The government is facing questions after it emerged that the prime minister’s former chief of staff’s phone was stolen, leading to the likely loss of his messages with sacked US ambassador Lord Peter Mandelson.
The government-issued device was reported stolen after Mandelson’s firing, but before parliament forced the government to publish all papers and communications relating to his appointment and time in office.
However, the theft of a device containing so much sensitive information, as well as the feared loss of messages of which parliament has mandated the release, has raised a number of questions, particularly after the police admitted they took down the wrong address of the theft.
So what do we know about what has happened?
Mr McSweeney’s government-issued iPhone was stolen shortly before 22.30pm on 20 October, the Metropolitan Police has confirmed.
This was a month after Lord Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to the US following the release of a cache of emails showing he had a much closer relationship with deceased paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein than previously known.
The police have taken the unusual step of releasing a transcript of Mr McSweeney’s emergency call to police reporting the theft, which reveals confusion over where it actually occurred.
Although Mr McSweeney said it was on “Belgrave Street in Westminster”, it was misrecorded by the police call handler as Belgrave Street in Tower Hamlets.
The explanation for this is that the street in Westminster is actually called Belgrave Road, and when the call handler typed “Belgrave Street” into their system, it entered the address as East London, which went unnoticed. The force has now reopened the investigation.
In addition, although Mr McSweeney said it was a “government phone”, he did not say he was the prime minister’s chief of staff, and the Met Police has said that it means the detail “could not reasonably have shaped our decision-making”.
It is worth noting that over 2,000 government devices across all departments were lost or stolen in 2024, according to figures published by The Guardian.
However, Mr McSweeney did tell the call handler that the phone has a tracking system, and he told the police call handler that he phoned his office before calling 999. Sky News understands the Number 10 security team was informed.
In addition, the prime minister’s spokesman told journalists that “long-established and robust processes to manage information security following the theft of government work devices” were deployed.
Why is the theft of McSweeney’s phone an issue?
Firstly, he was the prime minister’s chief of staff, so the PM’s most senior political advisor. His phone contained the contact details for and messages with Sir Keir Starmer, the cabinet, and the most senior British officials.
This is information that the foreign intelligence services of adversaries like Russia, China and Iran would be very interested in obtaining.
But there is controversy because it also contained messages exchanged with Lord Mandelson, who had been fired as US ambassador just over a month before it was stolen.
The humble address passed by the Commons specifically mandates the release of “electronic communications between the prime minister’s chief of staff and Lord Mandelson” because Mr McSweeney is said to have been the main advocate for his initial hiring – which led to his resignation from Downing Street last month.
It is now feared that those messages are completely lost, although Sky News understands that the Cabinet Office does hold some messages between the pair. They have not yet been published, but the government says it is “committed to complying with the humble address in full”.
What outstanding questions are there?
Opposition politicians are raising questions about whether Mr McSweeney complied with data retention rules, which require senior officials to ensure all significant information is recorded on government systems.
Former Tory cabinet minister Sir James Cleverly wrote on X: “There should not have been anything on McSweeney’s phone about the appointment of Mandelson that wasn’t forwarded to the Civil Service. Where are the messages?”
Downing Street repeatedly declined to say this afternoon if Mr McSweeney followed government guidance on handling messages, indicating it was up to him to decide how it applied to exchanges with Lord Mandelson, which are feared to be lost after the theft of his phone.
The official also told journalists: “There is established guidance in place for the management and recording of electronic communications on non-corporate communications channels, including WhatsApp.
“Messages only need to be kept where they relate to substantive discussions or decisions that form part of the official record.
“Significant government information exchanged via these channels must be captured into government systems by copying, forwarding, screenshotting or recording its substance.
“That applies regardless of how and where the communication takes place, including on personal devices.”
