Keir Starmer live RECAP: MPs hold vote as Morgan McSweeney says Epstein pics were knife through the soul

The Lib Dem leader, despite criticising Starmer, has not spared Kemi Badenoch during his speech to the Commons today.

He criticised the Tory leader for having "dismissed the Partygate scandal and called it overblown". He added: "So, it does seem there's quite a lot of hypocrisy to go around."

[Ed Davey]

Ed Davey has savaged both Labour and the Conservatives(Image: Ben Whitley/PA Wire)

Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has suggested the Government's position that today's vote is a political "stunt" ahead of the local elections is a "bogus argument".

He attacked the suggestion in the Commons today, telling MPs: "It is funny, though, because 'stunt' is exactly the same word Boris Johnson used about the motion that the prime minister and I tabled 4 years ago, referring Boris Johnson to the Privileges Committee. Ironic."It wasn't a stunt then, and it isn't a stunt today. When I hear the prime minister complain that we've tabled this motion just over a week before important elections, I find myself transported back to that debate four years ago, seven days before crucial local elections." He added: "At that time, Conservative MP after Conservative MP made exactly the same bogus argument in defence of Boris Johnson."

Brian Leisham, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, has called on the Prime Minister to refer himself to the privileges committee, adding it is the "perfect opportunity" to prove he would "put party before country".

He said: "I think the prime minister should refer himself to the privileges committee. It would say to parliament and, more importantly, to the country that he knows he will be proved innocent, that he will be vindicated, that hes got nothing to hide, and importantly, that transparency and accountability are really at the heart of our democracy

"The prime minister said we would put country before party. Today, with this vote, he has the perfect opportunity to do just that. The prime minister needs to stop putting Labour MPs in awkward situations. The open and honest thing would be to refer himself to the committee but if he wont then Im afraid he has left me with no choice. I will have to vote for this motion this afternoon."

A handful of Labour MPs have spoken in favour of referring Keir Starmer to the Privileges Committee, though the Tory-backed motion is not expected to pass.

Peter Mandelson was picked to handle Donald Trump - and would not have been if Kamala Harris had won the US election, MPs heard earlier.

Mr McSweeney told the committee: "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." He went on: "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. The UK was exposed after Brexit, we left the European Union without any US trade deal.

"And for me, honestly, 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."

[0_Kamala-Harris-And-Cory-Booker-Speak-At-Michigan-Democratic-Luncheon-In-Detroit.jpg]

Kamala Harris lost the 2024 US presidential election(Image: Getty Images)

Suspended Labour MP Karl Turner suggests Keir Starmer should have referred himself to the privilges committee to avoid putting MPs through the debate and vote this evening.He tells the Commons: "The PM has nothing to fear - he ought to do the right thing, he should have referred himself and that would have saved us all this messing around."He adds: "I'm convinced, I know the PM, I know he's not a liar... I think he would be exonerated."

Morgan McSweeney insisted to the Foreign Affairs Committee that he had not intentionally given the wrong location to the police when his Government phone was stolen last year.

Asked why he had described his location as Belgrave Street an address in Stepney, east London, rather than Belgrave Road in Pimlico Mr McSweeney replied: I also said I was in Westminster. So I said I was in Belgrave Street, Westminster, where I think I was on Lower Belgrave Street. So it was some months ago, and I missed the Lower. I didnt see it.

The former No 10 chief of staff added: I was also quite adrenalised. So what happened was I chased the guy who stole my phone as far as I could. I was out of breath, I was completely exhausted, because at 48 years of age you shouldnt be chasing people down the street, and then I was trying to go back to the original location that it happened, so that I could tell the 999 operator.

As I was following the guy, he turned away from a park that I could see in front of me. And as I was coming back to try and find the original location. I just assumed that the call handler was looking at it on the map.

I havent heard the audio. I cant imagine that I was clear and coherent at the time. I was out of breath, I was adrenalised, and if I gave any wrong direction, it wasnt intentional.

Mr McSweeney also insisted that the location he gave did not result in a police vehicle being sent to the wrong address, as the call handler said a squad car wasnt coming as we were on the call.

