{"id":590077,"date":"2026-05-18T06:07:12","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T06:07:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/590077\/"},"modified":"2026-05-18T06:07:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T06:07:12","slug":"uks-next-ambassador-to-japan-may-be-called-to-give-evidence-in-mandelson-inquiry-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/590077\/","title":{"rendered":"UK\u2019s next ambassador to Japan may be called to give evidence in Mandelson inquiry | Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

The UK\u2019s next ambassador to Japan could be called to give evidence over the decision to award Peter Mandelson<\/a> security clearance against the advice of vetting officials.<\/p>\n

Corin Robertson was the Foreign Office\u2019s (FCDO) chief operating officer when she was involved in the decision in late January 2025 to grant Mandelson clearance, according to evidence given to MPs.<\/p>\n

Robertson, who is due to take up her post in Tokyo in August, is the only official among three top civil servants involved in the decision yet to be questioned by parliament.<\/p>\n

A source on the foreign affairs select committee, which is investigating Mandelson\u2019s appointment as ambassador to the US, said it would consider this week whether to call Robertson to give evidence. She could be asked to give evidence verbally, or respond to questions in writing.<\/p>\n

The committee is nearing the end of its investigation into Mandelson\u2019s appointment, but it is expected to wait until the release of further documents about the process, under the so-called humble address system, before reaching any final conclusions.<\/p>\n

The decision to grant Mandelson clearance was made by Olly Robbins, the FCDO\u2019s most senior civil servant. Robbins was sacked by Keir Starmer three weeks ago after the Guardian revealed<\/a> he had granted Mandelson clearance despite the vetting agency recommending his clearance be denied.<\/p>\n

Starmer said Robbins\u2019s failure to inform him was \u201cunforgivable\u201d and he was \u201cfurious\u201d about what had happened. Robbins has insisted he was right not to divulge to ministers information from the vetting process.<\/p>\n

Robbins gave evidence last month. The FCDO\u2019s former head of security, Ian Collard, who was also involved in the decision, did not appear in front of the committee but responded to questions via a letter from the Foreign Office.<\/p>\n

Robbins and Collard said they had not read Mandelson\u2019s vetting summary document produced by United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), relying instead on verbal briefings about its contents. Collard\u2019s evidence highlighted Robertson\u2019s role in the decision.<\/p>\n

Her appearance before the committee could help resolve some unanswered questions, as MPs struggle to piece together events, which have been hampered by lack of any written records or audit-trails recording the Foreign Office\u2019s decision making in relation to Mandelson\u2019s vetting.<\/p>\n

Robbins and Collard relied on recollections of conversations and briefings which appear to have not been minuted. Robertson could be asked to corroborate these discussions.<\/p>\n

It is now understood the UKSV advised Collard\u2019s department on 29 January that there was \u201chigh\u201d concern about Mandelson and security clearance should be \u201cdenied\u201d.<\/p>\n

However, Starmer had already confirmed Mandelson as his pick for ambassador, with Robbins testifying there was \u201cpressure\u201d to get him to Washington<\/p>\n

Collard said he initially spoke about Mandelson\u2019s vetting with Robertson, only talking to Robbins after he briefed her.<\/p>\n

Collard told MPs, in evidence submitted on his behalf by the FCDO, that Robertson agreed \u201cthe risks could be mitigated\u201d and Collard should take Mandelson\u2019s case to Robbins for a \u201cfinal decision\u201d.<\/p>\n

It is unclear whether Robertson reviewed the contents of Mandelson\u2019s vetting file or whether she too relied on an oral briefing based on notes taken by Collard, who had in turn been orally briefed.<\/p>\n

The Cabinet Office permanent secretary, Cat Little, testified that \u201canyone within the security chain\u201d could request to see vetting information \u201cif they feel it is necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Robbins and Collard also claimed UKSV had described Mandelson\u2019s case as \u201cborderline\u201d, although there has been no publicly-released confirming that, and no other official who has seen the file has described it that way. If called before the committee, Robertson could face questions about whether she too recalls being told the case was \u201cborderline\u201d and if what the evidence was for that.<\/p>\n

After Robbins\u2019decision to give Mandelson security clearance, Collard sent an email to Robertson and one of Robbins\u2019s close aides.<\/p>\n

According to evidence heard by MPs, the email noted Robbins\u2019s decision and mitigations, but did not set out the risks identified by UKSV. It has been provided to the Cabinet Office, which is collatingdocuments to be released to the public under the terms of the humble address, a parliamentary motion passed in February requiring the release of \u201call papers\u201d relating to Mandelson\u2019s appointmnet.<\/p>\n

Robertson may be called to explain why Robbins and Collins sought to access copies of Mandelson\u2019s vetting file in September 2025, after Mandelson was withdrawn from office. Neither Robbins or Collard have given an explanation for why they requested to see the file at that stage, despite not reviewing the document seven months earlier when giving Mandelson clearance.<\/p>\n

Robertson, via the FCDO, did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n

The latest tranche of documents released under the humble address is due to be published by the government in the coming weeks. However there are growing concerns the files will be incomplete or censored.<\/p>\n

On Friday, the intelligence and security committee, a parliamentary group of MPs and peers which is reviewing the most sensitive Mandelson documents before their release under the humble address, criticised the government for withholding his vetting file<\/a> and applying and applying redactions \u201cfar too broadly\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The UK\u2019s next ambassador to Japan could be called to give evidence over the decision to award Peter…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":590078,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-590077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-united-kingdom","tag-gb","tag-great-britain","tag-greatbritain","tag-news","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590077","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=590077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590077\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/590078"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=590077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=590077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=590077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}