Tories claim McSweeney has ‘serious questions’ to answer about phone theft, after minister rejects ‘conspiracy’ thinking
The Conservatives are now claiming that Morgan McSweeney has “serious questions” to answer about the account he has given about the loss of his mobile phone last year.
Earlier today the Metropolitan police released the entire transcript of the conversation McSweeney had with a 999 call handler at least partly in response to suggestions that, if the PM’s chief of staff had really had his phone stolen, the Met would have taken it more seriously. The transcript shows that McSweeney revealed it was a government phone that had been taken, but did not disclose his job title, or the fact he worked in Downing Street. (See 11.54am.)
This has not stopped people suggesting that McSweeney wanted to get rid of the phone to avoid having the disclose his messages to Peter Mandelson (as he is now required to do – under a Commons humble address passed more than three months after the phone theft was reported).
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed talk of a cover-up. (See 11.36am.)
But Kemi Badenoch has let it be known that she thinks the conspiracy theorists might be onto something. (See 11.36am.)
But now her party has actually issued a press release headlined: Conservatives raise serious questions about Morgan McSweeney’s ‘stolen phone’.
It quotes Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister (and not a politician normally associated with tinfoil hat-type thinking), saying:
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. We know the government were worried about a humble address in October, shortly before McSweeney’s phone got ‘stolen’. McSweeney didn’t back up the messages and the government didn’t chase the Met for CCTV.
From the outset of the Mandelson affair Keir Starmer has tried to cover things up. The prime minister did it in September with ‘I didn’t know the depth of the relationship’. He didn’t want to release the Mandelson files in February until we forced the humble address. Now the chief of staff’s phone goes missing and there doesn’t seem to be any intent to get it back or retrieve the messages. Starmer needs to end this cover up now.
See 4.39pm for more on what the Tory press release says.
Key events
Afternoon summary
MPs urged to back state apology for Britain’s role in slavery
What are the 4 ‘serious questions’ Tories have for Morgan McSweeney – and do they add up?
Tories claim McSweeney has ‘serious questions’ to answer about phone theft, after minister rejects ‘conspiracy’ thinking
Campaigners urge government to go further on political donations and impose cap on sums that can be given
Swinney accuses Tories of ‘peddling doom-loop of despair’ in last FMQs before Holyrood elections
‘Fortunate timing’ – Badenoch not wholly convinced by McSweeney’s phone theft story, spokesperson suggests
Reform UK’s Richard Tice claims donations crackdown shows Labour ‘absolutely terrified’ of his party’s success
Reed accepts government has to act to stop shell companies funnelling ‘dark money’ to political parties
Reed says new rules coming into force today to stop ‘malign actors’ taking advantage of any delay
What Rycroft report says about how serious problem of foreign financial interference in UK politics is
Reed says crypto political donations ban coming into force today will cover even very small gifts
How cap on individual donations to political parties from Britons living abroad will work
Reed says from today Britons living abroad will only be able to give £100,000 a year to political parties
Reed says crypto donations moratorium, and cap on donations to parties from Britons living abroad, to take effect from today
Steve Reed makes statement to MPs about crackdown on funding rules for political parties
PMQs- snap verdict
Starmer confirms government to impose moratorium on crypto donations to political parties
Badenoch attacks Labour’s proposed approach to energy support as more spending for people on benefits
Met police releases transcript of McSweeney reporting phone theft to 999 to show he did not say he was PM’s chief of staff
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
Streeting urges people to reject ‘conspiracy’ theories about theft of Morgan McSweeney’s phone
Hundreds of UK teenagers to trial six-week social media curbs for major study
Streeting says he wants female NHS patients to pilot system letting them propose payment cuts for bad providers
Average band D council tax in England rising by 4.9%, or £111, this year, government figures confirm
‘Doge of the left’ could save UK taxpayers up to £30bn, says new green thinktank
Wes Streeting defends Treasury’s indication that energy support package would help poorer families, not richer ones
UK inflation held at 3% before global energy price hit from Iran war
What joint committee on national security strategy said about case for ban on crypto donations to parties
Review of foreign financial interference in UK politics to be published, with ban on crypto donations expected
Afternoon summary
The Conservative party has suggested that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff, has “serious questions” to answer about the theft of his mobile phone. (See 4.37pm.) Others disagree; Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed claims that McSweeney might have been deliberately trying to get rid of the phone as a conspiracy theory. (See 11.36am.)
