**
In a significant development regarding Peter Mandelson’s controversial 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 testify in person. This decision follows requests from MPs for clarity on the security vetting process that has embroiled Mandelson in scrutiny.
Collard’s Written Response Decision
Emily Thornberry, a prominent member of the foreign affairs committee (FAC), had sought Collard’s presence at a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. However, it was confirmed that he would instead submit written evidence. This move has raised eyebrows, as Collard is a pivotal figure in the ongoing discussions surrounding the vetting process that evaluated Mandelson’s suitability for the ambassadorial role.
Collard, who previously served as ambassador to Lebanon and Panama, was appointed as the Foreign Office’s chief property and security officer in March 2023. His insights are particularly sought after, given that he had previously briefed Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office’s chief civil servant, about the vetting findings that suggested Mandelson was a “borderline case” for security clearance.
Ongoing Committee Hearings
The foreign affairs committee has already heard testimonies from Robbins, who recently left his position following the controversy, and Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office. The committee’s inquiry is focused on understanding the nature of pressures that may have influenced the vetting process for Mandelson, who has been granted access to sensitive briefings despite not having his security clearance confirmed.
In her correspondence to Collard, Thornberry has requested detailed accounts regarding a series of critical points. These include whether he felt any pressure to facilitate Mandelson’s clearance, his awareness of any concerning findings on the vetting form, and the advice given regarding Mandelson’s need for vetting due to his position as a member of the House of Lords.
The Context of the Controversy
Robbins has indicated that by the time he took over his role in January 2025, Mandelson was already receiving highly classified information on a selective basis. This situation arose despite the absence of an approved security clearance, raising questions about the protocols that govern access to sensitive material. The committee has been tasked with dissecting the layers of oversight—or lack thereof—that led to this predicament.
Furthermore, Thornberry stated via social media that she understands Collard’s decision to forego oral testimony but remains vigilant about the need for comprehensive evidence. Should further questions arise from his written testimony, the committee may reconsider the necessity of his oral appearance.
Starmer’s Stance on the Fallout
Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, has expressed that he would not have supported Mandelson’s appointment had he been made aware of the security vetting outcomes. He maintains that Robbins should have communicated the results of the vetting process to him. Starmer has also defended his decision to dismiss Robbins, characterising the pressure faced by the former official as part of the routine demands of government rather than an extraordinary intervention.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Starmer clarified the nature of the pressures involved, distinguishing between standard governmental urgency and undue influence regarding security vetting. This distinction is crucial as it shapes the narrative of accountability within the ongoing inquiry.
Why it Matters
The unfolding situation surrounding Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador underscores significant concerns about the integrity of the UK’s security vetting processes and the potential influence of political pressures on such critical decisions. As the foreign affairs committee continues its investigation, the implications for government transparency and accountability are profound. The outcome of this inquiry will not only affect those directly involved but also set a precedent for how future appointments are handled, especially in sensitive roles that require rigorous scrutiny to maintain national security.
