**
In a significant development regarding the controversy surrounding Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK ambassador to the United States, Ian Collard, the chief property and security officer at the Foreign Office, has announced he will provide written responses to a parliamentary committee rather than appearing in person. This decision comes after Emily Thornberry, a prominent Labour MP, requested his testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), scheduled for Tuesday.
Written Testimony Instead of Oral Evidence
On Saturday, Thornberry confirmed Collard’s choice to submit written answers, a move that will still allow him to clarify key points related to the ongoing investigation. The FAC has already heard from Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office’s former top civil servant, who departed from his position last week after a controversial decision to override security vetting recommendations concerning Mandelson. Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, has also provided evidence.
Collard’s prior experience includes serving as an ambassador to both Lebanon and Panama, and he has held his current position since March 2023. During the previous testimonies, Robbins indicated that Collard had advised him on the vetting outcomes, suggesting that Mandelson was considered a borderline case for security clearance, leaning towards a denial.
Thornberry’s Questions for Collard
In her communication with the Foreign Office, Thornberry has outlined several pertinent questions for Collard to address in his written response. These inquiries include:
– Whether he felt any pressure to facilitate Mandelson’s security clearance amid claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” from Downing Street.
– If he had reviewed the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) cover form for Mandelson, which indicated significant concerns and recommended denying clearance.
– Whether he received any requests from officials about the necessity of vetting for Mandelson, given his status as a member of the House of Lords.
– His advice regarding Mandelson’s treatment during the interim period between the announcement of his appointment and the finalisation of his security clearance.
Thornberry expressed her understanding of Collard’s decision not to provide oral evidence at this time, emphasising the importance of obtaining his written insight. She stated, “If we have further questions, we will consider at that point whether we need to ask him to give evidence orally, or whether a further written statement is sufficient.”
Ongoing Tensions in the Foreign Office
Robbins, who took over the Foreign Office in January 2025, has revealed that Mandelson was granted access to sensitive briefings prior to the confirmation of his security clearance. He admitted he had not seen the UKSV form during his deliberations on Mandelson’s vetting, despite being briefed on the general vetting process. Little added that there had initially been discussions about whether Mandelson required security vetting at all due to his parliamentary position.
Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, has publicly stated that Robbins failed to inform him of the vetting outcome, indicating that he would not have appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington had he been aware of the security concerns. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended his decision to dismiss Robbins, asserting that the pressures faced were typical of government operations.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Sunak differentiated between normal governmental pressures and those that might compromise security protocols. He noted that while there is a distinct urgency in government operations, there was no explicit pressure to overlook the security vetting process.
Why it Matters
The unfolding situation surrounding Mandelson’s appointment underscores critical issues of transparency and accountability within the UK government. The decision of key officials to bypass security protocols raises questions about the integrity of the vetting process and the potential influence of political pressure on national security decisions. As more evidence emerges, it will be vital for the Foreign Affairs Committee to ensure that all parties involved are held to account, safeguarding the principles of governance and public trust.
