Government settles legal claim with sacked official over Mandelson vetting
The Government has reached an out-of-court settlement with Olly Robbins, the former senior Foreign Office official sacked by Keir Starmer over Peter Mandelson’s security vetting. Robbins had sought a judicial review, saying he was dismissed after following normal practice on whether to share vetting findings; the settlement ends the proceedings, though its terms have not been disclosed.
Robbins was fired in April after reports that he overruled a recommendation against granting Mandelson security clearance before his appointment as US ambassador. Starmer said he had not been told about the vetting outcome and would not have proceeded with the appointment had he known. The FDA union said the affair had damaged trust between ministers and civil servants; the article also notes former cabinet secretary Chris Wormald received almost £860,000 after leaving his post.
- Government settles Robbins’ challenge over his dismissal.
- The settlement’s financial terms have not been disclosed.
- The dispute centred on Mandelson’s security vetting.
New here? Start with this
Olly Robbins was a senior Foreign Office official responsible for part of the process that checks whether people can access sensitive government information. Peter Mandelson was appointed the UK’s ambassador to the United States, a role that required security clearance.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he had not been told the outcome of checks on Mandelson and would not have gone ahead with the appointment if he had known. Robbins argued that he was dismissed after following normal practice on sharing the findings; the Government and Robbins have now settled his legal challenge, with no details of the agreement made public.
The case has drawn attention to how security decisions are handled and how responsibility is divided between ministers and civil servants. The FDA union, which represents many civil servants, said the affair had harmed trust between them.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Government can argue that senior officials must be accountable when decisions about sensitive security vetting have serious consequences, and that dismissing Robbins was a legitimate response to concerns about how Mandelson’s clearance was handled. A settlement may also spare public resources and avoid a prolonged court case, without either side admitting liability.
The case against
Robbins can argue that he was dismissed for following normal procedures and should not have been made a scapegoat for a breakdown in communication between ministers and officials. Settling without disclosing the terms leaves questions about whether his treatment was fair and may deepen concerns that civil servants cannot give candid advice without risking their careers.
Celebrity Entertainment Government Politics UK World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Another bill for taxpayers left by Starmer as Government reaches settlement with top official sacked for waving through Mandelson vetting”.