Morgan McSweeney has said Peter Mandelson's betrayal was "like a knife through my soul" as he defended his role in the scandal.

The PM's former chief of staff, who quit in February over the shamed peer's appointment, faced an accusation he had found a plum job for his "hero" - which he denied. Mr McSweeney said Keir Starmer would not have appointed Mandelson as ambassador to the US on his recommendation alone, appearing to question those distancing themselves.

Read more: 16 key points from Morgan McSweeney's Mandelson grilling from phone theft to betrayal

[0_Lord-Peter-Mandelson-Epstein-files-scandal.jpg]

Morgan McSweeney denied Peter Mandelson is his 'hero'(Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire)

Morgan McSweeney said he would live with his judgment calls for the rest of my life but argued the system shouldnt be reliant on just one adviser giving a bad piece of advice.

The former No 10 chief of staff told the Foreign Affairs Committee: I know what I did wrong. I know the judgment calls that I made that were wrong. Ill live with them for rest of my life.

But as a chief of staff, and if youre a political adviser, youre also relying on the information being presented to you.

He added: You dont have the ability to investigate, to ask more questions, to look deeper and deeper and clearly it didnt work.

It shouldnt be reliant on just one adviser giving a bad piece of advice, and then the whole thing goes wrong, and the state needs to be more robust and stronger on this.

Did Mr McSweeney use disappearing messages on WhatsApp, he was asked."Yeah, for most people," he said. "Yeah, I think I did."Dame Emily then pushed him on whether he had this setting in place for messages from Mandelson.

"I probably did, yeah," he replied.

Morgan McSweeney has given his account of what happened when his phone was stolen last year.The former chief of staff told the committee his first call was to No10 - which was why he did not tell the 999 call handler his job title.He said: "I was a victim of crime. Somebody hopped on to the pavement and took my phone from me. The first thing I did was to try and retrieve it. I tried to chase, which was probably a mistake."The next thing I did was I phoned No10, and I would have done whatever they told me to do. Now, I thought at the time that they would be able to track the phone."He said afterwards he called 999. "If No10 had told me you need to tell the call handler what my job is, I would have done so, but otherwise I didn't do that as a matter of course. I didn't in any part of my job go around saying, I'm a very serious and senior person. If No10 had asked me to do it, I would have done that."I also thought, wrongly again at the time, I thought a squad car might come by and I could explain a bit more if a squad car had come by."He went on: "I was quite surprised by how limited the security is around chief of staff telephone."

Asked why he didn't tell the 999 call that his stolen phone was government-issued, he said he believed Number 10 would "track the phone" and that he would be able to explain the issue to police officers arriving at the scene.

Morgan McSweeney claimed he initially believed Lord Peter Mandelson was telling the truth but late last year realised he had not.Asked earlier in the hearing about the due diligence process, he told the Foreign Affairs Committee: I guess my thinking at the time was I put follow-up questions to him in writing, and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the truth and the full truth.I didnt feel that I got that back from him, but it wasnt my decision, it was the Prime Ministers decision and he saw the DV (developed vetting) as part of that decision.He later said he had believed Lord Mandelson was answering questions truthfully.It was put to him that he had contradicted himself, to which Mr McSweeney replied: Sorry, let me correct myself.In September, I realised I didnt get the truth back from him. At the time, I thought I got the truth back from him. When I saw the emails and the pictures that came out and that were published from the Epstein files in September last year, thats when it really dawned on me that I did not get the full truth from him.

At the time, I thought he was telling the truth. If I didnt think he was telling the truth, I would have said, this guy is not telling the truth, but I did think he was telling the truth.

Mr McSweeney said the Government gave "very serious consideration" to appointing George Osborne as ambassador to the US.He told the committee that former Tory Chancellor Mr Osborne was one of the final two candidates for the role. He said: "George Osborne was a very credible candidate."And part of the thinking was the relationship between sister parties or parties of a similar political persuasion (the Conservatives and the Republicans). He's got more recent experience, the fact that he had commercial acumen, the fact that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was a very credible candidate and one that we gave serious weight to."

