Key figure in Mandelson vetting scandal will not give evidence before MPs | Peter Mandelson

A key figure in the debate over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington will not appear before a parliamentary committee of MPs to give evidence.

Emily Thornberry had requested that Ian Collard speak to the foreign affairs committee (FAC) on Tuesday but confirmed on Saturday that she would submit written responses instead.

The committee heard from the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, Olly Robbins, and Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little, who were sacked last week after his department rejected a decision to fail Mandelson’s security review. Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s former private secretary, will appear on Tuesday.

Collard, who previously testified to the select committee, is a former ambassador to Lebanon and Panama and was appointed as the State Department’s chief property and security officer in March 2023.

Robbins said Collard informed him of the review findings that deemed the peer a borderline case and was inclined to recommend denying the permit.

Thornberry asked Collard to detail his recollection of that meeting and whether the questions, which must be answered by 5pm on Monday, tally with Robbins’ evidence in a letter to the State Department.

He also asked her to determine the following:

• Robbins said he felt under pressure to let Mandelson off after saying there was an “atmosphere of pressure” and “constant chasing” in Downing Street.

• Whether Mandelson had seen the cover form for review by the UK Security Review (UKSV), the body responsible for checking candidates for sensitive positions, he had ticked two red boxes there; which meant they were of “high concern” and recommended “permission refused or withdrawn.”

• If anyone in the Foreign Office, Downing Street or the Cabinet Office asked for advice on whether Mandelson might need vetting for the post because he is a member of the House of Lords.

• He should have advised Mandelson on how to behave in the period between announcing the appointment and obtaining his permission.

Thornberry wrote in X on Saturday: “To be clear, I am satisfied with the reasons behind Ian Collard not giving oral evidence before the FAC at this time. That is why we have requested his written evidence.”

He added: “If we have further questions, we will consider at this point whether we need to ask him to give oral evidence or whether further written evidence is sufficient.”

Robbins said that when he took office at the State Department in January 2025, Mandelson was given access to “highly classified briefings” on a case-by-case basis without his security clearance being approved.

He said he had never seen the UKSV form when deciding on Mandelson’s leave, but had been informed of the review.

Little told the committee the initial discussion was about whether the Labor leader needed a vetting because he is a member of the House of Lords.

Starmer suggested Robbins was wrong not to tell him the outcome of the so-called enhanced vetting process and insisted he would not have had that precedent if he had known he was the most senior diplomat in Washington.

The Prime Minister stood by his decision to sack the former Foreign Office chief, saying he faced only “daily pressure from the government” to confirm his peer’s appointment as ambassador to Washington in 2024.

Speaking to the Sunday Times, he said he made a distinction between “different types of pressure”.

He said: “The pressure is on – ‘Can we get this done quickly?’ – this is not an unusual pressure. “This is the daily pressure of the government.”

Starmer said that “pressure to essentially ignore the vetting element and allow it” would be a different thing and that Robbins was “conscious that the pressure was not being put on him”.