Keir Starmer has dismissed claims that the theft of his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney’s phone is connected to the release of files on Lord Peter Mandelson as “unlikely.” Concerns have been raised that important exchanges regarding Lord Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the US may have been lost due to the theft of the mobile phone in London in October 2025.
During an interview in Helsinki, the Prime Minister confirmed that the phone had indeed been stolen and refuted any insinuation that the incident was an attempt to withhold information. He emphasized that the theft was reported to the police, providing details of the incident and dismissing any conspiracy theories surrounding the timing of the theft.
In an unprecedented move, the Metropolitan Police released a statement in response to allegations that they had neglected to investigate the phone theft, clarifying that they were not too busy to address the matter. The loss of the phone potentially means that communications between Mr. McSweeney and Peter Mandelson could be lost, raising concerns about the security of sensitive information.
Keir Starmer was compelled to disclose a significant amount of correspondence and reports related to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson to the ambassadorial role, despite concerns over his associations with Jeffrey Epstein. The revelation of the phone theft comes shortly after Lord Mandelson’s dismissal, adding a new layer of complexity to the situation.
The call log from the stolen phone indicates that Mr. McSweeney identified it as a government device, but did not explicitly mention the nature of his role in Downing Street or the sensitivity of the messages stored on the phone.
Initially, when asked about the theft, Scotland Yard provided incorrect information regarding the location of the incident. They later acknowledged the error and committed to reviewing the evidence available for the investigation.
A spokesperson from the Metropolitan Police stated, “Having identified this error, the report will be corrected, and a reassessment of the available evidence will be conducted.”
