Ian Collard’s name appeared just twice in discussions, and his brief 10-minute meeting with Olly Robbins might seem minor. However, he emerges as a pivotal individual in the controversy surrounding Peter Mandelson’s approval for security vetting to serve as Britain’s ambassador to Washington. During Robbins’ testimony to the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday, he revealed that Collard, who leads the Foreign Office’s estates, security, and network directorate, provided him with a verbal update on January 29, 2025. Robbins noted that Collard was engaged in ongoing discussions with the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) team, located in the Cabinet Office. Collard then requested the meeting with Robbins, which ultimately led to Mandelson receiving clearance. The details of their short conversation are now under intense examination. Robbins informed lawmakers that Collard described UKSV officials, after two interviews with Mandelson, viewing him as a marginal candidate and inclined to reject clearance. This account conflicts with information from Downing Street and the Cabinet Office about the UKSV evaluation. As reported by the Guardian, UKSV had issued a firm decision, marking ‘high concern’ and ‘clearance denied’ in two categories. Consequently, the foreign affairs committee has called Collard to clarify this inconsistency. He brings substantial experience from his diplomatic career. Holding a top honors degree in anthropology and a PhD in evolutionary studies, the Cambridge alumnus entered the Foreign Office in 2002. He served in Washington and New York, then led the North America department in London. In 2012, he contributed to counter-terrorism efforts, including security for the London Olympics. He later served as ambassador to Panama, headed the counter-terrorism unit in Whitehall, and held ambassador positions in Afghanistan and Lebanon. Since 2023, he has been the Foreign Office’s chief officer for property and security. Robbins mentioned frequent interactions with Collard, describing him as essential to understanding departmental operations. ‘Ian frequently visited my office, and I valued that,’ Robbins stated. This will not be Collard’s first select committee appearance; he previously testified before the public accounts committee alongside Robbins, addressing the Foreign Office’s worldwide properties, including embassies and residences. Lawmakers investigating decisions in the department’s historic King Charles Street headquarters must clarify events in the day between UKSV’s January 28 ruling and the January 29 meeting with Robbins. A former official knowledgeable about state security procedures suggested establishing a precise sequence of actions. Robbins explained to committee members that the Foreign Office’s personnel security team, under Collard’s direction, discussed specific risks with UKSV. Consequently, some risks fluctuated, leading the Foreign Office to form its own judgment and inform Robbins. Individuals in positions like Collard’s, focused on risk oversight across government, do communicate with UKSV. However, committee members may seek details on those exchanges and any documentation. Did Collard review the UKSV file with its dual red flags? If yes, what followed? The source indicated Collard might not have accessed a complete report on UKSV’s rationale and concerns. Robbins noted that addressing such risks in clearance procedures is common. Lawmakers could explore the frequency of this practice and inquire how often Collard encountered a double-red UKSV advice yet recommended approval. Robbins referenced pressure from Downing Street on the Foreign Office to place Mandelson in Washington promptly. Did Collard experience similar urgings to approve clearance, and if so, from whom?
