Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is facing growing pressure over reports he personally pushed for Peter Mandelson’s appointment, despite concerns over his links with Jeffrey Epstein.
Britain’s ambassador to the US was dramatically sacked on Thursday amid new revelations about his relationship with the convicted paedophile – raising serious questions about the prime minister’s judgement.
While Mr McSweeney was said to have been in favour of the Labour grandee’s appointment, sources told The Telegraph that former chief of staff Sue Gray – who was later forced out – did not consider him to be appropriate for the position.
Downing Street sources also firmly denied reports that Mr McSweeney tried to prevent Lord Mandelson’s sacking this week, which took place after Sir Keir came out and defended the ambassador in the Commons.
It comes as serious concerns were raised that the Labour grandee did not clear security vetting for the role – but the prime minister pushed through his appointment anyway.
Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China.
However, there were also worries that his past links to the disgraced financier and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein “would compromise him”.
When The Independent put the claims that Sir Keir had pushed through Lord Mandelson’s appointment despite not clearing MI6 vetting, a spokesperson said: “Vetting done by [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office] in normal way.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch immediately seized on the reports, saying that the overruling of MI6 warnings to appoint a political ally was “unforgivable”.
She said: “These latest revelations point yet again to the terrible judgement of Keir Starmer and why it is imperative that all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment are released immediately.
“If it is true that Starmer or his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney overruled the security services, as has been alleged, they need immediately to explain to the public why they did so.”
Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel, who had similar security briefings from MI5 as home secretary, said: “These are extraordinary revelations. For Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney to have appointed Lord Mandelson despite concerns being raised by the security services shows a blatant disregard of all national security considerations and their determination to promote their Labour Party friends.”
Meanwhile, former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggested the revelations may mean Sir Keir has to sack his chief of staff if the claims are true.
“McSweeney may or may not have been foolish in the advice he gave. I just don’t know. I’m not privy to exactly what went on in the conversations he had with the prime minister don’t suppose you are either.
“So I don’t think we can reach conclusions on that. That’s for the prime minister to decide whether he’s a suitable adviser for the future depending on what did actually happen,” he told Times Radio.
Lord Mandelson’s sacking came after a string of shocking revelations, including emails appearing to show him offering support for Epstein as he faced charges of child sex offences.
On Friday, Scotland secretary Douglas Alexander said Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed as US ambassador had the prime minister known the depth of his association with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
He told BBC Breakfast: “In retrospect, of course, if [it] had been known at the time what is known now, the appointment wouldn’t have been made.
“But it is possible that two things are true at once. On one hand, Peter Mandelson did bring some very particular qualities to that job and to that diplomatic post, and on the other hand, as has been confirmed, there were manifest weaknesses of his judgment that have been brutally exposed by these emails.”
But allies of the peer told The Times that he admitted in his vetting interview that he continued his relationship with Epstein for many years, piling pressure on Sir Keir to explain what he knew and when.
Lord Mandelson’s sacking came after emails showed “the depth and extent of (his) relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment”, the Foreign Office said.
He was reported to have told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and told him “I think the world of you”, the day before the disgraced financier began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.
Some Labour figures have criticised the handling of the row, with former deputy leadership hopeful Paula Barker saying: “The delay in sacking him has only served to further erode the trust and confidence in our government and politics in the round.”
Meanwhile, the co-ordinator of new Labour group Mainstream, Luke Hurst, accused the prime minister of “running a narrow and brittle political project” that put factional interest before party and country.
Scottish secretary Mr Alexander said he understood that Labour MPs would be “despondent” in the wake of two significant departures in the past two weeks – following the resignation of Angela Rayner last weekend over questions about her tax affairs.
“Now to have the dismissal of Peter Mandelson just the next week, I totally get it, of course Labour MPs will be despondent that in two weeks in a row we have seen significant resignations from public service”, he told BBC Breakfast.
“These are not the headlines any of us in government or in Parliament would have chosen or wanted. But the fact is, when the evidence emerged, action had to be taken and we are looking forward, therefore, to moving on.”
