Key Figure in Mandelson Vetting Dispute to Provide Written Testimony

A central individual in the controversy surrounding Lord Mandelson’s security vetting has been excluded from appearing before the parliamentary committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee sought to question Ian Collard, a senior civil servant overseeing the department’s security team, but the government declined the request. Dame Emily Thornberry, the committee’s chair, confirmed the decision and noted Collard will instead submit written evidence.

UKSV’s Role in the Vetting Dispute

Collard was responsible for informing Sir Olly Robbins, the former Foreign Office head, about the UK Security and Vetting (UKSV) team’s recommendation to deny Mandelson’s clearance. Robbins was dismissed last week after it was revealed he approved the clearance despite the team’s advice and failed to notify No 10. The government maintains that UKSV explicitly advised against Mandelson’s vetting prior to his US ambassador appointment.

“I had never seen that explicit recommendation and only received a verbal briefing which described UKSV’s view as ‘borderline’ and ‘leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied’.”

Government Investigation and Review

Current inquiries aim to assess whether Sir Olly was adequately informed before granting Mandelson’s clearance. Sir Adrian Fulford, a retired judge, is examining the vetting process to determine if Collard’s briefing accurately reflected the team’s stance. This review could impact the validity of Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Robbins. Dame Emily outlined written questions for Collard, including how frequently his team diverged from the UKSV report’s recommendations.

Testimony from Morgan McSweeney

On Tuesday, Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir’s former chief of staff, will testify before the committee. McSweeney played a role in advising the prime minister to appoint Mandelson as ambassador, and his testimony may shed light on potential pressures applied to civil servants to expedite the vetting process. Robbins previously criticized No 10 for a “dismissive” approach to the vetting, a claim the government has denied.

Implications for Leadership and Trust

The ongoing debate over Mandelson’s vetting has sparked renewed scrutiny among Labour MPs regarding Sir Keir’s judgment and leadership. During Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer defended his actions, stating that if the Foreign Office had raised concerns, Mandelson would not have been confirmed for the role.