A homophobic joke made by the leader of Reform Scotland is a “warning to this country of what is coming”, the first finister has said. As the Press Association reports, Malcolm Offord has apologised and denied he is homophobic after it emerged he made a joke about the late George Michael while giving a speech in 2018. Speaking at the Scottish parliament, Liberal Democrat MSP Jamie Greene shared concerns that there are people who “aspire to become MSPs” that are “cracking jokes at the expense of gay people”. He said:
The reality is we have seen in recent times a rise in antisemitic abuse and far-right protests, and there are people who aspire to become MSPs in this place who are spouting Islamophobic bile on social media and cracking jokes at the expense of gay people.
So, can I pose a challenge not just to the first minister, but to the leader of all political parties who hope to return members to this place, that they will commit their parties in the next parliamentary term to use their privilege of platform wisely, to debate with decency and remember that the language used in here affects people out there.
Swinney responded that the joke from Offord was a “warning to this country of what is coming”. He said:
I am horrified by some of the behaviour that is now expressed publicly in our society of racial intolerance, of hatred towards other people, there are people that stand with banners in my constituency outside a hotel accommodating asylum seekers with language which is hate-filled, and it is appalling.
The “joke” really is vile and gross, but if feel you really need to read it to understand the story, it is not hard to find on X.
For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.
These are from Danny Shaw, a former BBC home affairs correspondent and an adviser to Yvette Cooper for a brief period, on the Tory implicit allegations about Morgan McSweeney. (See 4.37pm and 4.39pm.)
So, what exactly is the allegation against Morgan McSweeney?
That he arranged the theft?
Or, disposed of his phone then lied, telling police and No 10 Security staff it had been stolen?
Both are absurd, frankly.
However, he did make three mistakes..
1 Not being clear about location of theft (somewhat understandable if you’ve just been victim of a street crime)
2 Not telling 999 operator phone contained sensitive info & case needed urgent response (harder to explain)
3 Thinking Met & govt security were joined up & would cross-check info he gave them (this is my assumption on what he probably thought at the time)
Mandelson appointment was disastrous for McSweeney & Govt. But the idea he would commit a serious criminal offence, risking imprisonment, to try to get rid of phone messages that are anyway probably stored elsewhere & retrievable … I just don’t buy it. Cock-up, not conspiracy.
MPs urged to back state apology for Britain’s role in slavery
Chris Osuh
Chris Osuh is a community affairs correspondent at the Guardian.
Parliament in the UK has been urged to push for a state apology for Britain’s role in enslavement and colonialism.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, was presenting a petition in parliament today to mark United Nations International Day for the Remembrance of Victims of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
As well as calling for the Commons to get the UK government to make a formal apology, the petition calls for an “all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice” to examine the legacy of colonialism and transatlantic slavery and propose steps to address the ongoing damage.
Ribeiro-Addy said:
To this day, our country has never provided a genuine apology for the crimes of British Empire or the transatlantic slave trade.
Rather than acknowledging these historical injustices and how they have shaped the world we live in today, our institutions have sought to sweep them under the carpet.
So many of the intersecting global challenges we now face are rooted in the legacies of enslavement and empire: from geopolitical instability to racism, inequality, underdevelopment and climate breakdown.
To truly confront these issues, we must acknowledge where they come from. An apology could be a meaningful basis for action, signalling our country’s commitment not simply to righting historic wrongs but to tackling ongoing issues they have created and exacerbated.
The petition highlights how, despite their “central role” in “the horrific system of African chattel enslavement and the violence of colonialism”, parliament, the UK government and the british monarchy have never made a “full and meaningful apology.”
It says former prime minister Tony Blair’s 2007 expression of “deep sorrow and regret for our nation’s role in the slave trade”, does not amount to a genuine apology for “the enslavement, trafficking, genocide, and exploitation committed under British authority.”
