Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's former chief of staff, and Philip Barton, former Foreign Office chief, gave evidence to the foreign affairs select committee on the appointment and vetting of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. Here are the key takeaways from the hearing.
Pressure to Expedite Mandelson's Appointment
Barton confirmed there was "absolutely" pressure from No. 10 to get Mandelson to Washington before Trump's inauguration. However, he distinguished between pressure to grant vetting and pressure to speed up the process. McSweeney denied personally inquiring about vetting progress or asking officials to skip procedures, stating, "I would never have considered that acceptable." He acknowledged that the public expects swift government decisions.
McSweeney Admits Error in Advising Appointment
McSweeney admitted that recommending Mandelson was "a serious error of judgment." He revealed that Mandelson himself first proposed the ambassadorship. McSweeney insisted their relationship was misrepresented, describing Mandelson as a "confidante" on political strategy but not involved in vetting or reshuffles. He believed Mandelson's trade experience made him suitable for securing a US trade deal. Barton said the Foreign Office was not consulted and the "die was cast" before any advice could be given.
Concerns Over Mandelson's Epstein Connections
Both McSweeney and Barton expressed concerns about Mandelson's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. McSweeney said he raised these concerns in writing, but the email is withheld by the Met police. He accepted Mandelson's version of events at the time but later felt "like a knife through my soul" upon seeing further revelations. Barton described the Epstein connection as "toxic" and noted national security adviser Jonathan Powell also had concerns.
'Just F***ing Approve' Call Denied
Both witnesses denied the rumour that McSweeney told Barton to "just fucking approve" the appointment. Barton said he never spoke to McSweeney outside group meetings and never swore. McSweeney called the rumour damaging and unfair to staff who cannot defend themselves.
No Knowledge of Mandelson Failing Vetting
McSweeney said No. 10 had no contingency plan for Mandelson failing security vetting but was aware it was a possibility. He admitted he did not expect Mandelson to fail, and if it had happened, the ambassadorship would have been withdrawn, causing political embarrassment. Barton noted the process had many red flags but declined to say if sacking Robbins was the right choice.
Lack of Official Records and Process Regrets
Both witnesses acknowledged that proper records of conversations were not always kept. McSweeney regretted that he and communications chief Matthew Doyle handled inquiries about Epstein, rather than the Cabinet Office's propriety and ethics team. He said it would have been better to have PET ask follow-up questions. Barton defended his part of the process as proper but noted the unusual sequence of announcement before vetting.
