Ex-Foreign Office chief says Mandelson’s appointment raised more red flags than any other he oversaw - UK politics live

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

Barton says Mandelson affair has damaged relations between ministers and civil servants

Q: Do you think this affair has damaged relations between ministers and civil servants?

Barton says that is an important question.

The British system of government works best when civil servants and ministers, including the highest level, work together effectively to deliver the elected government. They’ve got slightly different jobs and roles, and responsibilities.

And whenever that isn’t happening, that isn’t happening effectively, then you’re not able to deliver as well …

So I do think there’s a challenge now, and I think it’s incumbent on all of us … to try and get back to a situation where the government of the day and the civil service of the day have trusting relationships, understanding.

Barton says he does not want to say the relationship has broken down. But there are “challenges”, he says.

And that is the end of the hearing.

Morgan MsSweeney is due to start his evidence at 11am.

Q: Do you understand why Olly Robbins was sacked?

Barton says he cannot answer that. He says he has not seen the letter Robbins was sent.

Barton welcomes the fact that Adrian Fulford is reviewing how the vetting process works in the light of this controversy.

Barton declines to say if he thought correct process followed when Olly Robbins sacked

Q: Was the right process followed in the sacking of Olly Robbins?

Barton jokes about how the committee is saving the hardest questions for the end.

He goes on:

I don’t think I can answer that question. And it may become a matter of formal legal dispute.

When I was permanent undersecretary, there were a number of very serious disciplinary cases during my time leading to dismissal and they all involved some process.

But only the PM knows fully what happened, he says.

Q: Was Mandelson briefed on matters relating to China before he took up his post?

Barton says Mandeslon would have been briefied on some matters relating to China, but not the most highly sensitive ones.

Barton says Mandelson's appointment raised more red flags than any other he oversaw as Foreign Office chief

Q: Is there any precedent for this many red flags being raised about an ambassadorial appointment?

Barton says that is impossible to answer. He can’t cover what other governments have done. They do sometimes make bad appointments, he says. But he says, for appointments while he was permanent secretary, he cannot think of a precedent.

Barton declines to back PM in saying 'due process' was followed in Mandelson appointment

Q: Do you think due process was followed in the appointment of Mandelson?

Barton says it is not for him to answer. That is a matter for MPs to take a view on (because it is at the heart of the privileges debate today – see 8.42am.)

He goes on:

The bit I was responsible for, up until I stepped down on Sunday 19 January, that was proper process, done at pace as we were asked …

It was unusual for the announcement to be made before he vetted.

Barton says he could see why No 10 wanted Mandelson in post before the inauguration of Donald Trump.

But he says he did not think that Mandelson had to start before 20 January.

And, in the end, Mandelson arrived after the inauguration.

Emily Thornberry asks if Jonathan Powell was vetted before his appointment was announced.

Barton says the Foreign Office was not responsible for Powell’s appointment as national security adviser.

Q: What about when Powell was appointed envoy to the Chagos Islands?

Barton says he can’t remember.

Barton backs Simon Case in saying Mandelson's vetting should have happened before his appointment

Paul Lewis is the Guardian’s head of investigations.

Barton has just given testimony that appears to be at odds with Downing Street’s position on the key question of due process.

The prime minister has always maintained that he was right to tell MPs that “due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment.

That claim has been under strain since the emergence of advice from then cabinet secretary Simon Case. It appeared to show he advised No 10 that security vetting should take place before Mandelson was announced as US ambassador.

Asked today which should come first – vetting of a would-be ambassador, or the announcement that they got the job – Barton was unequivocal. “The normal order is vetting then announcement,” he said.

Asked why that order wasn’t followed, he replied: “The timing of the announcement was driven and decided by No 10.”

Barton says he is not able to say that David Lammy, the foreign secretary, had seen the due diligence report on Mandelson before the Foreign Office recommended Mandelson’s appointment to the king.

Barton says he saw Mandelson’s conflict of interest form over the weekend of 4/5 January 2025.

He says he wrote an email that Sunday to his office about points he wanted addressed.

The form sets out potential conflicts of interest. The department then comes up with a plan to deal with it.

Q: Did you discuss your concerns about the Mandelson appointment with No 10 before it was announced?

Barton says, by the time he heard Mandelson was getting the job, “the die was cast”.

Emily Thornberry intervenes.

Q: But if he had failed his DV, you would have announced that?

Barton says there would have been a “body of material” then.

Q: If you had been in Olly Robbins’ position, would you have discussed your concerns about the Mandelson appointment with the foreign secretary?

Barton says he cannot answer that without knowing what the briefings were.

But he says he did discuss with Robbins the decisions that were being taken about how Mandelson would manage conflicts of interest, because Robbins would have to defend those decisions as he took over as permanent secretary.

Barton says as permanent secretary he was sometimes told by No 10 not to share infomation with foreign secretary

Edward Morello (Lib Dem) goes next.

He says the committee was told last week that the Foreign Office was asked to find a diplomatic job for Matthew Doyle, but to not tell the foreign secretary (David Lammy).

Q: Were you ever told not to tell the foreign secretary about something?

Barton says that is unusual.

He says there are times when there are policy disagreements between the PM and the foreign secretary.

It is not unheard of for permanent secretaries, in a sense, to try and work in a way which allows there to be a decision, and a consensus view. The government can then move in and take it forward. And in that sort of situation, it’s not unheard of for a permanent secretary to be privy to something that they don’t pass on to or ask not to rather pass on to their secretary of state. So I describe as not unheard of.

But I don’t want to give the impression that this is going to a standard operating procedure.

Emily Thornberry asks if this every happened to Barton. Barton says it did. Thornberry seems astounded, saying: “I learn something new every day.”

Barton says Foreign Office did not have plan for what to do if Mandelson's security vetting refused

Q: Was there a contingency plan for what would happen if Mandelson did not have his security vetting approved?

No, says Barton.

Barton defends Mandelson having access to Foreign Office and briefings before security vetting approved

Thornberry says Mandelson was getting briefings, and getting access to secret material, before the developed vetting took place. So what was the point of the vetting?

Barton says, to do the job properly, Mandelson did need DV clearance.

Q: He had access to the building. He was acting as though he had DV already?

Barton does not accept that. He says, in the period before DV clearance was given, Mandelson did not have access to parts of the Foreign Office building where DV was required.

But it did make sense to ensure he was getting briefings before he officially started.

Q: He was offered the job on 20 December. He needed to be in Washington on 20 January. You were doing everything you could to accommodate that?

Barton replies: “Within the rules.”

Barton says he was not aware of the boxes on the UK Security Vetting forms with boxes ticked recommending vetting should be denied. He says in his career he never saw forms like that.

(He is referring to the red box ticked on the Mandelson form, recommending refusing his security clearance. Olly Robbins and Ian Collard both said they never saw that form either.)

Barton says he believes Olly Robbins and FCDO security chief when they say vetting decision not affected by pressure

Q: But is it possible that general presssure on the Foreign Office to deal with this quickly meant that there was pressure to approve the vetting decision”.

Barton says that Olly Robbins told the committee last week that he did not feel his decision making was affected by the pressure.

And he says Ian Collard, the Foreign Office’s head of security, said the same thing in his letter to the committee published yesterday. (See 8.50am.)

He says he believes both of them.