Cork-born Morgan McSweeney to take questions from MPs amid Peter Mandelson vetting scandal

By David Lynch, David Hughes, Harry Taylor, Rhiannon James and Helen Corbett, Press Association Political Staff

Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has been summoned to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee next week amid the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal.

McSweeney, widely regarded as a protege of Mandelson, resigned in February over his part in the peer’s appointment to the role of US ambassador.

The political strategist will appear at the influential parliamentary committee on Tuesday, after an expected showing on Thursday morning by Cat Little, the most senior Cabinet Office civil servant.

Little last week revealed to Starmer that she had discovered Lord Mandelson had been granted high-level security clearance for the prestigious job in Washington despite vetting officials recommending against it.

Their appearances at the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) follow that of former Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins, who was sacked by the UK prime minister last week for not telling him about the details of the vetting decision.

Writing on social media, FAC chairwoman Dame Emily Thornberry said Sir Olly’s predecessor Sir Phillip Barton was among those called to give evidence.

Dame Emily said: “Following Sir Olly’s evidence, the Foreign Affairs Committee has today requested that Cat Little, Ian Collard, Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney attend and give evidence.

“Cat Little will give evidence tomorrow at 9am.

“Morgan McSweeney will attend Tuesday.”

Starmer insisted at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday that Sir Olly’s evidence about Lord Mandelson exonerated him over accusations that he had misled MPs.

The mandarin’s testimony “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at me by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”, the Prime Minister said.

The leaders of opposition parties had called for Sir Keir to resign for misleading MPs about the appointment process, as news that Lord Mandelson was cleared for the Washington posting against the recommendation of security officials appeared to contradict his previous statements that due process was followed.

But the defiant UK prime minister told MPs: “Last week, they were all saying that it must have been shared with me. Sir Olly was very clear yesterday, it was not. I believe not sharing it was a serious error of judgment.

“That information should have been shared with me and other ministers, and if it had have been, Mandelson would not have been committed to post.”

Badenoch said Starmer should quit for failing to follow the recommendation to get security clearance for Lord Mandelson before making the appointment.

She said: “We all heard Sir Olly Robbins’ testimony yesterday.

“The head of the Foreign Office was sacked for the Prime Minister’s own failings.

“His backbenchers know that is not fair. Even his most loyal Cabinet members won’t defend it.

“The Prime Minister did not follow the process the Cabinet Secretary set out in November 2024, he knows he did not follow due process, yet he told the House he had.

“I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but everyone can see what has happened here. This was not due process.

“Everyone knows the price of misleading the House. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and go?”

Starmer defended his decision to sack Robinson, saying he should have been told about the “red flags” raised by the UK Security Vetting agency.

However, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, a close ally of the Prime Minister, repeatedly declined to say the decision to sack Robinson was fair.

McFadden said he thought “very highly” of Sir Olly but told Times Radio: “I think if the Prime Minister’s made the judgment that he’s not got confidence in the head of the Foreign Office, the head of the foreign service, then it’s difficult to continue.”

Asked for a second time if it was fair, McFadden said: “Look, it’s the Prime Minister’s judgment.”

Ultimately, we are in a situation where I don’t think anyone reasonably expects the Prime Minister to lead the party into the next election

When he was asked the same question again, Mr McFadden said: “As a Cabinet member, I support the Prime Minister’s decisions.”

Labour MPs have meanwhile begun to openly criticise Starmer amid the scandal, following on the heels of cautious words from Cabinet ministers about Peter Mandelson’s appointment.

Jonathan Brash, MP for Hartlepool, told GB News: “Ultimately, we are in a situation where I don’t think anyone reasonably expects the Prime Minister to lead the party into the next election and I think we have to refocus this Government on the priorities of the British people.”

Elsewhere, the Tories warned against any attempt to spare Starmer from facing next week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, the day after McSweeney’s appearance.

Reports have suggested Commons business will end on Tuesday ahead of the King’s Speech, meaning the Wednesday lunchtime session would be cancelled.

A spokesman for Badenoch said: “We want to hold this Government to account and it does feel very much like, in the midst of a crisis, they are bringing the session to an end early so they can avoid scrutiny.”

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer would not deny that Downing Street considered giving his former spin doctor Lord Matthew Doyle a diplomatic job.

Starmer said there were “often conversations about other roles” when staff leave jobs “in any organisation” as he faced scrutiny over claims by Robinson that No 10 had initiated discussions with him about potentially finding an ambassadorship for Doyle.

The peer had the Labour whip withdrawn earlier this year after it emerged he had campaigned on behalf of a friend who had been charged with possessing indecent images of children.

The peer, who stepped down as the UK prime minister’s communications chief last March, said in a statement on Tuesday that he had “never sought” a head of mission, ambassador “or any equivalent leadership-type posting”.