The petition adds:
We believe that a formal national apology and the establishment of an all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice would mark an essential first step towards acknowledging this grave historical injustice.
Only through truth and accountability can our nation begin to heal and engage honestly with the countries and communities affected — including discussions of reparatory justice, which must go beyond financial compensation to include education, restoration, and reconciliation.
What are the 4 ‘serious questions’ Tories have for Morgan McSweeney – and do they add up?
The Conservative party press release (see 4.37pm) lists four questions that the Tories say need to be answered. Here they are (direct quotes from the Tory press release) – with possible answers (from me).
1) Why did Morgan McSweeney not tell the Metropolitan Police that his stolen phone contained sensitive information?
Answer?: Because they did not ask that directly, because McSweeney did tell them it was a government phone, and because he had already called what he called his “office” (presumably No 10) about the theft?
2) Why did Morgan McSweeney not correct the Metropolitan Police when they repeatedly referred to Stepney when Morgan McSweeney was alleged to be in Westminster?
Answer?: It was not repeatedly; it was twice. At the first mention of Stepney, McSweeney did not confirm that. Asked if he was near Stepney Green Park, he then said “Yeah”. Perhaps he did not know the name of one of the small parks in Pimlico he might have been near, but assumed the call handler, with a map in front of them, did?
3) Why did Morgan McSweeney ask for police to update him on his personal email address when the theft related to a work device?
Answer?: Because he uses his No 10 work email for work?
4) Did Morgan McSweeney provide details on the phone and its nature to an investigating officer following the theft?
Answer?: Did the police get in touch to ask? There is nothing in the statement they issued today suggesting McSweeney was not giving them all the information they needed.
Tories claim McSweeney has ‘serious questions’ to answer about phone theft, after minister rejects ‘conspiracy’ thinking
The Conservatives are now claiming that Morgan McSweeney has “serious questions” to answer about the account he has given about the loss of his mobile phone last year.
Earlier today the Metropolitan police released the entire transcript of the conversation McSweeney had with a 999 call handler at least partly in response to suggestions that, if the PM’s chief of staff had really had his phone stolen, the Met would have taken it more seriously. The transcript shows that McSweeney revealed it was a government phone that had been taken, but did not disclose his job title, or the fact he worked in Downing Street. (See 11.54am.)
This has not stopped people suggesting that McSweeney wanted to get rid of the phone to avoid having the disclose his messages to Peter Mandelson (as he is now required to do – under a Commons humble address passed more than three months after the phone theft was reported).
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed talk of a cover-up. (See 11.36am.)
But Kemi Badenoch has let it be known that she thinks the conspiracy theorists might be onto something. (See 11.36am.)
But now her party has actually issued a press release headlined: Conservatives raise serious questions about Morgan McSweeney’s ‘stolen phone’.
It quotes Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister (and not a politician normally associated with tinfoil hat-type thinking), saying:
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. We know the government were worried about a humble address in October, shortly before McSweeney’s phone got ‘stolen’. McSweeney didn’t back up the messages and the government didn’t chase the Met for CCTV.
From the outset of the Mandelson affair Keir Starmer has tried to cover things up. The prime minister did it in September with ‘I didn’t know the depth of the relationship’. He didn’t want to release the Mandelson files in February until we forced the humble address. Now the chief of staff’s phone goes missing and there doesn’t seem to be any intent to get it back or retrieve the messages. Starmer needs to end this cover up now.
See 4.39pm for more on what the Tory press release says.
Campaigners urge government to go further on political donations and impose cap on sums that can be given
Groups campaigning for a fairer democratic system in the UK have broadly welcomed the Rycroft review, and the government’s response to it.
But they are also saying the government should go further, and impose a cap on the maximum amount any individual is allowed to donate to a political party.
This is from Tom Brake, a former Lib Dem MP who is now chief executive of Unlock Democracy.
Cryptocurrency donations pose a real and present threat to the integrity of UK democracy. They are hard to trace and easy to move across borders, creating clear risks of dirty and foreign money entering politics. The Rycroft review is right to recommend a moratorium on crypto donations, and it should only be lifted once we can be sure it is safe to do so.
