Image source, House of Commons

We’ve been bringing you updates from the Foreign Affairs Committee, where the prime minister's former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is giving evidence on Mandelson's appointment.

Meanwhile, over in the House of Commons, MPs are beginning a debate on whether to launch an inquiry into whether Starmer has misled Parliament.

The specific question MPs are debating is whether to refer Starmer to the Privileges Committee over statements he has made about Mandelson's appointment.

The Conservatives have put forward the motion for an investigation, which is backed by the Lib Dems and some other opposition parties. The prime minister denies misleading Parliament, and has called this a "stunt".

Labour has a big majority in the Commons, so it would take a large number of Starmer's own MPs voting with the opposition for the result to go against him. We'll bring you updates from the debate in this page, and continue to bring you highlights from McSweeney's appearance at the Foreign Affairs Committee, too.

• Here's a bit more on what the Privileges Committee is

McSweeney says there is pressure in government every day and that conversations on Lord Mandelson's vetting were taken at pace, but nothing improper was done.

He tells the committee: "There is a real difference between asking people to act at pace and asking people to lower standards and we never did that."

The former chief of staff says there could have been two occasions when he spoke to Philip Barton on a wider Zoom call, but the start date of Mandelson as ambassador was not regularly on the agenda.

McSweeney adds that he did not see anyone in No 10 acting dismissive about vetting or national security at any point.

It wasn't until September that McSweeney realised he "didn't get the truth" from Mandelson, he says.

This happened when Bloomberg surfaced files detailing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

He says he thought Mandelson had been telling the truth throughout the process.

Liberal Democrat MP Edward Morello then asks McSweeney if there were any all-out advocates for Peter Mandelson to get the ambassador role.

McSweeney answers no, saying that that is the same for a lot of appointments.

Returning to the topic of Matthew Doyle's mooted appointment, McSweeney is asked whether he has heard of the phrase "jobs for the boys".

McSweeney reiterates that the conversations had were around a "duty of care" for someone who was leaving their role. He adds that the same would be true if it was a woman leaving a senior role.

Doyle "wasn't promised a job", McSweeney continues, and if he had applied, his application would be considered in the same way as anyone else.

• For context: Doyle, Starmer's former director of communications, was suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party in February after it was revealed he campaigned for Sean Morton in 2017, after Morton was charged with child sex offences. Doyle apologised, saying it was an "error of judgement". There were subsequent claims that No 10 had considered an ambassadorial job for Doyle, but he said in a statement that he had "never sought" such a role

The conversation briefly switches to a discussion of former communications chief Matthew Doyle's mooted appointment as a diplomat in the Foreign Office as he left No 10.

Why did the prime minister want to keep conversations around this private from then Foreign Secretary David Lammy, McSweeney is asked.

He replies saying there were "difficult conversations" to be had with Doyle as his time in No 10 came to an end, and he wanted to keep the circle small around possible future opportunities for Doyle "because there was a HR issue".

"Somebody is leaving their job, you don't want a lot of people knowing it," he explains.

And if Doyle wanted to work in any of the advertised roles, he'd have had to apply like anybody else anyway, McSweeney adds.

McSweeney then says he wasn't aware of other conversations between the Foreign Office and No 10 where the foreign secretary had not been informed.

Image source, House of Lords

The Foreign Affairs Committee is continuing to question Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, about the appointment of Lord Mandelson as US ambassador.

Tory MP Aphra Brandreth pushes McSweeney on something ex-Foreign Office chief Philip Barton told the committee earlier - that there was no plan in place for if Mandelson failed his vetting.

"I didn't have a contingency plan in place but was always aware that somebody could fail security vetting," McSweeney now says.

He adds it would have been a "political embarrassment" if Mandelson failed - and the government would probably have asked Karen Pierce (who was doing the job in Washington before Mandelson) to stay on and then "thought of next steps".

Brandreth then asks whether the PM was in "full knowledge" of all the information when making the appointment, to which McSweeney says "he had all the knowledge that I had" - before insisting Starmer "wasn't aware of enough" because "Mandelson himself wasn't open enough with him".

When did Starmer actually make his Mandelson decision?published at 12:13 BST

12:13 BST

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

Quite an interesting exchange between Morgan McSweeney and the Conservative MP Sir John Whittingdale, there.

Whittingdale was pushing McSweeney hard on why the documents published by the government so far as part of the "humble address" have not included any records of when the PM actually made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador.

McSweeney suggested there was an eventual meeting where Starmer, with a close inner team, did make the final decision. But there is no minute or record of that meeting.

Expect this to form part of Kemi Badenoch’s case in the privileges debate later that, contrary to what Starmer has argued, due process was not followed.

Thornberry asks whether McSweeney gave Mandelson the job because he was his "hero".

McSweeney rejects this, saying that's an "exaggeration" of his relationship with Mandelson, saying his judgement was "always in the national interest" as he thought Mandelson's experience as EU Commissioner would help to get a trade deal with the US.

He says the first person to put Mandelson's name down for consideration was Mandelson himself. McSweeney then repeats Starmer was "keeping his cards close to his chest" in terms of candidates, particularly before the US presidential election.

McSweeney thought Mandelson had rebuilt a "reasonable reputation" for himself after his last resignation, and believed his relationship with Epstein was a "passing acquaintance".

Finding out that Mandelson's relationship with Epstein was more extensive was "like a knife through my soul", McSweeney says.

"I did not expect that level of connection."

"I thought he had reestablished himself as a credible, political figure," he says.

Chris Mason
Political editor

A couple of key quotes from Morgan McSweeney stand out for me so far.

Firstly, and unsurprisingly, that his enthusiasm for Lord Mandelson being appointed ambassador was "a serious mistake".

At the heart of his misjudgement, he said, was his understanding at the time that Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was as "a passing acquaintance" - and when he later discovered it was much closer than that it was like "a knife through my soul".

Image source, US Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The evidence session now runs through some of the meetings that happened in December 2024 that led up to the announcement that Peter Mandelson had been appointed as US ambassador.

Was there an agreement to tell the King and the incoming President Trump, in the knowledge that the appointment would be dependent on vetting, Thornberry asks.

McSweeney says he wasn't involved in any decisions about when to tell the King that Mandelson had been appointed.

Thornberry interjects to say that it "makes sense" that the appointment could not be made without vetting, but McSweeney explains that it "didn't jump out as a problem" for him at the time, citing his own appointment before he went through the Developed Vetting (DV) process.

"It didn't occur to me to ask because that's how I saw the practices being put in place," he says - adding that Starmer is right in saying it shouldn't happen, which is why he has taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen in the future.

McSweeney agrees it would have been "very embarrassing" for a lead candidate to fail the DV process but says if there had been problems, the candidate would have been pulled at that point.

Image source, PA Media

How did McSweeney persuade the PM that Peter Mandelson should be the lead candidate for the role of US ambassador, McSweeney is asked by Thornberry.

Mandelson's experience as an EU trade commissioner was the key reason, he replies.

But he's pushed by Thornberry on whether, as a friend of Mandelson’s, it is appropriate to speak to the prime minister during the due diligence process on him.

McSweeney agrees that in hindsight it would have been much better to have someone else ask the follow-up questions around due diligence.

"It wasn't my decision,” he stresses. “It was the prime minister's decision" to appoint Mandelson.

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

Morgan McSweeney was clear at the outset of his evidence that he advised in favour of Lord Mandelson's appointment and apologised for that.

But he has stopped short of taking full responsibility.

McSweeney's said a number of times other senior advisors and ministers were consulted and if it had just been him arguing for Mandelson's appointment, it would not have happened.

"It wasn't my decision. It was the prime minister's decision," he says.

Image source, PA Media

What happened in early December 2024, Dame Emily Thornberry asks, "for Mandelson to become the lead candidate".

McSweeney replies the first decision the prime minister had to make was "did he want a political appointment or not?"

Starmer would have made his decision and told his principal private secretary, so candidates could be procured.

"He could have gone in a different direction at that point", McSweeney says.

He continues saying he doesn’t recall having any strong disagreements with anyone in No 10.

