McSweeney says revelation of Mandelson's close friendship with Epstein was 'knife through my soul'

LAST UPDATE | 2 hrs ago

IRISH-BORN FORMER DOWNING Street chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has been giving evidence at a high-profile hearing in the House of Commons on a critical day for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The hearing has focused on the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. 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.

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.

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. 

Advertisement

Vote in parliament 

Later today, MPs vote on whether there should be a parliamentary sleaze inquiry into the Peter Mandelson vetting row, with Starmer urging MPs to stand together” against the motion

Ahead of that vote, the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee is hearing first from Foreign Office civil servant Philip Barton and then McSweeney.

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.

Ahead of McSweeney’s much-anticipated appearance, 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”.

Whipped

Ahead of the Commons vote later about whether Starmer should face an inquiry, a large-scale effort to shore up backbench support was under way last night. 

Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown was among those urging party members to back the prime minister.

Allies of Starmer appeared confident that a mass rebellion was off the cards as he told a packed meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP): “When we stick together and fight together we are so much stronger.”

He sought to dismiss the Commons bid to refer him to the committee which ended Boris Johnson’s political career as a “stunt” by political opponents intent on inflicting damage before the May elections.

It is understood Labour MPs are being whipped to reject the motion after Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle allowed a vote on the issue today following requests from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and other senior MPs.

Starmer told the PLP: “I have responsibility for being totally transparent with you, with Parliament and the British public.

“I take that very seriously as well. But this is not about a lack of transparency.

“This is a political stunt by our opponents who want to bring us down, obscure our message, stop us getting on with our work.

“And the timing tells you everything, nine days before local elections.”

He said the Conservatives had put forward “totally baseless” and “absolutely ridiculous” accusations against him and insisted today’s motion was “pure politics”, adding: “We need to stand together against it.”

The Privileges Committee was responsible for 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.

Starmer has been accused of misleading MPs by saying “full due process” was followed in appointing Mandelson, who was given developed vetting status despite failing security checks.

With reporting from Press Association 

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal