Top Foreign Office official ‘felt pressure’ for ‘rapid outcome’ on Mandelson vetting | Peter Mandelson
A senior Foreign Office security official who played a key role in authorizing Peter Mandelson’s review “felt pressure to achieve a rapid outcome” because of contacts in Downing Street, MPs were told.
In testimony delivered to parliament through the Department of Foreign Affairs (FCDO), Ian Collard said he had not seen the assessment summary prepared by the investigating agency when giving a verbal briefing to the ministry’s former permanent secretary, Olly Robbins. Instead, Collard had received a verbal briefing from a member of the FCDO’s staff security team.
Robbins was sacked by Keir Starmer 11 days ago after the Guardian revealed that the FCDO had granted Mandelson an “enhanced review” despite a UK Security Review (UKSV) recommending it not be granted in late January 2025. This permission was necessary for Mandelson to assume his announced role as Britain’s ambassador to Washington.
Collard claimed he only saw the UKSV evaluation summary after Mandelson was sacked in September 2025. He said the summary document included checkboxes stating Mandelson was of “high concern” and examiners recommended “permission refused” and a statement from UKSV that he was an “extremely borderline case”.
Collard’s answers to questions from MPs on the foreign affairs committee, published on Monday evening, added a new name to the list of officials who knew Mandelson had not been recommended for confirmation by UKSV. Before speaking to Robbins, he said he discussed the matter with the division manager, then FCDO’s chief operating officer, who was Corin Robertson. Robertson is currently the British ambassador to Japan.
Collard said the question of whether Mandelson should be granted permission was the only time he had spoken to Robbins or his predecessors as permanent secretary about the decision to grant permission for a particular review.
The FCDO described the decision to go against the recommendations made by UKSV as “unusual but not exceptional”; but this includes cases where the department decides to withhold security clearance despite UKSV concluding that it would be appropriate.
While Collard said Mandelson “felt pressure” to quickly conclude the investigation process, he said this did not affect his “professional judgment” or the members of the staff security team he led.
But of the many remarkable claims in his narrative, this is probably the one that will attract the most attention. After Robbins gave oral evidence to the foreign affairs committee last week, differing views emerged between the Foreign Office and Downing Street on whether the ministry was being pressured to appoint Mandelson as soon as possible.
Robbins told MPs: “To be honest, throughout January, my office and the secretary of state’s office were under constant pressure.” He described the questions from Downing Street as being about “when” Mandelson would be in office, not “whether”.
Under prime minister’s questions last Wednesday, Starmer used Robbins’ evidence to try to refute claims that Downing Street was pressuring the FCDO to get Mandelson to Washington as soon as possible. “There was no pressure involved in this case,” Starmer said.
Starmer faces a vote in a parliamentary inquiry into whether he misled MPs. Comments that opposition MPs claim are misleading include the statement that “there was no pressure” and the statement that “full legal process was followed”.
Downing Street said the prime minister’s comment about “pressure” referred to the vetting process rather than Mandelson’s wider appointment. However, Collard’s comment that he was aware of the pressure to complete the investigation process quickly – although it did not affect his professional judgment – is likely to increase criticism of the prime minister’s words.
Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s former chief of staff, and Philip Barton, Robbins’ predecessor as permanent secretary, are due to appear before the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday morning.
They may face questions over differing accounts of Downing Street’s pressure on the FCDO.
Barton may be questioned about his role in granting Mandelson access to the FCDO’s headquarters before the vetting process was completed. Collard said he was granted immunity as a member of the House of Lords and that Mandelson’s private secretary had informed the public that the review process was ongoing.