We welcome the recommendation to base company donation limits on post-tax profits rather than revenue, and that no corporate donor can give more than their post-tax profits, averaged over the previous two years, in any given year. We also note the recommended cap on donations from overseas voters. But the government could and should go further still.
Big money distorts politics regardless of its origin. A fixed cap is needed across the board to prevent large donations, whether from overseas voters or domestic sources, from buying influence.
This is from Duncan Hames, another former Lib Dem MP who is now director of policy at Transparency International UK.
Philip Rycroft’s report is clear-eyed about the scale of the threat and his recommendations to tighten the rules deserve to be adopted through the representation of the people bill.
But even Rycroft acknowledges that his remit didn’t extend to the most fundamental question — whether to cap how much any single donor can give. He recognises that unlimited donations are driving an arms race for funds and invites parliament to debate this during the Bill’s passage. Parliament should take him up on that.
A meaningful annual cap on donations is the most robust safeguard against both foreign interference and the outsized influence of big money in our politics.
And this is from Jess Garland, director of policy and research for the Electoral Reform Society.
The representation of the people bill would be greatly strengthened by taking on the recommendations of Rycroft’s report. However, the government must go further and also bring in a cap on how much all donors can give to a party, not just those based abroad. This is widely supported by the public and would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions.
Swinney accuses Tories of ‘peddling doom-loop of despair’ in last FMQs before Holyrood elections
Libby Brooks
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
Today was the final first minister’s questions – moved from the usual Thursday to Wednesday to fit recess timings – before the Holyrood elections on 7 May and it was very much as though the campaign has already started.
Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay attacked “jaded” John Swinney and his “dishonest incompetent and sleazy government”. Swinney told Findlay he was “peddling a doom-loop of despair” and that his party was going to get “trashed” on election day.
Anas Sarwar likewise attacked the SNP government’s record, but Swinney hit back at the Scottish Labour leader’s very public U-turn in support for Keir Starmer showed him to be “a man of poor judgment the people of Scotland should not listen to on 7 May”.
More significant than the raucous end-of-term atmosphere in the chamber is the fact that a third of MSPs there – 42 of them – won’t be seeking re-election in May. A record number of members are stepping down – including two former first ministers, Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf, two former party leaders, Douglas Ross and Richard Leonard, a slew of former and current government ministers and the presiding officer.
After FMQs, a motion of thanks for their public service is the final debate in the chamber before the election.
But what does this turnover mean for the next parliament? As we’ve reported previously, many SNP women in particular say they’re stepping down because Holyrood is becoming a “hostile environment” for women, with bullying and online abuse rife.
A number of younger MSPs, including the ridiculously talented Kate Forbes, have said they are stepping down because they can’t make a government job work with raising a young family. There are, of course, many able candidates – with experience of local government and the Commons – who may replace them come May, but – particularly with Reform neck and neck with Labour in some polls – the new parliament is going to look and feel very different.
‘Fortunate timing’ – Badenoch not wholly convinced by McSweeney’s phone theft story, spokesperson suggests
Kemi Badenoch is not wholly convinced by Morgan McSweeney’s account of how his phone came to be stolen, her spokesperson has suggested.
At a post-PMQs briefing, the spokesperson said that Badenoch had “definitely raised an eyebrow” over the past 24 hours after hearing McSweeney’s account of how the phone got taken.
The phone is likely to have contained messages betweeen McSweeney and Peter Mandelson (they were close, and McSweeney was instrumental in persuading Keir Starmer to appoint Mandelson ambassador to the US) and the disappearance of the phone may mean that McSweeney/Mandelson messages meant to be disclosed to the public now don’t get retrieved. (See 11.36am.)
Badenoch is among those who think there may be something fishy going on. Asked if Badenoch thought McSweeney was lying about this, the spokesperson said it was now clear that McSweeney’s phone went missing around the time people in Downing Street were starting to worry about a humble address. (They have been reading Dan Hodges on X.)
