UK’s next ambassador to Japan may be called to give evidence in Mandelson inquiry | Politics
Britain’s next ambassador to Japan could be called to testify about the decision to grant security clearance to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of reviewing officials.
According to evidence given to MPs, Corin Robertson was the chief operating officer of the Foreign Office (FCDO) when she was involved in the decision to furlough Mandelson in late January 2025.
Robertson, who will begin his duties in Tokyo in August, is the only official of the three senior civil servants involved in the decision who has not yet been questioned by parliament.
A source at the foreign affairs select committee investigating Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador said it would consider this week whether to call Robertson to give evidence. You may be asked to give evidence orally or respond to questions in writing.
The committee is nearing the end of its investigation into Mandelson’s appointment but is expected to wait for the release of more documents about the so-called modest addressing system before reaching any final conclusions.
The decision to furlough Mandelson was made by the FCDO’s most senior officer, Olly Robbins. Robbins was sacked by Keir Starmer three weeks ago after the Guardian revealed that he had given Mandelson permission despite the investigative body recommending that he be refused permission.
Starmer said Robbins’ failure to keep him informed was “inexcusable” and he was “furious” about what happened. Robbins insisted he was right not to disclose information to ministers during the review process.
Robbins testified last month. FCDO’s former security chief Ian Collard, who was involved in the decision, did not appear before the committee but responded to questions via a letter from the Foreign Office.
Robbins and Collard said they did not read Mandelson’s review summary document prepared by the UK Security Review (UKSV), but instead relied on oral briefings about its contents. Collard’s evidence highlighted Robertson’s role in the decision.
As lawmakers struggle to piece together events, his appearance before the committee could help resolve some unanswered questions; This was hampered by the absence of any written record or audit trail recording the State Department’s decision-making process regarding the investigation of Mandelson.
Robbins and Collard relied on memories of conversations and briefings that did not appear to have been recorded. Robertson may be asked to confirm these discussions.
It is now understood that UKSV notified Collard’s department on January 29 that there were “high” concerns about Mandelson and that his security clearance should be “refused”.
But Starmer had already confirmed he would choose Mandelson as ambassador, and Robbins said there was “pressure” to bring him to Washington.
Collard said that initially Mandelson spoke to Robertson about his review, but only after briefing Robbins.
In evidence tendered on his behalf by the FCDO, Collard told MPs that Robertson accepted “the risks could be reduced” and that Collard should take Mandelson’s case to Robbins for a “final decision”.
It is unclear whether Robertson reviewed the contents of Mandelson’s investigative file or relied on oral briefings based on notes taken by Collard, who was also verbally briefed.
Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little said “anyone in the security chain” could request to see the review information “if they feel it is necessary”.
Robbins and Collard also claimed that UKSV described Mandelson’s case as “borderline”, but there has been no public statement confirming this, and no other officials who have seen the file have described it that way. If Robertson is called before the committee, he may face questions about whether he remembers being told the case was “borderline” and what the evidence was to that effect.
Following Robbins’ decision to grant security clearance to Mandelson, Collard sent an email to Robertson and one of Robbins’ close aides.
According to evidence heard by MPs, the email stated Robbins’ decision and mitigating measures but did not specify the risks identified by UKSV. A parliamentary motion requiring the publication of “all documents” relating to Mandelson’s appointment was forwarded to the Cabinet Office, which collects the documents to be made public under the terms of the low-key speech, which was agreed in February.
Robertson may be asked to explain why Robbins and Collins sought to access copies of Mandelson’s review file following Mandelson’s dismissal in September 2025. Neither Robbins nor Collard offered an explanation as to why they wanted to see the file at this stage, even though they had not reviewed the document when giving Mandelson permission seven months ago.
Robertson did not respond to requests for comment through the FCDO.
The final part of the documents published at the modest address is expected to be published by the government in the coming weeks. But there are growing concerns that the files will be incomplete or censored.
On Friday, the intelligence and security committee, a group of parliamentary MPs and colleagues who review the most sensitive Mandelson documents before they are released under a low-key address, criticized the government for withholding the review dossier and applying and implementing redactions “too broadly”.
