WhatsApp Messages Demanded in Widening Mandelson Appointment Probe
Government officials are now being compelled to hand over private WhatsApp messages from group chats involving Peter Mandelson, as an investigation into his controversial appointment as British ambassador to Washington intensifies. The move comes amid mounting pressure on Sir Keir Starmer, who has faced allegations of a cover-up during the initial release of documents pertaining to Mandelson’s appointment.
Crucially, personal email correspondence between Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney, the former No 10 chief of staff who played a pivotal role in the appointment process, was conspicuously absent from the first batch of files made public.
Cat Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, has formally requested that officials involved in the decision-making process submit any ‘group chat’ exchanges conducted on ‘private devices’. This directive aims to cast a wider net in the search for information that could shed light on the circumstances surrounding Mandelson’s appointment.
However, critics voiced concerns that the delay in requesting these messages may have rendered them irretrievable. Many messaging platforms feature auto-delete functions, meaning the most pertinent exchanges could have already been permanently removed. While intentionally concealing information to prevent its disclosure is against the law, this legislation does not extend to chats that automatically clear after a predetermined period.
The Prime Minister has also been subjected to scrutiny regarding his decision not to personally interview Mandelson to ascertain the full extent of his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, this critical task was delegated to Mr McSweeney and Matthew Doyle, another associate of Mandelson and, at the time, the director of communications.
To date, only a modest collection of 31 documents and messages have been released concerning Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal nine months later. These have all originated from official email accounts, and none involve Mr McSweeney. Reports suggest that Mr McSweeney may have utilised his personal email address during discussions with Mandelson prior to the appointment. Sir Keir only agreed to release documents related to the appointment under significant pressure from Members of Parliament, with the oversight of the cross-party intelligence and security committee.
Alex Burghart, a prominent Conservative front-bencher, has now lodged a formal complaint with the sleaze watchdog, Sir Laurie Magnus, calling for an investigation into the allegedly ‘missing’ correspondence.
The probe into Mandelson’s appointment has taken a more serious turn, with the former diplomat having been arrested last month on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This arrest is part of a Metropolitan Police inquiry into whether he passed sensitive government information to Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.
Further complicating matters, an official report received by the Prime Minister in 2024 indicated that Mandelson’s association with Epstein persisted even after Epstein’s conviction. Following this revelation, Sir Keir reportedly tasked Mr McSweeney with posing a mere three questions to Mandelson. Lord Doyle then reviewed Mandelson’s responses and declared himself ‘satisfied’ with the outcome. Notably, there is no written record of Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson, a decision that was apparently made during an un-minuted meeting.
Alex Burghart, who also serves as the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, expressed his dismay, stating, “Ministers sat on their hands while messages and emails were allowed to auto-delete.” He further asserted, “The Government continues frustrating Parliament’s will by letting important evidence vanish. This looks like a deliberate cover-up of No 10’s involvement in the Mandelson-Epstein scandal.”
While Downing Street has refuted claims of a cover-up, the government has acknowledged that there are “lessons to be learnt on the wider appointment process.” The ongoing investigation and the demand for private communications underscore the serious questions surrounding the integrity of the appointment process and the government’s transparency.
