Whooooo remembers Sir Philip Barton? The lifelong diplomat spent an inglorious four and a half years in charge of the Foreign Office, most memorably taking 11 days to return from holiday, just as Kabul was falling to the Taliban. But having been pensioned off at the end of 2025, now old Phil is back in the spotlight. He was wheeled out before Emily Thornberry’s committee today as the panel seek to shed light on just how Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador actually happened. And Barton was in a mood to spill all his secrets…
Keir Starmer’s claim throughout this sorry saga has been that ‘full due process’ was followed throughout Mandelson’s appointment. But Barton was at pains to point out to the committee that this very much was not the case. ‘I was presented with a decision’, he said, blandly. ‘There was no space for dialogue. There was a part of me that had a concern that a man who had a link to Epstein and Epstein had been a controversial figure’, adding ‘I was worried it would be a problem in future.’ You can sure say that again…
Barton went on to say that the initial handling of Mandelson’s vetting was ‘odd and insufficient’, revealing that officials were told the peer might not need full Developed Vetting (DV) because he was considered a ‘fit and proper person’ as a member of the Lords. Asked about Starmer’s claim that there was no ‘pressure’ in this case, Barton distinguished between time pressure and political influence, admits that officials felt the former– but not the latter. In his words, there was ‘absolutely’ the ‘pressure to get it done, the DV clearance, by a particular time scale.’
So there was pressure and due process was not followed. Any other claims by Starmer that will not survive the day?
Comments