Sir Keir Starmer knew of the risks that Lord Peter Mandelson’s relationship with “toxic, hot potato” Jeffrey Epstein could have, and proceeded with the peer’s appointment as US ambassador, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office has said.
Sir Philip Barton also told the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) that there was not a “dismissive” attitude towards getting Lord Mandelson high-level security clearance for the role.
But he suggested there was pressure to “get on with” approving the peer for developed vetting (DV).
Sir Philip, however, told the committee there was no substance to allegations the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney had sworn at him while urging for the process of appointing Lord Mandelson to move faster.
He also told MPs the “normal order” for ambassadorial appointments was for vetting to be completed before an announcement, contradicting claims by the Government.
The former senior civil servant, who stood down as permanent under-secretary to the Foreign Office in January 2025, gave evidence to the influential cross-party committee of MPs on a critical day for the Prime Minister in Parliament over the scandal.
Sir Keir is facing the risk of being referred to another parliamentary committee over claims he misled MPs about Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
The Commons is due to vote on whether to subject the Prime Minister to scrutiny by the Privileges Committee over his claims that “full due process” took place in appointing Lord Mandelson, and that “no pressure” was placed on Foreign Office officials to approve it.
He has urged Labour backbenchers to “stand together” against the motion, which has been signed by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, as well as DUP and Independent MPs.
The Privileges Committee was the group of parliamentarians which in 2023 found former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson misled the Commons over the partygate scandal.
Appearing at the FAC on Tuesday morning, Sir Philip said he had learned Lord Mandelson had been picked as US ambassador on December 15 2024, days before Sir Keir made the announcement.
Asked if he had any concerns about the appointment, he told the committee: “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.”
But he also suggested there was no way for him to raise his concerns before the appointment, as “I was presented with a decision … and told to get on with it”.
“There was no space for dialogue,” Sir Philip 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.”
A “due diligence” process had been carried out as part of Lord Mandelson’s appointment, the ex-senior civil servant said, but he also indicated that DV had not taken place.
Sir Keir Starmer had been “made aware of the risks, and had accepted those risks and decided to proceed”, Sir Philip added.
He denied there was a “dismissive” attitude towards the vetting process, when it took place, but added: “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… it needed to be completed at pace, as it were.”
There was “absolutely” time pressure to get Lord Peter Mandelson installed in Washington, he later said.
Sir Philip, however, denied suggestions that Mr McSweeney had urged Sir Philip to “just f****** approve” Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
“I’ve really racked my brains and I cannot recall Morgan McSweeney swearing in a meeting at me, or indeed just in general.
“So I don’t see any substance in that part of it and I think it’s important I say that this morning, given how many people have come to think that might be true,” he said.
Sir Philips’s testimony also contradicted suggestions from the Government that it was normal procedure to carry out vetting after a diplomatic posting was announced.
He said: “The normal order is vetting and then announcement.”
He also revealed to the FAC that the previous ambassador to Washington DC, Dame Karen Pierce, had been “blindsided” by Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
The ex-senior civil servant later avoided directly answering a question about whether he believed that due process had been followed in Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
MPs should “come to a view on that”, he told the committee.
