Barton is asked by MP Uma Kumaran whether he would have raised the matter with the foreign secretary, if he had been aware there were issues identified in the UK Security Vetting process.

The former head of the Foreign Office replies that’s a question he can't answer without having been placed in that exact scenario.

Barton was replaced by civil servant Sir Olly Robbins in January 2025. He's asked whether he discussed the pressure to appoint Mandelson from No 10 with his successor.

Barton describes various meetings and discussions on appointments as “what you'd expect in a normal professional handover".

He says this partly involved a description "in headline terms" about how the Mandelson appointment had been playing out, as well as discussions over how a conflict of interest would be handled.

Back to the timeline of Mandelson's appointment, Barton is asked about whether he flagged concerns to No 10.

He insists that by 18 December "the die was cast" as No 10 were set to announce his role.

Withholding information from foreign secretary a side note to main questions facing Starmerpublished at 10:28 BST

10:28 BST

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Barton just told the committee it was "unusual" but "not unheard of" for the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office to withhold information from the foreign secretary.

He said one example would be if there was a policy disagreement between the PM and foreign secretary.

In this instance, Sir Olly Robbins did not tell the then Foreign Secretary David Lammy about the security vetting concerns over Peter Mandelson.

Barton suggests that in his time as head of the Foreign Office, he had been asked to do the same thing.

It's a side note to the main questions facing Keir Starmer over whether he misled the House of Commons.

But there was bemusement, bordering on outrage, from the committee's chair Emily Thornberry in response to the idea a civil servant would not tell their political boss a key piece of information.

"It would have been a crisis, if it got to the point where [Mandelson] had no vetting clearance," Barton continues.

It is put to him that it looks like Mandelson "got the job" before going through security vetting, as it had been announced by No 10, and the paperwork had gone to the King.

But Barton says Developed Vetting (DV) was still necessary because to do the US job "effectively", you need access to sensitive information that requires DV.

Barton insists that Mandelson did not have access to some areas and some papers that were above a certain level of classification.

Mandelson wasn't "able to roam free", Barton continues, adding that it was the "right thing" to ensure that in a short time scale Mandelson "could arrive in Washington properly prepared".

The alternative would have been an ambassador "turning up not properly or fully briefed on the government's policies towards the incoming administration". Barton says there was no contingency plan for what might happen if Mandelson wasn't granted clearance.

He says the first he heard "about Matthew Doyle", who Starmer reportedly considered giving a diplomatic job to, was during Olly Robbins' evidence last week.

He is asked whether he has ever been asked to keep information from the foreign secretary.

"It is not unheard of", Barton replies, but "not standard operating procedure".

Barton says there are two possible questions relating to pressure being placed on the Foreign Office during the vetting of Lord Mandelson: whether pressure was placed on the substance of the case, and whether there was pressure to get it done in a particular time frame.

He tells the committee: "During my tenure, I was not aware of any pressure on the substance of the Mandelson DV [developed vetting] case."

He adds that there "absolutely" was pressure to get the case done "as soon as possible", which he claims everybody in the department was aware of.

Barton says the normal order for the appointment of an ambassador is for vetting to be carried out before the appointment is announced, and he says he was not sure why this occurred the other way round in this case.

He says the timing of Mandelson's announcement was decided and driven by No 10.

Barton pressed on McSweeney swearing claimpublished at 10:04 BST

10:04 BST

Chris Mason
Political editor

A key moment just now.

Headlines have been flying around for a while, and particularly in the last week, that Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s former chief of staff, had told the Foreign Office to “just [expletive] approve" the vetting of Lord Mandelson.

Addressing that, Sir Philip has just said "I didn’t receive any direct calls from the chief of staff" and "I cannot recall him swearing at a meeting at me, or in general".

The wider question, which is absolutely key to the Commons debate coming this afternoon, is the extent to which there was pressure being exerted on the Foreign Office during the rushed few weeks between announcing Lord Mandelson had been given the job, and the inauguration of President Trump a few weeks later.

Sir Philip attempted to draw a distinction between being “not aware” of any pressure on the substance of Lord Mandelson’s developed vetting, with the wider pressure they were all aware of given how quickly the government wanted him in Washington.

Image source, Reuters

MP Richard Foord now asks Barton for more detail about why he initially had reservations around Lord Mandelson's appointment.

Barton responds that it was because of Mandelson’s known associations with Jeffrey Epstein, which he suggests was a "toxic hot potato" topic in the US, particularly as the election there was approaching.

He is then pushed on whether No 10 was dismissive about these concerns.

"The word I would use is uninterested," he replies, explaining that people wanted to make sure that all the practical steps required for Mandelson to be appointed before Trump's inauguration date were completed in time.