Two "strong candidates" were procured for the PM - former Chancellor George Osborne, and Mandelson - and he told the PM these were both "appointable" candidates.

"I can't recall anyone saying that Mandelson was not appointable," he adds.

There were conversations being held in No 10 about who could be the best candidate for ambassador to Washington, McSweeney says, with several individuals making arguments for and against the names suggested.

He goes on to say there were a lot of people against the idea of Mandelson being appointed at the time, but adds Keir Starmer is the kind of person who will listen to a lot of views when making a decision.

He says that the prime minister likes to build a consensus within his team and that he took time the make the decision that he reached.

Image source, UK Parliament

Thornberry now asks if McSweeney sought advice on whether Mandelson could be US ambassador on a part-time basis, as Mandelson was also seeking a role as chancellor of Oxford University.

McSweeney replies that he doesn’t “have any recollection” of that, but Thornberry pushes for an answer.

Mandelson was "lobbying" for the ambassador role, McSweeney says, but "hedging" by looking at other opportunities, such as Oxford.

Mandelson holding both positions would be "incompatible", he adds.

McSweeney is asked to explain the process behind a political strategy document he penned - named 'Labour for the Country' - after the party lost a Hartlepool by-election.

Was Mandelson involved in writing this?

McSweeney replies that he wrote the document in February 2021 ahead of local elections, and asked Mandelson for his input.

"But I also sent it to half the Shadow Cabinet, I also sent it to other colleagues..." he adds, explaining that he'd usually send this sort of document to 10-15 people to get a wider view.

The former chief of staff is then asked about Mandelson's alleged involvement in a reshuffle after then Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner resigned in September 2025.

McSweeney clarifies Mandelson had been in No 10 on the day of the reshuffle but had no involvement in it.

Text messages he received from Mandelson that day were part of a number of messages he received from several people, McSweeney adds, suggesting he didn't reply to the texts or seek advice from Mandelson at the time.

Pushed further on why exactly the ambassador to the US was in No 10 that day, McSweeney says: "It wasn't a planned reshuffle", suggesting only the prime minister and a handful of senior staff were in the room as the reshuffle was organised.

Image source, Reuters

Describing his relationship with Peter Mandelson, McSweeney says the former ambassador was a "confidant" and an "adviser" at times, but he did not act as a "mentor", as has been suggested in some press coverage.

"I first had a conversation with Peter Mandelson in 2017,” he says.

“I don't think I really started going to him for advice until about 2021, he continues, adding the advice he got from Mandelson “was useful”.

Dame Emily Thornberry then asks about reports that Mandelson was helping to "vet [parliamentary] candidates" ahead of the 2024 UK general election and was given access to a "secret Google spreadsheet" of candidates.

McSweeney says he has no knowledge of the existence of any "secret spreadsheet", adding: "Mandelson had nothing to do with the selection, or the vetting, of any of our parliamentary candidates”.

Image source, EPA

A formal decision on who to appoint as ambassador was not made by Keir Starmer until after the US presidential election in November 2024, McSweeney says.

He adds that he doesn’t recall there being much discussion ahead of the election, and there was a list of candidates being considered.

"I don't think the prime minister would have chosen Mandelson if Kamala Harris had been elected president," he says.

McSweeney continues that he personally felt Mandelson was the strongest candidate due to his experience as European trade commissioner, as the prime minister's priority was to achieve a trade deal with the US.

Chris Mason
Political editor

An interesting early detail just now from Morgan McSweeney about the longevity of Sir Keir Starmer’s thinking about the appointment of an ambassador to Washington.

McSweeney told the committee that as early as January or February of 2024 - with the election, as it turned out, six months away and potentially further — Labour told the civil service in what are known as "access talks" that Sir Keir was minded to make a political appointment to Washington.

McSweeney continues with his statement by describing his role in appointing Mandelson.

He says he made a recommendation based on his judgement of Mandelson's "experience, relationships, political skills".

He adds: "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 that checks should be cleared at all costs.

"I would never have considered that acceptable."

He tells the committee he made a "serious mistake" in recommending the appointment of Mandelson, and says he hopes to help it establish facts today.