**
In a notable development concerning the controversy surrounding 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 submit written responses rather than appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) this week. This decision comes amidst ongoing scrutiny of the vetting process that deemed Mandelson a borderline case for security clearance.
Collard’s Role in the Controversy
Ian Collard, who previously served as the UK ambassador to Lebanon and Panama, was appointed to his current role in March 2023. His testimony is crucial, given the conflicting accounts regarding Mandelson’s security vetting process. Emily Thornberry, a prominent figure in the opposition, had requested Collard’s appearance before the FAC on Tuesday, but he will instead provide written answers by a specified deadline.
The committee has already heard from key witnesses, including Olly Robbins, the former head of the Foreign Office, who was dismissed last week after his department’s decision to deny Mandelson’s clearance was overridden. Cat Little, the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, has also provided testimony. Morgan McSweeney, once chief of staff to Labour leader Keir Starmer, is scheduled to give his evidence on Tuesday.
Thornberry’s Inquiry
Thornberry has outlined a series of questions for Collard, seeking clarity on several critical points related to the vetting process. Among her inquiries is whether he felt pressured to facilitate Mandelson’s clearance, particularly after Robbins indicated that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” stemming from Downing Street.
Additionally, Thornberry has asked Collard to confirm whether he was aware of the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) cover form, which had flagged significant concerns regarding Mandelson’s clearance, and whether he had been consulted about the need for security vetting given Mandelson’s position in the House of Lords.
In her statement on X, Thornberry expressed satisfaction with Collard’s decision to provide written evidence, indicating that further questions may necessitate an oral appearance later on.
Robbins and Little’s Testimonies
Robbins, who took office in January 2025, revealed that Mandelson had been granted access to highly classified information on a case-by-case basis, even before his security clearance was officially confirmed. Notably, Robbins stated that he was not privy to the UKSV form when making decisions regarding Mandelson’s vetting.
Little added that there had initially been discussions about whether Mandelson required vetting at all due to his status as a member of the House of Lords. This ambiguity raises critical questions about the processes in place for high-ranking officials and their security clearance requirements.
Starmer’s Position
Keir Starmer has publicly asserted that Robbins should have informed him about the results of the vetting process, stating that he would not have endorsed Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington had he been aware of the findings. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended his decision to dismiss Robbins, characterising the pressures faced as commonplace within government operations. Sunak differentiated between routine pressures to expedite decisions and those that might compel disregarding security protocols, insisting that Robbins was clear that he had not faced inappropriate pressure.
Why it Matters
The ongoing scrutiny of the vetting process for high-profile appointments raises significant questions about transparency and accountability within the UK government. The handling of Mandelson’s case not only impacts public trust in governmental institutions but also sets a precedent for how future appointments are managed, especially in sensitive roles requiring rigorous security clearance. As the investigation unfolds, the implications of this controversy could reverberate through political circles, influencing the dynamics of government operations and oversight in the UK.