"No one said to me, 'look Philip the prime minister knows there's some risks around this, can you really, really make sure the vetting is done rigorously'", he explains.

Instead, he says, the demands were simply around making sure the vetting was done in time.

On whether there was an atmosphere of pressure, Barton says he didn't receive any direct calls from Starmer's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, and "cannot recall" him swearing at him at all over Mandelson.

Barton confirms that he received a letter on 18 December, which told him that Starmer had decided on Mandelson, and therefore could arrangements be put in place for a handover before Trump's inauguration - "a very compressed timescale".

Trump was inaugurated for his second term as president on 20 January 2025.

"That is what creates the pressure," he adds, stressing that no one was in any doubt around the importance Starmer attached to having Mandelson in DC "in very short order".

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Sir Philip Barton is partially backing up the claim made by Sir Olly Robbins, his successor, last week that the Foreign Office was under pressure over the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

He is drawing a distinction between pressure to ensure Mandelson was in Washington as ambassador as soon as possible – ie time pressure – and pressure on the substance of the vetting process.

On the former, Barton says there was pressure. On the latter, he says that he did not experience any when he was in the Foreign Office.

This is helpful for the prime minister because it is similar to the distinction he drew in an interview with the Sunday Times at the weekend.

Starmer said in that interview that when he said in the House of Commons that there was "no pressure whatsoever" exerted by No 10, that did not include "the everyday pressure of government" to get it done quickly.

What is less helpful for the prime minister is that he did not specify that distinction in the House of Commons last week.

Barton is asked about Mandelson being given access to information "that would usually require developed vetting" to have been completed.

"I signed off on it, I think it was the right thing to do to make sure... that the prime minister's choice for ambassador is properly prepared when he started his job," he says.

He is then asked if he believes the concerns he had about the appointment had any influence on the decision to let him go from the Foreign Office.

He says no, adding this his departure was down to a "timing reason".

"I announced to the department I was leaving on the 4 November 2025. I didn't know anything about Mandelson until the middle of December," he says.

Barton says he had heard that those around US President Donald Trump felt "blindsided" by the announcement of Mandelson as new US ambassador, and Trump had said he would have been "happy" for Karen Pierce to stay.

Image source, Getty Images

Chris Mason
Political editor

Sir Philip is now backing up the testimony from Sir Olly Robbins last week, in saying Downing Street was "uninterested" about the vetting process.

"No one said to me, 'look Philip, the prime minister knows the risks, can you make sure it’s done rigorously'."

Sir Philip added that it would be done rigorously anyway, but any sense of its importance — which the prime minister attaches huge significance to now — was not articulated then, he claims.

This matters in the context of whether it was justified or not for the PM to have sacked Sir Olly Robbins, Sir Philip’s successor as the Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office.

'I was worried... [but] there was no mechanism for me to put that on the table'published at 09:38 BST

09:38 BST

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

The former head of the Foreign Office is at pains to stress how little he knew about the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador before the decision was announced.

"At no point did anyone consult me," he has told the committee. "There was no space for dialogue."

He’s said he did have concerns at the time, particularly around Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

He didn't expect then that "were going to find out more", but "I just thought that it was a potentially difficult issue politically in the United States".

"I was worried this could be a problem in the future," he said, adding: "There was no space or avenue or mechanism for me to put that on the table."

In other words, Barton says, the responsibility for the decision lies squarely with the prime minister.

Barton is suggesting his expertise was overlookedpublished at 09:31 BST

09:31 BST

Chris Mason
Political editor

Philip Barton has now told the committee that over Lord Mandelson’s appointment he was "presented with a decision…and told get on with it".

He had, he pointed out, spent time in America as the UK’s deputy ambassador in Washington, but was not consulted about the appointment.

He added that he was worried about how Lord Mandelson doing the job might play out, but "there was no space, avenue or mechanism to put that on the table. A decision had been taken and it was a political decision".

In essence, he is suggesting that his expertise and judgement was overlooked, despite how high profile and potentially controversial the appointment was.

Barton had no information on discussions taking place to appoint a new ambassador to Washington, or that a decision had been made, before he was told about Mandelson being appointed on 15 December, he says.

A due diligence process had been carried out, he continues, and there had also been a conversation held on the practical steps needed to meet the PM's decision to appoint Mandelson to the role of ambassador.

Barton says that vetting had not taken place at the time of Mandelson being announced, adding that the Cabinet Office said later that week that because Mandelson was deemed "fit and proper" as a member of the House of Lords, he did not require vetting.

This struck him as "odd and insufficient", he says, adding that the Cabinet Office agreed vetting was necessary following further consideration.

