Morgan McSweeney admits advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador was 'serious error of judgment'

Morgan McSweeney, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has admitted that advising the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the United States was a "serious error of judgment".

In an opening statement to a committee, McSweeney began by recognising the harm done to Jeffrey Epstein's victims and talked about the importance of public service. "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."

He then addressed the Mandelson appointment directly. "The appointment of Manderson 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 advice relied on my advice and I got it wrong."

McSweeney revealed there were two strong candidates on the shortlist for Starmer: Mandelson and George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor. He said he regarded Mandelson as the lead candidate "because of his experience as an EU trade commissioner and the political skills that I thought he could bring to the table".

When asked about reported opposition from the Trump team to Mandelson's appointment, McSweeney suggested the Trump team did not specifically talk about Mandelson. However, they did think Karen Pierce, the serving ambassador, was doing an excellent job. McSweeney said there were "a lot of people saying Mandelson would be a good appointment".

McSweeney stated Starmer would not have appointed Mandelson if all his other advisers had been opposed. "At the time in Downing Street, there was conversations about who, who could be the best candidate. And names that were considered and most people were making pros and cons arguments. 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."

On whether he sought advice on whether Mandelson could combine the ambassador role with being chancellor of Oxford University, McSweeney said he had no recollection of that. He said he regarded being an ambassador as a full-time job and told Mandelson he could not combine both roles.

McSweeney denied telling officials to ignore vetting procedures. "What I did not do was oversee national security vetting, ask officials to ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped, or communicate, explicitly or implicitly, the checks should be cleared at all costs. I would never have considered that acceptable. These processes are in place to protect our national security."

He described Mandelson as a confidant but not a mentor. "I didn't regard him as my mentor. I first had a conversation with Peter Mandelson in 2017. I don't think I really started to go to him for advice until about 2021. And I was 44 years of age then. So I didn't regard him at all as a mentor."