The Peter Mandelson scandal has cast a harsh spotlight on the UK’s vetting process for high-level public appointments. Former UK ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, described the procedure as a “thorough” and lengthy affair that typically takes “weeks and weeks” and involves digging into sources beyond nominated referees.
Darroch’s comments raise serious questions about how Mandelson’s appointment was approved despite his known ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and more specifically, how the incriminating emails were not discovered. He acknowledged the technical difficulty of accessing old or closed email accounts, suggesting a potential gap in the intelligence-gathering capabilities of the vetting system.
The government, via Business Secretary Peter Kyle, has insisted that the Cabinet Office’s independent inquiry only turned up information that was already in the public domain. He claims the decision to appoint Mandelson was a political one, based on a risk assessment of that public information, and that the crucial emails were a surprise to No. 10.
This distinction between public knowledge and private correspondence is now at the center of the political storm. The failure to unearth such damning evidence before appointing an ambassador to the UK’s most important ally suggests a significant vulnerability in the system designed to prevent precisely this kind of catastrophic embarrassment.
Vetting in the Spotlight: Ex-Ambassador Questions How Epstein Emails Were Missed
