.svg)
Fresh questions are emerging over the controversial decision to grant security clearance to senior Labour figure Peter Mandelson, as MPs consider calling Britain’s next ambassador to Japan to provide evidence in the growing political row.
Corin Robertson, who currently serves in a senior role at the Foreign Office and is expected to begin her new diplomatic post in Tokyo this August, may soon face questions from the parliamentary foreign affairs committee regarding her involvement in the clearance process.
The committee is investigating how Mandelson was approved for a high-level diplomatic appointment despite reported objections from official security vetting advisers. According to testimony already given to MPs, Robertson played a key role in discussions surrounding the decision made in January 2025.
The final approval was signed off by senior civil servant Olly Robbins, who was later removed from his position after revelations that he had authorised the clearance even though government vetting officials had reportedly advised against it.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer is said to have been angered after learning he had not been informed about the security concerns linked to Mandelson’s case.
Evidence presented to MPs suggests that security officials had raised “high concern” warnings and recommended that Mandelson’s clearance be denied. However, the process allegedly continued amid pressure to quickly confirm him as Britain’s ambassador to the United States.
Former Foreign Office security chief Ian Collard told investigators that he first discussed the matter with Robertson before taking the case to Robbins for a final ruling. Collard claimed Robertson believed the risks could be managed through specific safeguards.
A major issue facing investigators is the apparent lack of written records documenting the decision-making process. Much of the evidence so far relies on personal recollections of meetings and verbal briefings, with few official notes or audit trails available.
MPs are particularly interested in whether Robertson personally reviewed Mandelson’s vetting file or relied solely on second-hand briefings. Questions also remain about claims that officials viewed the case as “borderline,” despite no public evidence supporting that description.
The controversy deepened after reports emerged that senior officials later sought access to Mandelson’s vetting file months after the clearance had already been granted and after he had left office. Critics are now demanding answers over why the file was not examined more carefully during the original approval process.
Meanwhile, concerns are growing that government documents due to be released under a parliamentary order known as a “humble address” may be heavily redacted or incomplete. A parliamentary intelligence committee recently criticised the government for withholding important files and censoring documents too broadly.
The investigation continues as pressure mounts on the government to fully explain how one of the UK’s most sensitive diplomatic vetting decisions was handled.
