Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the committee, said she was satisfied with the reasons for Collard's refusal and had asked for his evidence in writing. She added that if further questions arise, the committee may consider asking him to give oral evidence later. Collard, a former ambassador to Lebanon and Panama, was appointed to his current role in March 2023.
The committee is investigating conflicting accounts of the vetting process. Sir Olly Robbins, who was sacked last week after granting clearance against a recommendation, told MPs that Collard briefed him that the UK Security Vetting (UKSV) deemed Mandelson a borderline case and leaned towards denying clearance. However, the government says UKSV gave an explicit recommendation not to approve vetting. Robbins said he only received a verbal briefing and never saw the UKSV form. Sir Adrian Fulford is conducting a review into whether Collard's briefing correctly summed up the vetting team's view.
To be clear, I am satisfied by the reasons behind Ian Collard not giving oral evidence before the FAC at the moment. We have therefore asked for his evidence in writing.
Dame Emily has asked Collard to detail his recollection of the meeting with Robbins and whether he felt under pressure to deliver Mandelson's clearance. She also asked if he had seen the UKSV cover form with red boxes indicating high concern and clearance denied. Robbins accused No 10 of a dismissive attitude towards the vetting process, which Downing Street denied. Morgan McSweeney is due to give evidence on Tuesday. Cat Little told the committee there was an initial discussion over whether Mandelson needed vetting at all because he is a member of the House of Lords.
If we have further questions, we will consider at that point whether we need to ask him to give evidence orally, or whether a further written statement is sufficient.