Sir Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff reportedly used his private email address to communicate with Peter Mandelson ahead of his appointment as US ambassador, sparking further accusations of a “cover-up”.
It comes after the government published the first tranche of files relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment to the sensitive role, from which he was forced to resign over his links with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The files released on Wednesday included just 31 messages and documents involving Lord Mandelson that relate to his appointment and dismissal as Washington ambassador, all from official email addresses – and do not include any messages from Morgan McSweeney, despite him having played a key role in the decision to appoint the disgraced peer.
But sources told The Times that Mr McSweeney used his personal email address and WhatsApp to communicate with Lord Mandelson before his appointment. None of the messages have yet been published.
Responding to the reports, Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “The stench of a cover-up over the Mandelson files is overwhelming.
“After weeks of heel dragging, Labour has finally started releasing some of the files but so much vital information is very obviously missing in action, including any communication from the prime minister and his key advisers.
“Our humble address means the government must release all relevant communication, including on non-corporate devices like WhatsApp and private emails, relating to this appointment. We will hold them to account until they do.”
It comes after it was revealed that Sir Keir himself did not speak to Lord Mandelson during the vetting process.
On Friday, Downing Street insisted there was “no requirement” for the PM to formally interview the peer for the US ambassadorship, amid accusations of a lack of prime ministerial involvement in the appointment.
No 10 conceded there were “lessons to be learned” from the process but insisted due diligence was followed before the peer was given the Washington job.
Sir Keir’s official spokesman said: “There was no requirement for a formal interview with the Prime Minister.”
Earlier this week, Downing Street was forced to deny allegations of a “cover-up” in the release of files after accusations the prime minister misled MPs over the vetting process.
The absence of the prime minister’s own comments in the trove of government papers released on Wednesday came under scrutiny, raising questions over whether Sir Keir misled MPs when he told them “full due process” had been followed during Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
It comes after the files showed that national security adviser Jonathan Powell raised concerns over Lord Mandelson’s appointment, saying it had been “weirdly rushed”.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch claimed that “a lot of information is missing” from the files, pointing to an empty box she said Sir Keir was required to fill beneath advice he received in 2024 about the appointment.
No 10 said no notes by Sir Keir were redacted, meaning that the prime minister did not fill out the box which was reserved for his response.
But the PM’s official spokesperson repeatedly insisted that the process was followed and said Downing Street would look at making improvements to both the vetting and due diligence procedures, claiming they are “not up to scratch”.
Asked specifically about the blank box, he told reporters: “I refute the suggestion of a cover-up. The government has complied fully. I just don’t accept that it’s the case at all.
“There are a range of different ways in which the prime minister’s senior team responds to advice.”
The spokesperson added: “The prime minister did read the advice, but clearly there are lessons to be learned on the wider appointment processes, and the processes that led up to them.”
Mrs Badenoch asked the PM’s independent ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus to investigate whether the ministerial code has been breached – but, responding, he said there were no grounds for an investigation.
In the wake of the first tranche’s publication, the prime minister faced fresh questions about his judgment in giving the peer the ambassadorship despite being explicitly warned of a “general reputational risk” because of his relationship with the convicted paedophile.
Downing Street declined to comment.
