to expedite the vetting process for Mandelson's appointment as the UK ambassador to the United States. He described how the government appeared "uninterested" in the vetting procedures, leaving him without a proper channel to voice his apprehensions.
During his testimony, Barton confirmed that he was indeed under pressure to finalize the vetting process swiftly, stating: "Absolutely.. 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." Despite this pressure, he denied claims that he had received a phone call from Morgan McSweeney, former chief of staff to Labour leader Keir Starmer, demanding him to approve Mandelson's appointment. Originally reported by The Guardian.
Understanding Ex-FCDO Chief Tells MPs He Had Concerns Over Mandelson’s Epstein Links
Barton, who left his position at the Foreign Office in January, revealed that he was only informed about Number 10's intention to appoint Mandelson as ambassador a day before the public announcement. He emphasized that he had no prior knowledge of the decision-making process, stating, "I wasn't involved, I wasn't told a decision was coming." This lack of communication raised concerns as he had been engaged in discussions regarding the extension of former ambassador Karen Pierce's tenure in Washington.
Instead of being consulted, Barton was presented with the Mandelson appointment and instructed to proceed without delay. He remarked, "There was no space for dialogue," highlighting the unusual nature of the announcement occurring before the completion of the vetting process. Typically, such appointments follow a standard procedure: vetting first, then announcement. Barton expressed his unease, noting that the practice deviated from the norm.
Concerns Over Epstein's Influence
During his testimony, Barton conveyed that he was acutely aware of the "toxic" implications surrounding Epstein's connections, particularly in the context of American politics. He emphasized that his concerns were not unfounded, given Epstein's controversial standing, especially during the Presidential election campaign. Barton stated, "I had a concern that a man who, demonstrably from the public record at the time.. had a link to Epstein." He feared that the association could present challenges in the future.
He recalled discussions with national security adviser Jonathan Powell, who he believed shared similar concerns regarding Epstein's connections. Documents released recently hinted at these worries, reinforcing Barton's assertion that Epstein's ties were a significant consideration in the appointment process. Barton reflected on the climate around Epstein, stating: "Because Epstein was such a toxic hot potato subject in US policy itself, including in the election campaign, that is what I recall thinking at the time."
Cabinet Office's Position and Vetting Process
Addressing the Cabinet Office's stance, Barton confirmed that it had deemed Mandelson a "fit and proper person" for the role without requiring a thorough vetting process because of his status as a member of the House of Lords. He expressed his discomfort with this assessment, describing it as "odd and insufficient." Drawing from his extensive experience as a former deputy ambassador in Washington, Barton asserted that effective ambassadorship demands access to sensitive information that necessitates a robust vetting process.
Barton's testimony further illustrated the apparent disinterest from Number 10 regarding the vetting process, stating, "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 on or around the inauguration date needed to be completed at pace." He underscored the importance of proper vetting, especially for a position of such significance.
As this unfolding story continues, the implications of Barton's testimony may resonate throughout the political landscape, especially as McSweeney is set to provide his account later today. With pressure mounting on government officials regarding the vetting of key appointments, the focus on transparency and due diligence in the vetting process has never been more critical.
Originally reported by The Guardian. View original.