28 April 2026 , 22:51
510
0
Intense parliamentary scrutiny will focus on Sir Keir Starmer’s handling of the Lord Peter Mandelson affair on Tuesday, as MPs prepare to vote on whether the UK prime minister should undergo a formal ethics investigation.
Starmer’s precarious day began at 9am when Sir Philip Barton, former head of the Foreign Office, gave his account to MPs regarding Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US in late 2024. Barton confirmed he "had a concern" at the time.
At 11am, Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff and a key supporter of Mandelson, will present his own testimony to the House of Commons foreign affairs committee about the "weirdly rushed" appointment.
Later on Tuesday, Starmer will instruct Labour MPs to oppose a Conservative-led motion calling for the prime minister to face a formal probe into his conduct by the Commons privileges committee, before a vote takes place.
Barton started the day by informing MPs that he was notified of Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador less than a week before the decision was publicly announced.
While he made it clear he "had a concern" at the time about the New Labour figure’s connections to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Barton said he was given "no space" or mechanism to express his concerns within the government.
Barton, who was succeeded as the Foreign Office’s top civil servant by Sir Olly Robbins, acknowledged that it "would have been a crisis" if Mandelson had not been granted security clearance for the ambassador role and suggested that the peer would not have been able to assume the position.
"If we got to the point where he had no vetting clearance, that would have been a crisis — self-evidently," he said. "A publicly announced, political appointment of the next ambassador to Washington not being able to go? That would have been a big problem."
Barton said there was no contingency plan in place for if Mandelson did not receive developed vetting after his appointment was announced.
He also appeared to support Starmer’s position that there were two different types of "pressure" surrounding Mandelson’s appointment, who was dismissed in September last year.
While he made it clear he "had a concern" at the time about the New Labour figure’s connections to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Barton said he was given "no space" or mechanism to express his concerns within the government.
Barton, who was succeeded as the Foreign Office’s top civil servant by Sir Olly Robbins, acknowledged that it "would have been a crisis" if Mandelson had not been granted security clearance for the ambassador role and suggested that the peer would not have been able to assume the position.
"If we got to the point where he had no vetting clearance, that would have been a crisis — self-evidently," he said. "A publicly announced, political appointment of the next ambassador to Washington not being able to go? That would have been a big problem."
Barton said there was no contingency plan in place for if Mandelson did not receive developed vetting after his appointment was announced.
He also appeared to support Starmer’s position that there were two different types of "pressure" surrounding Mandelson’s appointment, who was dismissed in September last year.
Technology & Business Editor