Morgan McSweeney: Mandelson appointment ‘serious error of judgement’

The Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has said the appointment was a “serious error of judgement”, but denied claims he attempted to expedite vetting processes.

At a hearing of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, McSweeney said he was wrong to advise Keir Starmer to appoint Mandelson, but stopped short of taking full responsibility – noting that the final decision was made by the Prime Minister.

He also said he did not request that steps in Mandelson’s vetting be skipped and told the committee: “What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs. I would never have considered that acceptable.”

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

McSweeney outlined that discussion about the US ambassador role was being considered by Starmer as early as January or February 2024 and that he was minded to make a political appointment. However, he said that a formal decision on who should serve was not made until after the US presidential election, adding: “I don’t think the Prime Minister would have chosen Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected President.”

While former Conservative Chancellor George Osbourne was also considered for the job, McSweeney said that he considered Mandelson the “strongest candidate” for the position due to his previous experience as a European trade commissioner, as the government wanted to pursue a trade deal with the United States.

He claimed that he did not see any advice that vetting for Mandelson be made before his appointment was announced, and suggested that there would have been the potential for a leak had vetting taken place at an earlier stage, which would have been “ very embarrassing” for the government.

However, he said: “If there were problems with his developed vetting, we would have pulled him.”

McSweeney sought to distance himself from Mandelson, saying that while he was a “confident”, he did not class him as a “mentor”. When accused by committee chair Emily Thornberry that he “stopped thinking about what was best for the government” and “railroaded [his appointment]… as fast as you could”, McSweeney stressed that his motive was “always in the national interest”.

He also denied media reports that Mandelson had involvement in the selection of Labour’s parliamentary candidates for the general election.

His testimony to the committee comes after increased scrutiny over the appointment following the revelations of Mandelson’s relationship with the disgraced paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Opposition MPs are calling on the Prime Minister to be referred to the Privileges Committee to examine whether Starmer misled Parliament when he said that “due process was followed” in the appointment of Peter Mandelson.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.