The former Downing Street adviser at the centre of a mystery over his stolen mobile phone used two other handsets which could contain messages relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, sources have revealed.
Morgan McSweeney is under pressure to explain the full details of the theft he reported last October, when MPs were pushing for the disclosure of corresponence that could explain why Lord Mandelson was given the job despite his connections with Jeffrey Epstein.
At the time, with the Tories plotting to use a Commons procedure to force the disclosure of all messages about his appointment and resignation, Downing Street aides held meetings to come up with a strategy for ‘Morgan’s messages’.
A few days later, on October 20, Mr McSweeney, then No 10 chief of staff, reported that his official iPhone had been snatched in London.
After Mr McSweeney reported the incident to Downing Street the device was wiped remotely.
Now The Mail on Sunday has established Mr McSweeney also possessed two private phones: one was deactivated earlier this year, while the other one is still in service.
Asked this weekend if all his phones had been searched for applicable messages, No 10 said that it was still in the process of asking ‘relevant individuals’ for messages relating to Lord Mandelson.
On Friday the Cabinet Office asked Lord Mandelson for the messages on his personal phone, two months after MPs demanded their publication.
Scotland Yard was forced to reopen the investigation into the reported theft last week after questions were raised over the sequence of events.
Detectives are examining CCTV footage from the street where Mr McSweeney claims he was robbed, and have asked him to provide a formal statement about the incident.
To add to the intrigue, a senior official in Boris Johnson’s government has said the messages on Mr McSweeney’s government phone should have been backed up.
Helen MacNamara, who was the Deputy Cabinet Secretary during the Covid pandemic, said: ‘It’s really simple. If it belongs to the Government and it’s the business of the State, the records should be kept.
‘They can be kept on the phone, but then the things on the phone should be periodically transferred on to the official record. It’s not massively complicated.’
A call log published by Scotland Yard showed that Mr McSweeney told an officer that his phone had been snatched by a bike rider as he walked home from a restaurant in Pimlico, central London.
But he gave the police call handler the incorrect location, telling them he was in Belgrave Street, which is in east London, rather than Belgrave Road in Westminster.
As a result, Scotland Yard’s initial attempt to recover CCTV of the incident was doomed from the start.
Mr McSweeney also failed to tell the police that he worked at No 10, meaning the Yard did not realise that the device could contain sensitive material and contacts. He also gave his Scottish rather than his London address.
In addition, The Telegraph reported yesterday that Mr McSweeney failed to respond to police requests asking if he had managed to locate the missing phone using its inbuilt tracker.
Ministers fear that Mr McSweeney could be forced to appear before MPs to clear up the mysteries surrounding his relationship with Lord Mandelson, the messages that were exchanged and the phone theft.
It comes after Tory leader Kemi Badenoch hinted that she was ready to force another Commons vote to compel Mr McSweeney to give evidence to explain ‘exactly what happened and why Keir Starmer signed off on Peter Mandelson’s appointment despite the warnings’.
Mr McSweeney resigned last month over his role in the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as the British Government’s representative in Washington.
A No 10 spokesman said: ‘All government departments, ministers and relevant individuals are in the process of being asked to provide information they hold.’
