Starmer’s chief of staff ‘used personal email to communicate with Peter Mandelson’
Sir Keir Starmer’s former private secretary reportedly used his private email address to contact Peter Mandelson before his appointment as US ambassador, leading to accusations of a “cover-up”.
It came after the government released the first tranche of files relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment to the sensitive post and forced him to resign over his links to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The files released on Wednesday contained just 31 messages and documents related to Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as ambassador to Washington, all from official email addresses, and did not include any messages from Morgan McSweeney, despite her disgraced peer playing a key role in the decision to appoint her.
But sources said Times He said Mr McSweeney used his personal email address and WhatsApp to contact Lord Mandelson before his appointment. None of the messages have been published yet.
Responding to the reports, Alex Burghart, shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “The stench of the Mandelson files cover-up is overwhelming.
“After weeks of wrangling, Labor has finally begun releasing some dossiers but it is clear that much vital information is missing from the app, including any communications from the prime minister and his key advisers.
“Our humble address means the government must release all communications related to this appointment, including non-corporate devices like WhatsApp and private emails. We will hold them accountable until they do.”
It comes after it was revealed Sir Keir had not spoken to Lord Mandelson during the investigation.
Downing Street on Friday insisted there was “no need” for the Prime Minister to formally negotiate for the US embassy, amid accusations that the prime minister had no involvement in the appointment.
No 10 acknowledged there were “lessons to be learned” from the process but insisted due diligence had been followed before his peer was given the Washington job.
Sir Keir’s official spokesman said: “There was no need for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.”
Earlier this week Downing Street was forced to reject allegations of a “cover-up” in the release of the files following accusations that the prime minister misled MPs about the review process.
The absence of the prime minister’s own comments among government documents released on Wednesday has drawn scrutiny and raised questions about whether Sir Keir misled MPs by saying “full due process” was followed in Lord Mandelson’s appointment.
It comes after dossiers emerged in which national security adviser Jonathan Powell expressed concerns about Lord Mandelson’s appointment, saying it was “grotesquely rushed”.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch claimed there was “a lot of information missing” in the files and pointed to an empty box, saying Sir Keir should fill in the advice he received on the appointment in 2024.
No 10 said none of Sir Keir’s notes had been corrected, meaning the prime minister had not filled in the box reserved for his own response.
But the Prime Minister’s official spokesman has consistently insisted that process is being followed and said Downing Street will look at making improvements to both vetting and due diligence procedures, claiming these are “not up to scratch”.
Asked specifically about the empty box, he told reporters: “I reject the allegation of a cover-up. The government fully complied with it. I just simply do not accept that that is the case.”
“There are a number of different ways in which the Prime Minister’s senior team can respond to recommendations.”
The spokesman added: “The Prime Minister has read the advice but it is clear there are lessons to be learned about the wider appointment processes and the processes that lead to them.”
Ms Badenoch asked the Prime Minister’s independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, to investigate whether ministerial rules had been breached; but in response he said there was no basis for an investigation.
Following the publication of the first tranche, the prime minister faced fresh questions over his decision to give his peer the ambassadorship despite being publicly warned of the “public reputation risk” due to his relationship with the convicted pedophile.
Downing Street declined to comment.
