Two former senior officials are set to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, marking a pivotal moment in the escalating crisis over Peter Mandelson's vetting for the position of US ambassador. The controversy threatens to undermine Prime Minister Keir Starmer's leadership.
Key Witnesses
Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, and Philip Barton, ex-top official at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), have been summoned after The Guardian revealed that Mandelson received security clearance despite vetting officials recommending denial.
Their testimony follows a tense parliamentary session last week. Starmer told the Commons that he and other ministers were not informed that Mandelson had failed the developed vetting process conducted by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV). He blamed Olly Robbins, who succeeded Barton as the FCDO's top civil servant in January 2025.
After The Guardian broke the story, Starmer sacked Robbins, who gave his account last Tuesday.
Questions for Barton and McSweeney
1. Was due process followed?
Opposition MPs accuse Starmer of misleading Parliament by claiming 'full due process' was followed in Mandelson's appointment. Barton and McSweeney, as key officials at the time, can shed light on this. McSweeney has already accepted 'full responsibility' for advising Starmer but that pertains to judgment, not process.
2. Who argued Mandelson did not need vetting?
According to Robbins, Barton had to be 'very firm in person' with the Cabinet Office to insist on developed vetting. Robbins said the Cabinet Office argued that Mandelson, as a peer and privy counsellor, did not require it. However, the Cabinet Office claims the FCDO proposed waiving vetting. Barton can clarify his role, and McSweeney, involved in due diligence, might explain why he called for a 'fundamental overhaul' of the process.
3. What pressure did the FCDO face to expedite Mandelson's posting?
Starmer denied any pressure, but Robbins stated his office was 'under constant pressure' from Downing Street about 'when' Mandelson would be in post. Barton's handover notes contributed to Robbins' sense of pressure. Barton may provide further details, and McSweeney could address any role in pressuring officials.
4. Why was Mandelson given FCDO access before vetting?
Mandelson received a pass to the FCDO building and access to classified briefings before clearance. Photographs suggest this occurred in mid-January while Barton was still in post. A former official called this 'highly unusual'. Barton may face questions about facilitating this access and whether it resulted from Downing Street pressure.
5. Can either man explain why Mandelson was cleared?
Ian Collard, FCDO head of security, was also called but will not appear in person; he received written questions. Barton and McSweeney, both no longer in government, might explain why Collard cannot testify, especially since he has appeared before other committees in the same role.
The hearing comes as Starmer faces a crucial vote on a parliamentary inquiry into whether he misled MPs. Rival Labour factions are reportedly discussing how to remove him as leader.