Chris Mason
Political editor

An interesting early insight into what Philip Barton knew — or more to the point didn’t — about the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

Barton has told the committee he knew nothing about Lord Mandelson’s appointment until days before it was announced — quite something given he, Barton, was at the time the head of the diplomatic service.

Emily Thornberry asks Barton whether he was ever asked for his opinion on Mandelson as a candidate for the role. He replies to this saying he "wasn't involved".

Barton says he was first made aware of the decision to appoint Mandelson on 15 December and was later made aware of the advice received by the prime minister in the humble address release papers.

Barton adds that ideally, there would be a "tight and small circle" of people consulted on the matter.

He continues saying that given this was a political appointment, he thinks it is "reasonable" for civil servants to not be directly involved in these discussions.

Ultimately, he says, it was "an appointment to the most senior job in our foreign office".

Philip Barton, former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, begins his testimony by responding to a question about why he left his role in January last year.

He tells the committee it was not his choice to leave the role, and he was asked to do so by David Lammy, who he says wanted somebody to lead the team in the long term.

On Lord Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador, Barton describes how he was first involved in the process in mid-December, when he was told of the prime minister's ambition to make a political appointment for the role.

Sir Philip Barton has just started speaking to MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

You can watch live above and we will be bringing you all the key developments as the they happen.

Image source, Reuters

Before Morgan McSweeney gives his evidence later this morning, the committee will hear from Sir Philip Barton, former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office (the most senior civil servant in the department).

He'll likely be grilled by MPs on the processes behind Peter Mandelson's appointment as British ambassador to the US - Barton had worked through the formal niceties of confirming Mandelson's role, such as writing to the King about it on 18 December.

This meant that Sir Olly Robbins took over on finalising Mandelson's appointment after Barton stepped down in January 2025.

Robbins was sacked after No 10 confirmed that the PM was not told that Mandelson had failed the vetting process. He spoke to MPs on the committee last week.

Robbins told the committee that by the time he had succeeded Barton, there was "already a very, very strong expectation" from No 10 that Mandelson "needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible".

Barton took up the post in 2020, but was strongly criticised by MPs in 2022 for his handling of the chaotic withdrawal of UK staff after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, during which he took a 17-day holiday - which he previously said he regretted.

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

As of this morning, it looks very unlikely that this motion will pass. It would require a mass rebellion from Labour MPs and there is no evidence that one is brewing.

There was a concerted operation from No 10 yesterday to ensure that MPs were onside.

The prime minister turned up at the weekly Parliamentary Labour Party meeting and gave an impassioned speech which went down pretty well, saying that the motion "is pure politics and we need to stand together against it".

And all the signs are that Labour MPs will. There was a massive "ring-round" of MPs yesterday to make sure. One MP I spoke to who gave a slightly equivocal answer to their whip about how they would vote then got a phone call from a cabinet minister minutes afterwards.

The argument prevailing in private is the same argument that the government is making in public, namely that this is a political stunt.

The one caveat, though, is that this debate will take place after evidence at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee from Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney - so there is always a chance that what they say could change the mood.

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

Overnight the precise privileges committee motion, which will be voted on later, has been published.

It is spearheaded by Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives but the motion is also signed by Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats as well as SNP, DUP and independent MPs.

The motion identifies three possible areas where the prime minister may have misled the House of Commons.

The first is in saying on various occasions that “full due process” was followed in Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US.

The second area of the motion is on the question of pressure, and whether it was applied to the Foreign Office to approve the appointment. Sir Keir Starmer said at PMQs last week that “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case”.

The third area concerns the PM’s claim in the Commons last week that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting” - that presumably will be an area where the Conservatives make arguments about the sequencing of vetting, coming as it did after the public announcement that Mandelson would be appointed.

The government’s defence overall is that this is a "political stunt". But on the specifics, it is likely to be that:

• Sir Chris Wormald, the former cabinet secretary, said in September that "appropriate processes" had been followed
• The prime minister was talking about pressure for a specific outcome, which he denies, rather than pressure for a decision to be made quickly, which he does not
• Even though the vetting outcome is now controversial, it was carried out before Mandelson went out to the US as ambassador

More now from Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who has been speaking to Radio 4's Today programme.

She says while it is likely there was pressure put on the Foreign Office to process Lord Mandelson's security vetting, there was "no undue influence".

She says it is "perfectly reasonable" for government ministers to put pressure on officials to make sure things are done "in a timely way".

She says: "Was there a chasing to make sure the vetting had happened and that the outcome came forward? Yes, I would imagine so."

The education secretary adds that any would "categorically not" have been exerted to make sure the vetting was overridden.