[0_The-Royal-Family-Mark-The-100th-Birthday-Of-Queen-Elizabeth-II.jpg]

George Osborne was the other candidate considered for the US ambassador role(Image: UK Press via Getty Images)

Elsewhere in Parliament, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is urging Labour MPs to back her motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee - despite earlier criticism of the "nakedly political" stunt.

Mr McSweeney told the select committee: "I've been to two dinners at his house - I believe both in 2024, with a wide range of people - and to a restaurant, I think twice in the whole four years I knew him."

Mr McSweeney angrily hit out at reports that he had ordered a former Foreign Office chief to "just f***ing approve" Mandelson's appointment.The former chief of staff said it was untrue - and Sir Philip Barton, who was claimed to be on the receiving end, also said it was untrue.Mr McSweeney said: "I do not know why people do this in politics, put around untrue rumours."They phone lots of journalists. Those journalists then phone lots of politicians. That's how rumors get around. It is very, very corrosive, it's damaging for people's reputation, and a lot of people in No10 get that."And I think it's unfair for staff who can't speak for themselves."I'm grateful as well to the journalists, the vast majority of whom never covered that story, because it wasn't true. And I'm so glad that Philip Barton said today that I did not phone him, that he's no recollection of me swearing at him."And I have no recollection of swearing at him either."

Mr McSweeney claimed No10 never intended to "land" ex-comms chief Matthew Doyle in an ambassadorial job.Last week former Foreign Office boss Sir Olly Robbins revealed he had been asked about finding a post for him. And he claimed he was urged to keep the request from Foreign Secretary David Lammy.He said: "It was clear that Matthew Doyle's time in government was coming to an end, and the Prime Minister wanted me as part of that to discuss with Matthew Doyle next steps, because these are difficult conversations.

"And the Prime Minister wanted me to convey to him that if you'd wanted to stay in government, that he should consider doing so because he had extensive experience in government. The private office asked what vacancies that Matthew Doyle might apply for."There was no suggestion at any point that he would be imposed in if he had wanted to work in the Foreign Office, Matthew Doyle would have had to apply for any of those posts the same as anybody else."

[0_Introductions-at-the-House-of-Lords.jpg]

Lord Matthew Doyle previously served as Downing Street's Director of Communications(Image: PA)

Describing how he felt when details exposing the full extent of the friendship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein emerged, Mr McSweeney said: "When I saw the pictures, when I saw the Bloomberg questions in September 2025, I have to say it was like a knife through my soul.

"I did not expect that level of connection that he was talking about there."He said the Met Police is looking at an exchange between him and Mandelson when he questioned him about Epstein.

[0_HDS1wQRa0AAAI1Ajpeg.jpg]

A photograph showing Prince Andrew, Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein together

In a blistering exchange, Dame Emily Thornberry questioned whether Mr Sweeney had set the country's interests aside to give his "hero" a job.The committee chair asked: "So do you think that when the chance came for you to give Peter Mandelson his last job, you stopped thinking about what was best for the government."Really, you stopped thinking about what was best for the country and you just thought, I want to give this job, this great job, to one of my heroes"And it became an obsession. And and it may be that the Prime Minister can be criticised for giving you this leeway, but it was a leeway that you abused.

"And you stopped thinking strategically, you closed your eyes to the risks, you didn't consult the necessary people - the Prime minister, the Foreign Secretary - you railroaded this through as fast as you could before anyone could realised what had happened?"Mr McSweeney denied the suggestion, responding: "I don't regard Mandelson as a hero. I think that's an exaggeration of the kind of relationship that I had with him. In every advice that I gave to the Prime Minister, hand on heart, I thought I was operating with a motive in the national interest."

McSweeney admits that he should not have been the person to ask Mandelson about Jeffrey Epstein - as the pair were friends.He says it would have been "much, much better" if the Cabinet Office ethics team had asked the questions."When I look back on it, I certainly think it would have been much, much better if I'd asked PET to ask those follow up questions."My thinking at the time was I'd put follow up questions to him in writing, and that if a senior member of staff did that, that he would feel more obligated to give the full truth. I didn't feel that I got that back from him."

