Ian Collard, a central figure in the controversy surrounding Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK ambassador to Washington, will not appear in person before a parliamentary committee to give evidence. Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), confirmed on Saturday that the Foreign Office’s chief property and security officer will instead submit written answers to the committee’s questions.
Written Testimony Instead of Oral Evidence
The request for Mr. Collard to speak to the committee this coming Tuesday was declined by the department. Dame Emily Thornberry stated on X that she is satisfied with the reasons behind the decision to avoid oral evidence at this time.
However, the committee has set a deadline of 5pm on Monday for Mr. Collard to provide written responses. Thornberry indicated that the committee may still request oral evidence if further questions arise after reviewing the written statement.
The Vetting Dispute
The row centers on conflicting accounts of how security warnings were communicated. The government asserts that UKSV provided an explicit recommendation not to approve vetting for Lord Mandelson. In contrast, Sir Olly Robbins, the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, claimed he only received a verbal briefing describing the case as “borderline.”
Sir Olly, who was forced out of his post last week, stated that Mr. Collard was the official who briefed him on these findings. Sir Olly maintained that he had never seen the actual UKSV form when he made the decision to grant clearance.
The committee is now seeking clarity from Mr. Collard on several key points, including whether his recollection of the meeting aligns with Sir Olly’s evidence and whether he felt under pressure from Downing Street to deliver the clearance.
Political Fallout and Government Response
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stood by the decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, arguing that the official was wrong not to inform him of the vetting outcome. Starmer insisted he would not have appointed the peer as his top diplomat to Washington had he been aware of the recommendation to deny clearance.
Addressing claims of political interference, the Prime Minister distinguished between “everyday pressure of government”—such as requests to complete tasks quickly—and pressure to actively disregard security vetting. He stated that Sir Olly had been clear that the latter type of pressure was not applied to him.
Ongoing Investigations and Testimony
The committee has already heard from Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little, who noted initial discussions regarding whether a member of the House of Lords required security vetting at all. Morgan McSweeney, former chief of staff to Keir Starmer, is scheduled to appear on Tuesday.
the committee may call Mr. Collard for oral evidence if his written responses are deemed insufficient. A review conducted by retired judge Sir Adrian Fulford may look into whether the briefing provided by Mr. Collard accurately reflected the vetting team’s views.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Ian Collard not appearing before the committee in person?
The Foreign Office made the decision to decline the request for Mr. Collard to give oral evidence; however, the committee chair, Dame Emily Thornberry, stated she is satisfied with the reasons and has requested his evidence in writing instead.
What was the specific recommendation from UK Security Vetting (UKSV)?
UKSV ticked two red boxes on the cover form for Lord Mandelson, signifying “high concern” and recommending that security clearance be “denied or withdrawn.”
Why was Sir Olly Robbins removed from his position?
Sir Olly was forced out after it emerged that he granted security clearance to Lord Mandelson against the recommendation of the vetting agency and failed to inform No 10 of this outcome.
Do you believe written testimony provides sufficient accountability in parliamentary inquiries involving national security?
