**
In a developing story surrounding Peter Mandelson’s contentious appointment as the UK ambassador to Washington, Ian Collard, the chief property and security officer at the Foreign Office, has declined to provide oral evidence before a parliamentary committee. Instead, he will submit written responses to questions raised by the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC). This decision follows a series of high-profile testimonies regarding the security vetting process that has embroiled Mandelson’s appointment in controversy.
Collard’s Decision and Committee Proceedings
Emily Thornberry, a prominent member of the FAC, had formally requested Collard’s appearance to clarify his role in the vetting process. However, on Saturday, she confirmed that he would instead respond in writing. The committee has already heard from several key figures, including Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office’s former top civil servant who was dismissed last week after his department overruled the initial vetting decision regarding Mandelson. Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, has also provided testimony.
Collard, who has previously served as an ambassador to Lebanon and Panama, was appointed to his current position in March 2023. Robbins revealed that Collard had briefed him on the findings of the vetting process, which deemed Mandelson a borderline case and leaned towards recommending that clearance be denied. Thornberry has requested Collard to elaborate on his recollections of this meeting and how they align with Robbins’s statements.
Thornberry’s Inquiries
Thornberry has outlined specific questions for Collard to address by 5pm on Monday. Among these inquiries, she seeks to ascertain whether he felt pressured to grant Mandelson clearance, in light of Robbins’s assertion of a “constant chasing” atmosphere emanating from Downing Street. She also inquired about the vetting form submitted by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), which had flagged significant concerns regarding Mandelson’s suitability. Furthermore, Thornberry wants clarity on whether Collard was consulted about the necessity of vetting Mandelson, considering his status as a member of the House of Lords.
In a statement on X, Thornberry expressed her understanding of Collard’s choice to submit written evidence, 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.”
The Context of the Controversy
Robbins, who took the helm at the Foreign Office in January 2025, noted that Mandelson had been granted access to sensitive briefings on a case-by-case basis, despite the absence of confirmed security clearance. He admitted to not having seen the UKSV vetting form during the decision-making process regarding Mandelson’s access. Little also testified that there had been initial discussions regarding whether Mandelson required security vetting at all due to his position in the House of Lords.
Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, has maintained that Robbins erred in not informing him about the outcomes of the vetting process. He asserted that had he been aware of the implications of the vetting, Mandelson would not have been appointed as ambassador. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in defending his decision to dismiss Robbins, emphasised that the pressure faced was typical of governmental operations, distinguishing it from any undue influence regarding security vetting.
A Distinction of Pressures
In a recent interview with the Sunday Times, Sunak elaborated on the nature of governmental pressure, stating, “There’s pressure – ‘Can we get this done quickly?’ – which is not an unusual pressure. That is the everyday pressure of government.” He further delineated that pressure to overlook security vetting would constitute a different scenario entirely, insisting that Robbins had clarified he did not face such undue pressure.
Why it Matters
The unfolding saga surrounding Ian Collard and Peter Mandelson’s security vetting highlights significant concerns regarding transparency and accountability within the UK government’s appointment processes. With key figures providing conflicting testimonies and the spectre of political pressure looming large, this investigation not only raises questions about the integrity of the vetting system but also underscores the delicate balance of power and influence in high-stakes diplomatic appointments. The outcome of these inquiries could have lasting implications for governance and public trust in the institutions that serve the nation.