The Prime Minister's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has confirmed earlier reports that former chancellor George Osborne was considered for the US ambassador role alongside Peter Mandelson.

Mr McSweeney appeared to question those now distancing themselves from the appointment.He told the committee that Keir Starmer would not have appointed the Prince of Darkness on his advice alone.Instead the PM prefers to "build consensus", he said.Mr McSweeney said: "I have to say, I know that a lot of people now say they told the Prime Minister they were against it at the time."Everything I know about how the Prime Minister works is he will consult widely. He will take a lot of views on, and if everybody else was opposed to this appointment but me, he would not have made an appointment such as that."He does like to try to build consensus within his team and to get a wide range of views. And he doesn't just listen to one person on it - he certainly spoke to other ministers, other senior staff and took his time."

Peter Mandelson sent messages to Mr McSweeney on the day of a Cabinet reshuffle after Angela Rayner resigned.The PM's former chief of staff said Mandelson had made suggestions about who was promoted. But he insisted none of his ideas got followed up.Mr McSweeney said: "I'm very pleased I get the chance to correct the record on this"Mandelson was in the Cabinet Office and then came into No10, on the day of the reshuffle. But he was not involved in a reshuffle."The reshuffle was extremely challenging because it was a bad day for our party, for the government. We had just lost the Deputy Prime Minister, and we needed to reorganise the government at pace. And the Prime minister, wanted to go ahead and do that."He went on: "The text messages from Mandelson to me on the day I believe will be, made available as a humble address. I can't remember precisely what he said, but he he texted me his thoughts."On a reshuffle day, I get texted a lot of thoughts from from a lot of people, the people who I would respond to and get back to would be cabinet members or other senior staff to ask them their views."I did not respond to any of Mandelson's texts. The text messages set out ideas of people that he thought should be in particular positions. None of his suggestions actually came out to be the case, so his ideas were not followed up."

Morgan McSweeney denies Peter Mandelson was his "mentor". He said he started seeking his advice in 2021, when he was 44-years-old."He was somebody I sought for advice," he said, but said there was a wide network of people he spoke to.

Mr McSweeney said he would not be taking responsibility for things beyond his control, however.He told the committee he thought Mandelson would be a good pick - but never suggested he should not be fully vetted.The former No10 aide said: "It is also important, however, to distinguish between what I did do and what I did not do."What I did do was make a recommendation, based on my judgment, that Mandelson's experience, relationships, and political skills could serve the national interest in Washington at an important moment."That judgment was a mistake."What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, requests that steps should be skipped, or communicate explicitly or implicitly that checks should be cleared at all costs."I would never have considered that acceptable. These processes are in place to protect our national security."

[0_image.jpg]

Former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is speaking before the committee(Image: Parliament TV)

Morgan McSweeney has opened his evidence session by giving a statement.He started by apologising to victims of Jeffrey Epstein for his role in the Mandelson scandal.Mr McSweeney told the Foreign Affairs Committee he had made a serious error by giving bad advice to the PM.He said: "First, I want to say something about the victims and survivors connected to Jeffrey Epstein."Often discussions of public figures and appointments can lose sight of the human suffering at the centre of these matters."Women and girls were abused, exploited and scarred. They deserve protection, then, and they deserve to be remembered now. I'm sorry for any part this controversy has played in causing further hurt or distress."I've spent much of my working life trying in whatever role I held, to make this country fairer, stronger and more successful."I have always believed public service is a privilege. It brings responsibility and scrutiny, but it also brings a meaningful chance to improve people's lives. That is what motivated me in government."The appointment of Mandelson as ambassador was a serious error of judgment. I advised the Prime Minister in support of that appointment and I was wrong to do so."As I said in my resignation statement, I resigned because I believe responsibility should rest with those who make serious mistakes."Accountability in public life cannot apply only when it is convenient. The Prime Minister relied on my advice and I got it wrong."