Ministers are increasingly concerned that Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir Starmer's former chief of staff, could be compelled to appear before MPs to give evidence under oath regarding his communications with the disgraced peer Peter Mandelson. This follows the theft of McSweeney's mobile phone, which is believed to contain hundreds of messages exchanged with Mandelson.
Scramble to Recover Messages Amid Transparency Demands
Officials are urgently working to retrieve at least some of the messages, as there are growing fears that Parliament may otherwise demand McSweeney's testimony. The Cabinet Office has now formally requested the messages from Mandelson's personal phone, nearly two months after MPs initially called for their publication. This delay has sparked significant criticism from opposition figures.
Tory Criticism and Calls for Accountability
Tory frontbencher Alex Burghart has condemned the government's handling of the situation, labelling the failure to seek the messages earlier as a "complete dereliction of duty." He stated, "They knew that Morgan McSweeney's phone had gone missing in action. They knew Parliament demanded full transparency. And they failed to act. It is shameful. There can be no more cover up. The public deserve to know the full truth about Keir Starmer's appalling judgment. We will hold them to account until they do get that truth."
This development comes just days after Kemi Badenoch hinted she was prepared to force another Commons vote to compel McSweeney to provide evidence. She argued, "If No 10 are incapable of recovering these messages, it is only right that Morgan McSweeney testifies in Parliament and explains exactly what happened and why Keir Starmer signed off on Peter Mandelson's appointment despite the warnings."
Questions Over Mandelson's Appointment and Phone Theft
The messages are sought to clarify the circumstances surrounding Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador, despite prior warnings about his "close" relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. In addition to requesting messages from Mandelson, the Cabinet Office has asked ministers and advisers to hand over communications from group chats that might provide a clearer picture of the appointment process.
Labour MPs Express Doubts and Concerns
Some Labour MPs remain sceptical of the official narrative regarding the phone theft. Veteran Labour MP Karl Turner has branded McSweeney "McSwindle," commenting, "I don't believe McSwindle had his iPhone stolen. We mustn't take the public for fools. And I am afraid this smacks of too convenient by far." There is potential for these MPs to join forces with opposition backbenchers to seek further information from McSweeney if the government's recovery efforts yield only limited records.
One Labour source expressed concern about the prospect of McSweeney giving public evidence, describing it as "undesirable in every way." Meanwhile, government sources have acknowledged that while material related to Mandelson's appointment is still being gathered, Parliament could indeed demand additional information from McSweeney.
Mystery Surrounding the Phone Theft Incident
Downing Street confirmed this week that McSweeney reported his phone was snatched on the street late at night on October 20 last year. This incident occurred just days after Labour advisers discussed the possibility that Parliament might demand he surrender his messages to Mandelson. However, the details of that evening remain unclear and contested.
Initially, allies of McSweeney claimed that police were "too busy" to investigate the theft. In response, police issued a statement indicating they had attempted to contact him twice the following day without success. In a highly unusual move, they also published a transcript of his 999 call, which revealed that McSweeney did not identify himself as the Prime Minister's chief of staff and provided an incorrect address.
The ongoing investigation and political pressure highlight the deepening controversy over transparency and accountability in government appointments, with McSweeney's potential testimony becoming a focal point for parliamentary scrutiny.
