Olly Robbins, former permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, has begun a legal challenge of Starmer’s decision to sack him over his supposed role in the appointment of Peter Mandelson, disgraced ambassador to the US.
Starmer sacked Mandelson after details of his friendship and extensive communications with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein became public knowledge.
The PM blamed Robbins for failing to let him know that concerns were raised during Mandelson’s security vetting for the ambassadorial position. Starmer sacked the then-head of the Foreign Office on 16 April.
‘Dismissive approach’ to vetting
On 21 April, Robbins published a letter he wrote to Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He noted that he was seeking advice about his dismissal. Further, regarding Mandelson’s appointment, he claimed that there was:
[a] dismissive approach to DV (developed vetting) from Number 10 Downing Street (No 10) for the remainder of the process. Nonetheless, despite this atmosphere of pressure, the department completed DV to the normal high standard.
The very next day, 22 April, Starmer claimed during PMQs that there was “no pressure existed whatsoever” around Mandelson’s vetting. As such, some commentators argued that the PM had misled parliament.
Casting further doubt on Starmer’s claims to ignorance, on 23 April, it emerged that the PM sent a text to Mandelson on the night of his appointment:
You’ll be brilliant in challenging circumstances. And after many years of our discussions, we get to work together side by side. I really look forward to that.
‘A rash response to a media story’
In a statement given on 13 July, Robbins’ union — the FDA, which represents civil servants — issued a statement confirming that he had requested a judicial review of his dismissal. The union urged the prime minister to admit his mistake, which it held was:
based on a grievous misunderstanding of how the national security vetting (NSV) system worked and a rash response to a media story.
The FDA also argued that:
Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to.
The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome.
In his submissions to the court, Robbins claimed there was “no fair procedure” in the decision. He further argued that Starmer:
has no statutory authority to dismiss the head of the diplomatic service.
‘I bring this action reluctantly’
The former Foreign Office chief stated that:
I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the prime minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family.
Instead, I now have to ask the courts to determine that the prime minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them.
In June, both the Guardian and the Independent reported that Andy Burnham’s team has been in talks to appoint Robbins to as national security adviser in a new administration. Jonathan Powell, the current adviser, is rumoured to quit the post in the near future.
Robbins held his position at the head of the Foreign Office for just over a year. However, he has previously worked as both the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator and deputy national security adviser.
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
