Arabic version: موظف حكومي يرفض الشهادة في تحقيق تدقيق مانديليسون
According to BBC News,
A key figure in the row over Lord Mandelson’s vetting will not appear before a parliamentary committee of MPs to give evidence. Ian Collard, a civil servant who ran the security team within the Foreign Office, was requested by the Foreign Affairs Committee to provide evidence next week. However, committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry announced that the Foreign Office declined this request, stating that Collard would only provide written evidence.
Collard was the official who briefed the then-Foreign Office boss Sir Olly Robbins about UK Security Vetting’s (UKSV) recommendation not to give clearance to Mandelson. This recommendation became a focal point after Robbins was sacked last week for approving clearance without informing No 10 of the UKSV’s recommendation.
The government maintains that UKSV explicitly advised against Mandelson’s vetting approval prior to his anticipated role as ambassador to the US. However, Robbins claimed he had never seen that explicit recommendation, stating that he only received a verbal briefing which described UKSV’s view as “borderline” and leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied.
The investigation into this matter is ongoing, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, a retired judge, who will assess whether Collard’s briefing accurately reflected the vetting team’s recommendations. This inquiry is crucial in determining whether Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to sack Robbins was justified.
In a letter to the interim Foreign Office boss, Thornberry outlined several questions for Collard to address in his written response, including how often his team made a different recommendation on vetting to that contained in the UKSV report. Meanwhile, former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is set to testify before the committee on Tuesday, facing inquiries about any potential pressure he may have exerted on civil servants regarding the vetting process.
The ongoing controversy has raised concerns among Labour MPs regarding Starmer’s judgment and leadership, prompting him to defend his actions during an interview. Starmer stated that Robbins faced only the “everyday pressure of government” and dismissed the notion that timely information should not be relayed to the prime minister.
