Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Morgan McSweeney giving evidence this morning.
parliamentary inquiry
McSweeney says revelation of Mandelson's close friendship with Epstein was 'knife through my soul'
The Irish-born former Downing Street chief of staff also denied giving the police intentionally wrong information when his government phone was stolen last year.
LAST UPDATE | 28 Apr
IRISH-BORN FORMER Downing Street chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has denied giving the police intentionally wrong information when his government phone was stolen last year.
Concerns have been raised that the theft of the former No 10 chief of staff’s phone could result in important messages about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador being lost.
McSweeney gave evidence at a high-profile hearing in the House of Commons on a critical day for UK prime minister Keir Starmer.
The messages could fall within the scope of a call by MPs for the release of all documents relating to Mandelson’s posting to Washington in the wake of revelations about his links to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
McSweeney, who resigned over his part in the scandal in February, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that he was a “a victim of crime” on 20 October.
The political strategist and adviser said: “Somebody hopped onto the pavement and took my phone from me. The first thing I did was to try and retrieve it. I tried to chase, which is probably a mistake. The next thing I did was I phoned No 10, and I would have gone with whatever they told me to do.
“I then called 999. If No 10 had told me you need to tell the police or you need to tell the call handler what your job is, I would have done so. But otherwise, I didn’t do that as a matter of course. I didn’t in any part of my job go around saying ‘I’m a very serious and senior person’.
“If No 10 had asked me to do it, I would have done that.”
Appointing Mandelson
The hearing has focused on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US.
Mandelson quit his role over his close ties to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, after more details emerged in disclosures from the US Justice Department.
“We never asked people to skip steps” in the process of appointing Mandelson, McSweeney said. He did say, though, that there had been pressure to get Mandelson into his post as soon as possible.
McSweeney said there was a “world of a difference” between wanting to speed up the process and doing something “improper”.
“There was pros and cons,” to the appointment of Mandelson, McSweeney said, later adding that the decision to appoint him was ultimately taken by Starmer. He also stressed that Mandelson had not been honest during the appointment process.
He also denied that Mandelson was his mentor, something that has been widely reported in the British media, and said he was not “some hero I was trying to get a job for”.
“I didn’t regard him at all as a mentor,” he said. “He was somebody who I sought for advice.”
McSweeney said he did not think Mandelson was a friend of Epstein but that he was a “passing acquaintance”.
When the extent of the relationship between the two men became clear, McSweeney said it was “like a knife through my soul”.
McSweeney said Starmer wanted a political appointment to the role of ambassador, especially given the election of Donald Trump as US president.
"I don't regard Mandelson as a hero"
— Sky News (@SkyNews) April 28, 2026
Morgan McSweeney denies that he recommended Peter Mandelson as US ambassador in order to give a "great job" to one of his "heroes".
He adds: "My motive was always in the national interest"
Follow live: https://t.co/wWMP7KlgEu
📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/e39qFjnXPD
He said Mandelson probably would not have been appointed US ambassador if Kamala Harris had won the US presidential election.
“I think the Prime Minister wanted to rightly wait to see the outcome of that (election),” he said.
“I think if Kamala Harris had won that US presidential election, I don’t think that Peter Mandelson would have necessarily been appointed, and he probably wouldn’t have been. I think the Prime Minister started to seriously consider names after the US election.”
McSweeney told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “I thought he was the right choice after the US presidential election.
“The reason why I thought he was the right choice is because Britain was exposed… after Brexit, we left the European Union without any US trade deal. And for me, honestly, this was the top priority of the Prime Minister, was to get a US trade deal with the Americans.
“And I thought that, based on Mandelson’s experience as an EU trade commissioner, that made him the strongest candidate.
“But like everybody else, I made clear to the prime minister, there was pros and cons, and there was risks. I don’t think the Prime Minister would have chosen Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected president.”
When asked who first suggested Mandelson for the job, McSweeney said it was probably Mandelson himself.
He said Mandelson had made a clear effort to get the role in Washington.
🚨 WATCH: Morgan McSweeney makes a statement on Peter Mandelson's appointment
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 28, 2026
"I made a serious mistake in recommending Mandelson's appointment. I accept the consequences and hope today I can help the Committee to establish the facts" pic.twitter.com/KeZrO2nwg4
McSweeney said that when he asked Mandelson about his relationship with Epstein, he believed he was told the truth. He also said that the due dilligence reporting about Mandelson was “insufficient”.
Starmer has also said that Mandelson “lied repeatedly” about the extent of his relationship with Epstein.
Vote in parliament
This evening, MPs have voted against launching an investigation into whether Keir Starmer misled Parliament over the appointment of Mandelson by 223 to 335, majority 112.
Ahead of the Commons vote, Labour MPs were ordered to oppose the move.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch had accused Starmer of misleading the Commons by claiming “full due process” had been followed and “no pressure existed” in Mandelson’s appointment.
Some Labour figures had branded Badenoch’s call for an investigation a “political stunt”.
But a handful of backbenchers broke ranks today to criticise the government for whipping its MPs to oppose the motion, and suggested Starmer should refer himself to the Privileges Committee to “clear his name”.
Some 15 Labour MPs rebelled against the whip and backed Badenoch’s motion, along with Hull MP Karl Turner who recently lost the Labour whip over his opposition to plans to limit jury trials.
Starmer himself attended the Commons this evening to vote against the motion.
Following the vote, a Downing Street spokesman said the government was “delivering for Britain” while the Conservatives had “resorted to this desperate political stunt” ahead of local elections “because they have no answers on the cost of living or the NHS”.
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said Starmer had “ducked scrutiny” by whipping his MPs to oppose the Tory motion, describing the move as “cowardly”.
Starmer has consistently denied misleading the House, leaning on the conclusion of former Cabinet secretary Chris Wormald that “appropriate processes” were followed.
Before the vote, former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown was among those urging party members to back the prime minister.
The Privileges Committee was responsible for Boris Johnson’s exit from frontline politics after it investigated him for misleading the House over the “partygate” breaches of Covid-19 laws in Downing Street.
He quit as an MP in 2023 before the committee published a report recommending his suspension.
‘No substance’ to swearing suggestion
Before McSweeney, the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee heard from Foreign Office civil servant Philip Barton.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that Mandelson did not pass the initial vetting process before his appointment as UK ambassador to Washington and Starmer is facing claims about the way the appointment was handled.
Barton denied suggestions that McSweeney had urged him to “just f*****g approve” Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the US.
“I’ve really racked my brains and I cannot recall Morgan McSweeney swearing in a meeting at me, or indeed just in general.
“So I don’t see any substance in that part of it and I think it’s important I say that this morning, given how many people have come to think that might be true,” he said.
The colourful language attributed to McSweeney was plastered across a number of tabloid front pages last week, but Barton denied hearing it himself.
McSweeney stepped down from his role in February taking “full responsibility” for Mandelson’s appointment and calling for vetting processes to be “fundamentally overhauled”.
With reporting from Press Association
have your say