Mystery Deepens Over Stolen Phone and Lord Mandelson’s US Appointment
A cloud of intrigue continues to surround the former Downing Street adviser, Morgan McSweeney, and the reported theft of his mobile phone. New revelations suggest that McSweeney was in possession of not one, but three mobile devices, potentially holding crucial messages related to the controversial appointment of Lord Mandelson as US ambassador. This development has intensified pressure on McSweeney to provide a full account of the incident, which he reported last October.
The controversy centres on the appointment of Lord Mandelson, a figure with known associations with Jeffrey Epstein. As Members of Parliament sought to uncover correspondence that might shed light on the decision, the theft of McSweeney’s phone became a focal point. At the time, political strategists in Downing Street were reportedly devising a plan to manage the fallout from “Morgan’s messages,” as the Tories prepared to use parliamentary procedures to demand the disclosure of all communications concerning Lord Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent resignation.
The Reported Theft and Subsequent Revelations
On October 20th, McSweeney, then Chief of Staff at Number 10, reported that his official iPhone had been stolen in London. Following the report, the device was remotely wiped by Downing Street. However, it has now emerged that McSweeney also owned two private phones. One of these private devices was deactivated earlier this year, while the other remains active.
When questioned this weekend about whether all his devices had been searched for relevant messages, Number 10 stated that they were still in the process of requesting information from “relevant individuals” concerning Lord Mandelson. This comes after the Cabinet Office finally requested messages from Lord Mandelson’s personal phone on Friday, a full two months after MPs initially called for their publication.
Scotland Yard Reopens Investigation Amidst Procedural Questions
The escalating questions surrounding the sequence of events have forced Scotland Yard to reopen its investigation into the reported phone theft last week. Detectives are currently reviewing CCTV footage from the street where McSweeney claims he was robbed and have requested a formal statement from him regarding the incident.
Adding to the complexity, a senior official within Boris Johnson’s government has pointed out that messages on McSweeney’s government-issued phone should have been backed up. Helen MacNamara, who served as Deputy Cabinet Secretary during the COVID-19 pandemic, stated that “If it belongs to the Government and it’s the business of the State, the records should be kept.” She further elaborated that while records can be stored on the phone, they should be periodically transferred to the official record, describing the process as “not massively complicated.”
Discrepancies and Potential Parliamentary Scrutiny
A published call log from Scotland Yard indicates that McSweeney informed an officer that his phone was snatched by a cyclist as he walked home from a restaurant in Pimlico, central London. However, he reportedly provided the police call handler with an incorrect location, mistakenly stating Belgrave Street in East London instead of Belgrave Road in Westminster. This initial error in location significantly hampered Scotland Yard’s early efforts to retrieve CCTV footage of the incident.
Further compounding the issue, McSweeney allegedly failed to disclose his position at Number 10 to the police, meaning they were unaware that the device could contain sensitive government material and contacts. He also provided his Scottish address rather than his London one. Adding another layer of concern, The Telegraph reported yesterday that McSweeney did not respond to police requests asking if he had attempted to locate the missing phone using its built-in tracking feature.
Ministers are now expressing concerns that McSweeney could be compelled to appear before MPs to clarify the ambiguities surrounding his involvement with Lord Mandelson, the nature of the exchanged messages, and the circumstances of the phone theft. This potential parliamentary grilling follows hints from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who suggested she was prepared to initiate another Commons vote to force McSweeney to provide evidence, aiming to explain “exactly what happened and why Keir Starmer signed off on Peter Mandelson’s appointment despite the warnings.”
McSweeney ultimately resigned last month, citing his role in the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as the British Government’s representative in Washington. A spokesperson for Number 10 commented that “All government departments, ministers and relevant individuals are in the process of being asked to provide information they hold.”
