Wormald, head of the civil service, confirmed that there was “no panel interview” for Mandelson’s role, chosen by Prime Minister Keir Starmer through direct ministerial appointment.
A panel interview typically queries a candidate about any past issues potentially damaging to the government, Wormald explained, but Mandelson bypassed this process, so such questions were not asked directly.
Mandelson’s ties to Epstein arose during due diligence checks, stated Robbins. However, Wormald mentioned that the information leading to Mandelson’s removal was “not available at the time of due diligence.”
Labour MP Uma Kumaran argued it should have been obvious that a “well-publicized friendship with the world’s most infamous pedophile could be problematic for the government.” Conservative MP Aphra Brandreth listed public information on Mandelson, highlighting his close relationship with Epstein and his stay at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse post-guilty plea.
Brandreth questioned: “When were concerns about this raised, and why does a minor new detail suddenly change it from being appropriate to inappropriate?”
In the House of Commons in September after the dismissal, Starmer stated the Mandelson-Epstein relationship was “far different from what I understood at appointment,” adding, “Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”
Under committee questioning, Robbins confirmed that Mandelson, who expressed regret over his past association with Epstein, is no longer on the government payroll but declined to reveal if Mandelson received a settlement.
They mentioned several reforms to the direct ministerial appointment system since Mandelson’s appointment. Wormald said these changes would “effectively replicate a panel interview process,” introducing more scrutiny.
Leave a Reply