**
Ian Collard, a pivotal figure in the controversy surrounding Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to the United States, has decided not to provide oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC). Instead, he will submit written responses to inquiries made by the committee. This decision comes as the political fallout from Mandelson’s security vetting continues to unfold.
Background of the Controversy
The saga began when Emily Thornberry, a prominent member of the opposition, called for Collard to testify before the FAC regarding the vetting process that has embroiled Mandelson in scrutiny. Thornberry announced on Saturday that Collard would not attend the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, opting instead for a written submission.
The committee has already heard from key officials, including Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, who was recently dismissed after the decision to deny Mandelson security clearance was overruled. The Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary, Cat Little, has also provided testimony. Notably, Morgan McSweeney, who served as chief of staff to Labour leader Keir Starmer, is set to appear before the committee on Tuesday.
Collard’s Role and Previous Testimony
Collard, who previously held the position of ambassador to both Lebanon and Panama, took on the role of chief property and security officer at the Foreign Office in March 2023. He has a history of providing evidence to parliamentary committees. According to Robbins, Collard had informed him that Mandelson was viewed as a borderline candidate for security clearance, leaning towards recommending denial.
Thornberry’s request for written responses seeks clarification on several key points. These include whether Collard felt pressured to facilitate Mandelson’s clearance amidst claims of “constant chasing” from Downing Street, and whether he had seen the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) cover form that flagged serious concerns about Mandelson’s candidacy.
Thornberry’s Statement and Further Questions
In a statement posted on social media platform X, Thornberry expressed her understanding of Collard’s decision not to provide oral testimony at this time. However, she highlighted the importance of his written answers, stating, “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.”
Robbins revealed that upon his appointment in January 2025, Mandelson was already receiving access to classified briefings despite his security clearance not being formally established. He acknowledged that he had not seen the UKSV documentation when making decisions regarding Mandelson’s vetting.
Starmer’s Position on the Vetting Process
Keir Starmer has defended his actions, asserting that Robbins failed to inform him of the negative outcome of the vetting process, and stated unequivocally that he would not have appointed Mandelson had he been made aware. The Prime Minister has supported the decision to dismiss Robbins, framing it as a response to the typical pressures of government rather than any undue influence regarding security concerns.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, the Prime Minister distinguished between the routine pressures of governance and any extraordinary pressures that might have sought to bypass security vetting protocols. He asserted that Robbins had indicated he was not subjected to any inappropriate pressure.
Why it Matters
The unfolding events surrounding Mandelson’s vetting have significant implications for the credibility of the UK’s diplomatic appointments and the integrity of its security vetting processes. As more details emerge, the potential ramifications for those involved could reshape the landscape of political accountability within the government. The situation underscores the delicate balance between political expediency and the necessity of adhering to security protocols, raising pressing questions about how future appointments will be scrutinised to maintain public trust.