Asked again if McSweeney was lying, the spokesperson said:
I think what Kemi would say is that it is very fortunate timing.
Reform UK’s Richard Tice claims donations crackdown shows Labour ‘absolutely terrified’ of his party’s success
Reform UK claims the crackdown on donations in crypto and from Britons living abroad announced today shows the government is “absolutely terrified” of the success it is having. Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, has made the claim in an interview with GB News. He also said Reform would repeal the law if it won the election.
‘Everything they’re trying to do is to stop the incredible progress of Reform.’
Deputy Leader of Reform UK Richard Tice, slams Sir Keir Starmer’s intentions to introduce a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations to parties. pic.twitter.com/YrbETu4ZSm
— GB News (@GBNEWS) March 25, 2026
During PMQs Nigel Farage led a walkout of Reform UK MPs after Keir Starmer ignored the thrust of his question and instead used it as a platform to attack Farage’s party generally. (See 12.23pm.) You won’t seen any video footage of this because the Commons rules only allow MPs in the chamber to be filmed if they are speaking, or if they are directly referred to by the MP who is speaking.
But Suella Braverman, the Reform UK home affairs spokesperson, did return to the chamber to ask a question during the Reed statement. She pointed out that the husband of a Labour MPs has been arrested in connection with alleged spying for China, and she asked if the new rules would also apply to “those members of [the Labour] party who find themselves compromised with the Chinese Communist party”.
Reed told her the rules would apply “without fear and favour to members of all parties”, as did the bribery law that led to the jailing of the former Reform UK leader in Wales, Nathan Gill.
Reed accepts government has to act to stop shell companies funnelling ‘dark money’ to political parties
The Lib Dem MP Bobby Dean asked Reed if he accepted that the government had to do more to stop malign actors channelling money to political parties through companies. He said a recent report from CenTax (the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation) said a quarter of corporate donations were opaque.
Here is an extract from the CenTax report. (Bold type from CenTax.)
Almost one in every ten pounds donated by companies comes indirectly from individuals who are likely to be ineligible to donate directly. Their donations are on average almost twice as large as those from companies with UK-eligible owners. These are conversative figures: the true extent of foreign interference is obscured by the large proportion of opaque corporate donors.
Around a quarter of donor companies are opaque, meaning it is not possible to identify who controls them as they either report no person with significant control at all, or control runs through someone else, such as a trustee, rather than a beneficial owner. These opaque companies account for a quarter of all corporate donations by value and companies that donate are significantly less transparent than UK companies generally.
Reed said there were measures in the representation of the people bill covering corporate donations. But he implied more needed to be done.
I recognise the concerns we need to act on shell companies that can be used to funnel in dark money. We have no idea where that is coming from. There are legitimate concerns that could be coming from hostile states, who are seeking to weaken and undermine our country, by undermining our democracy.
Stephen Gethins (SNP) asked what impact the new rules would have on the “extraordinary number of members of the House of Lords” who also turn out to be donors to political parties. Reed did not address this point, but he told Gethins he would be talking to the Scottish government about the impact of the rules for Scotland.
In response to a question from Simon Hoare, a Conservative, Reed accepted that these rules would place new obligations on the Electoral Commission and he said “of course” the commission would get resources “adequate to any new demands that may be placed on them”.
In the Commons Lisa Smart, the Lib Dem Cabinet Office spokesperson, welcomed Reed’s announcement. But she said the government should be doing more to stop foreigners donating to political parties via companies operating in the UK. And she said politicians should be banned from taking money from state-run foreign TV stations, like Russia’s RT or Iran’s Press TV.
Reed says new rules coming into force today to stop ‘malign actors’ taking advantage of any delay
James Cleverly, the shadow local government secretary, responded to Steve Reed in the Commons on behalf of the Tories. He said that there was much in the report with which the Conservative would “instinctively” agree, but he complained about not being given enough time to look at the recommendations before the statement. And he also criticised the government for rushing to implement its recommendations.
Reed said, if he hadn’t announced that some of these measures would take place from today, that would allow a “window of opportunity to open which would allow malign and hostile actors to evade the intent that we’re all seeking”.
