The appointment of Peter Mandelson has blown a hole in the credibility of Britain’s security protocols. Former national security advisers and experts are now warning that the standard vetting process is woefully inadequate for figures carrying decades of political and commercial baggage.

Downing Street’s determination to parachute the former Labour grandee into a senior diplomatic role bypassed the necessary scrutiny, according to Lord Peter Ricketts, a former national security adviser. The standard check used for career civil servants is designed for individuals with predictable, linear careers. It is wholly unsuited for a figure like Mandelson, whose three decades in the stratosphere of global politics and business have accumulated layers of complexity that require a forensic, not procedural, approach.

The "Master of Dark Arts" Exception

The core of the issue lies in the specific "awkward questions" that were never asked. Ricketts argues that for a candidate of Mandelson's profile, the process should have included detailed interviews with associates from his past lives. Instead, the process was streamlined. Insiders reveal that Number 10 "wanted Peter to be the answer," creating a confirmation bias that brushed aside informal concerns. When issues were raised regarding his 2005 association with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, they were dismissed with a terrifying rationale: Mandelson was considered "such a master of the dark arts" that his murky connections were viewed as an asset rather than a liability.

The timeline itself betrays the lack of rigour. Mandelson's appointment on December 20, 2024, was subject to "developed vetting." This comprehensive check usually takes months, yet for Mandelson, it was wrapped up in less than eight weeks. MI5 and MI6 offered no objections, but their remit was strictly limited to current national security threats, a narrow scope that missed the broader picture of reputational risk and integrity.

• The Epstein Blind Spot: Most damning is the treatment of Mandelson's well-documented friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. While the media had reported it extensively, the vetting process did not consider association with a convicted sex offender a "national security matter" on par with terrorism.
• Systemic Failure: Unlike ambassadors who renew their vetting every seven years, ministers are not subject to "developed vetting." Mandelson fell into a grey area where his past escaped deep scrutiny.
• A Foregone Conclusion: Sources confirm that minds were made up long before the forms were filled. The vetting was a rubber stamp, not a stress test.

A System Unfit for Purpose

The fallout from this appointment exposes a dangerous naivety at the heart of the British establishment. It assumes that political stature is a proxy for integrity. As Lord Ricketts points out, the system is designed to catch spies, not to untangle the complex webs of influence, favours, and friendships woven by modern powerbrokers. By fast-tracking Mandelson, Downing Street has not only risked a diplomatic scandal but has admitted that for the right person, the rules are merely suggestions.