**
In a significant development within the ongoing controversy regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK Ambassador to Washington, Ian Collard, the chief property and security officer at the Foreign Office, has opted to provide written responses to a parliamentary committee rather than appearing in person. This decision comes amidst heightened scrutiny and questions surrounding the security vetting process that deemed Mandelson a borderline candidate for clearance.
Ian Collard’s Decision to Submit Written Evidence
Emily Thornberry, the MP who has been vocal about the vetting issue, had originally requested that Collard appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) on Tuesday. However, Collard has confirmed he will instead submit written answers, a move that has raised eyebrows given the gravity of the situation.
The committee has previously heard evidence from key figures including Olly Robbins, the former head of the Foreign Office, who was dismissed from his role last week following the fallout from the vetting process. Robbins revealed that he was informed by Collard about the vetting findings, which leaned towards recommending that Mandelson be denied clearance.
Context of the Vetting Controversy
The controversy centres around the decision-making process that led to Mandelson, a prominent Labour figure, being granted access to sensitive information without proper security vetting. Robbins has stated that on his appointment in January 2025, Mandelson was already receiving classified briefings on a case-by-case basis, despite the lack of confirmed clearance.
The FAC is keen to understand the dynamics at play during the vetting process, particularly whether Collard felt any external pressure to expedite Mandelson’s clearance. Thornberry has specifically requested details about a meeting Collard had with Robbins and whether this aligns with Robbins’s previous testimony.
Key Questions for Collard
In her correspondence with the Foreign Office, Thornberry has outlined a series of questions for Collard to address. Among the inquiries are whether he felt pressured to ensure Mandelson received clearance, whether he had seen the vetting form that raised “high concern” flags regarding Mandelson’s suitability, and if he provided any advice on Mandelson’s vetting given his position in the House of Lords.
Thornberry expressed understanding regarding Collard’s choice to submit written evidence, stating, “To be clear, I am satisfied by the reasons behind Ian Collard not giving oral evidence before the FAC at the moment.” She indicated that further questioning might necessitate an oral appearance later on.
The Political Fallout
The political implications of this situation extend to Labour leader Keir Starmer, who has maintained that he was not informed of the outcomes of the vetting process for Mandelson. He has insisted that had he been aware of the circumstances surrounding Mandelson’s clearance, he would not have supported his appointment as ambassador.
Starmer defended the actions of Robbins, asserting that the pressures faced were typical of governmental operations. He differentiated between routine pressures to expedite processes and the more serious implications of disregarding security protocols.
Why it Matters
The unfolding saga surrounding Ian Collard and Peter Mandelson is not merely a bureaucratic concern; it underscores the delicate balance between political expediency and national security. As the FAC continues its inquiry, the findings could have lasting repercussions on the UK’s diplomatic integrity and the public’s trust in governmental processes. With the potential for more revelations to surface, the implications of this scandal could resonate far beyond Westminster, impacting the credibility of the Foreign Office and the political landscape as a whole.
