Streeting Raises Concerns Over Police Handling of McSweeney Phone Theft
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has called for scrutiny regarding the Metropolitan Police's decision not to pursue an investigation into the theft of Morgan McSweeney's phone.
McSweeney, who served as Sir Keir Starmer's former chief of staff, resigned last month amid controversy surrounding his involvement in Lord Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the United States.
On Tuesday, police confirmed that McSweeney had reported his phone stolen in October of the previous year. However, officers recorded an incorrect address, which led to the case being closed prematurely.
Given that the phone may have contained messages related to Lord Mandelson, Streeting expressed that he was
"not surprised by the cynicism"but did not
"assume deceit"on McSweeney's part.
Parliamentary Demand for Documents and Potential Impact of Phone Theft
Last month, Members of Parliament mandated the government to release tens of thousands of documents concerning Lord Mandelson's appointment in 2024. This followed inquiries into the vetting process and what was known about Mandelson's connections to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The release could include messages from ministers and government aides, raising concerns about whether critical communications stored on McSweeney's stolen phone will be accessible.
The phone theft occurred a month after Lord Mandelson was dismissed as the Washington ambassador, but several months before Parliament voted to publish the correspondence related to the appointment through a parliamentary mechanism known as a humble address.
Streeting Attributes Issues to Error, Not Conspiracy
Streeting emphasized that the situation likely resulted from
"cock-up rather than conspiracy"during an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain. He stated:
"I do trust the account that Morgan McSweeney's phone was stolen, for a couple of reasons.
It was reported to police at the time - I think there's a separate set of questions as to why this wasn't dealt with given that it was a phone of a senior government official that would have contained sensitive information.
I suspect many people watching who've had their phone nicked will not be remotely surprised that police haven't done anything because that's been their experience too, but it is serious that something that will have contained sensitive information wasn't properly investigated."
Streeting further noted that McSweeney
"couldn't have known"in October, when he reported the theft, that MPs would seek the phone's contents in February, describing the order to release documents as
"unprecedented".
Government Response and Information Security Measures
A government spokesperson previously stated:
"We are committed to complying with the humble address in full while continuing to support the Metropolitan Police with their investigation."
It is understood that the government has established protocols to manage information security following the theft of government work devices. However, officials declined to comment on specific security matters.
Streeting added that the theft should
"absolutely"have been reported to the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office, Cat Little. It is understood that the Cabinet Office holds some of the messages exchanged between McSweeney and Lord Mandelson.
Metropolitan Police Reassess Evidence After Address Error
The Metropolitan Police are now reviewing the available evidence concerning the alleged phone theft after discovering that officers had recorded the wrong address when McSweeney initially reported the crime.
A Met Police spokesperson said:
"On Monday October 20 police received a report from a man in his 40s alleging that his phone had been snatched.
The incident was recorded as having taken place in Belgrave Street, E1.
A review of the allegation, including a consideration of whether there was available CCTV, did not identify any realistic lines of inquiry. The investigation was subsequently closed.
In the course of responding to a recent media inquiry, we became aware that the address was entered incorrectly at the time of the initial call and should instead have been recorded as Belgrave Road, Pimlico.
Having identified this error, the report will be amended and the assessment of whether there is available evidence revisited."
for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
