A top Foreign Office security official who played a key role in granting Peter Mandelson\u2019s vetting clearance \u201cfelt pressure to deliver a rapid outcome\u201d because of contacts from Downing Street, MPs have been told.<\/p>\n
In testimony relayed to parliament via the Foreign Office (FCDO), Ian Collard<\/a> said he had not seen the assessment summary produced by the vetting agency when he gave an oral briefing to Olly Robbins, the department\u2019s former permanent secretary. Instead, Collard had received an oral briefing from a member of the FCDO\u2019s personnel security team.<\/p>\n Robbins was dismissed from his position by Keir Starmer<\/a> on 16 April after the Guardian revealed the FCDO gave Mandelson \u201cdeveloped vetting\u201d clearance despite United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) recommending it not be granted in late January 2025. The clearance was necessary for Mandelson to take up his announced role as British ambassador to Washington.<\/p>\n Collard has claimed that it was only after Mandelson was removed from his post in September 2025 that he saw the UKSV assessment summary. He said the summary document featured tickboxes noting Mandelson was a \u201chigh concern\u201d and vetting officers recommended \u201cclearance denied\u201d, as well as a statement from UKSV that he was a \u201cvery borderline case\u201d.<\/p>\n Collard\u2019s answers to questions from MPs on the foreign affairs committee, published on Monday evening, add a new name to the list of officials who were aware Mandelson had not been recommended for clearance by UKSV. He said, before speaking to Robbins, he discussed it with his line manager, the chief operating officer in the FCDO, then Corin Robertson. Robertson is now the British ambassador to Japan.<\/p>\n The question of whether to grant Mandelson clearance, Collard said, was the only time he had spoken with Robbins or his predecessors as permanent secretary about a specific decision to grant vetting.<\/p>\n The FCDO described the decision to go against the recommendations made by UKSV as \u201cunusual but not exceptional\u201d, but this includes instances where the department decided to block security clearance despite UKSV concluding it would be appropriate.<\/p>\n While Collard said he \u201cfelt pressure\u201d to rapidly conclude Mandelson\u2019s vetting process, he said that this did not affect the \u201cprofessional judgment that was reached by himself\u201d or members of the personnel security team he led.<\/p>\n But it is this, among many remarkable claims in his account, that will probably attract the most attention. Since Robbins gave oral testimony to the foreign affairs committee last week, accounts have differed between the Foreign Office and Downing Street as to whether there had been pressure on the department to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible.<\/p>\n Robbins told MPs: \u201cThroughout January, honestly, my office and the foreign secretary\u2019s office were under constant pressure.\u201d He characterised the questions from Downing Street as being about \u201cwhen\u201d Mandelson would be in post, not \u201cwhether\u201d he might.<\/p>\n At prime minister\u2019s questions last Wednesday, Starmer sought to use Robbins\u2019s testimony to dismiss claims Downing Street had put pressure on the FCDO to get Mandelson to Washington as soon as possible. Starmer said: \u201cNo pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.\u201d<\/p>\n