Ex-Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins launches legal bid to get court to accept Starmer’s decision to sack him ‘irrational’
Olly Robbins is taking the government to court over its decision to sack him as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office.
The move has been announced by his union, the FDA, which represents senior civil servants. It is supporting Robbins as he seeks a judicial review of Keir Starmer’s decision to sack him.
In a news release, the FDA says:
The prime minister has acknowledged that his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States in December 2024 was a mistake. He should also admit that sacking Olly was a mistake, based on a grievous misunderstanding of how the national security vetting (NSV) system worked and a rash response to a media story.
A point of principle is at stake, which affects all FDA members. It damages the core values of a professional and impartial civil service if its most senior officials can be dismissed on a prime ministerial whim, without even the semblance of a fair process or considered understanding of the core issue.
In a statement today, Robbins said:
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.
According to the FDA, these are the arguments that Robbins is making in his submission to the court seeking judicial review. Judicial review is a process that allows government decisions to be challenged on the grounds that they were taken in a manner that was irrational or unlawful.
Robbins is arguing that:
-The prime minister has asserted publicly that it was his decision to dismiss Olly, however the prime minister has no statutory authority to dismiss the head of the diplomatic service;
-Not only was there no fair procedure involved in his dismissal, there was no process at all; and
-Insofar as Olly has been given reasons for his dismissal, they are irrational. 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. This position was confirmed in a letter of 16 September 2025 that was signed by the foreign secretary, using text both drafted and approved by No 10
Key events
Back to Andy Burnham, and Dan Bloom has a good long read at Politico about Burnham’s plans to impose devolution on the civil service. Bloom says there is talk of a “Bank of England” moment.
It will be hard to wrestle a head-turning policy announcement from structural reforms to the state, though his allies are discussing a potential big bang early on.
One ally of Burnham recalled Gordon Brown’s announcement that the Bank of England would be made independent, four days after he became Labour’s finance minister in 1997. The person said: “He wants a Bank of England moment.”
Burnham wants more senior officials working outside of London. Bloom has this quote explaining why potentially this could make a real difference.
It’s about “forcing the civil service to understand this is not just data on a graph,” said one Labour MP allied to Burnham. “Once you have a base where you can’t get free affordable integrated transport that gets you somewhere within 20 minutes easily, it changes perspectives pretty much overnight.”
And here is an extract from what he says about the plans for No 10 North.
Civil servants and Burnham’s allies are unanimous that No. 10 North will only be more than a gimmick if people with real power (including Burnham) spend serious time in Manchester — forcing Westminster’s lobbyist and journalist ecosystem to move with them. [Lucy] Powell predicted “big chunks” of Whitehall power will leave the capital. [Steve] Rotheram said: “You can’t have a No. 10 and then just have a load of junior officials there.”
The senior civil servant quoted above said a key test will be whether the No. 10 policy unit ends up based permanently in the northern version of Downing Street.
A week today Keir Starmer is due to resign as PM, and Andy Burnham will go to Buckingham Palace where the king will invite him to form a government. Burnham is then expected to give a speech in Downing Street.
Outside No 10, workers already getting the platforms in place for the media.
UK and EU impose joint sanctions on cybercriminals linked to Russia
The UK and EU have jointly sanctioned alleged hackers linked to Russia as Britain’s cybersecurity service urged critical sectors to strengthen their online defences against the threat from Moscow, the Press Association reports. PA says:
Some 24 individuals and entities said to be behind “destructive” operations, including proxy networks connected to the Russian Intelligence Services, have been targeted by the Foreign Office.
The EU said it was imposing restrictive measures on nine individuals and four entities, including GRU officers, self-proclaimed “hacktivists” and cybercriminals, citing “close co-ordination” with the UK.
Both EU member states and the UK have also attributed a cyberattack on Poland’s energy grid in the depths of winter to Russia’s cyber-intelligence unit FSB Centre 16, the Foreign Office said.
Figures and entities targeted by Britain include senior GRU officials Vyacheslav Stafeyev, Ivan Senin and Ivan Kasyanenko, who the Foreign Office said had directed the agency’s cyber and hybrid threat operations. The full details are here.
Mainstream, the Labour group set up last year with support from Andy Burnham, has issued a statement critical of the immigration and asylum bill being debated today. Its interim council said:
The public rightly expects an immigration and asylum system that is fair, controlled and compassionate. We welcome the government’s determination to restore confidence in a system that today works neither for local communities nor for people fleeing war and persecution.
As parliament considers this bill, we want to see reforms that address some of the system’s biggest shortcomings, including faster, higher-quality asylum decisions, an end to the reliance on expensive and unsuitable accommodation (which would be easier if asylum seekers were allowed to take paid work after six months), and more effective and expansive safe and legal routes that help undermine the criminal gangs who profit from human misery.
Those are essential ingredients of an immigration and asylum system that works for everyone. Unfortunately, this bill does not offer them. Instead it will weaken the rights of asylum seekers in a number of ways.
Some of these points, such as the suggestion asylum seekers should be allowed to work after six months, echo what was said in a letter sent to Shabana Mahmood reportedly backed by almost 80 Labour MPs.
Although Mainstream was seen as a pro-Burnham campaign vehicle when it was set up, it is not wholly aligned with him and does not speak on his behalf. Burnham will vote for the bill tonight, Kevin Schofield from HuffPost UK reports.
Ex-Foreign Office chief Olly Robbins launches legal bid to get court to accept Starmer’s decision to sack him ‘irrational’
Olly Robbins is taking the government to court over its decision to sack him as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office.
The move has been announced by his union, the FDA, which represents senior civil servants. It is supporting Robbins as he seeks a judicial review of Keir Starmer’s decision to sack him.
In a news release, the FDA says:
The prime minister has acknowledged that his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States in December 2024 was a mistake. He should also admit that sacking Olly was a mistake, based on a grievous misunderstanding of how the national security vetting (NSV) system worked and a rash response to a media story.
A point of principle is at stake, which affects all FDA members. It damages the core values of a professional and impartial civil service if its most senior officials can be dismissed on a prime ministerial whim, without even the semblance of a fair process or considered understanding of the core issue.
In a statement today, Robbins said:
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.
According to the FDA, these are the arguments that Robbins is making in his submission to the court seeking judicial review. Judicial review is a process that allows government decisions to be challenged on the grounds that they were taken in a manner that was irrational or unlawful.
Robbins is arguing that:
-The prime minister has asserted publicly that it was his decision to dismiss Olly, however the prime minister has no statutory authority to dismiss the head of the diplomatic service;
-Not only was there no fair procedure involved in his dismissal, there was no process at all; and
-Insofar as Olly has been given reasons for his dismissal, they are irrational. 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. This position was confirmed in a letter of 16 September 2025 that was signed by the foreign secretary, using text both drafted and approved by No 10
Minister says there will be ‘no carve-out’ for security services under revised plan for Hillsborough law
Keir Starmer is expected to use his final week in office to push the Hillsborough law through its remaining stages in the Commons after months of delays. Aletha Adu has the story.
In an interview on the Today programme this morning, Catherine Atkinson, the victims minister, confirmed that there would be “no carve-out” for the security services under this arrangement. She said:
There is no carve-out. What has been absolutely clear is that there will be a duty of candour, but it’s the way that it is carried out.
So, in consultation with the security services, we’ve ensured that there are safeguards so that information that’s provided is done so securely and appropriately.
The Hillsborough Law Now campaign has welcomed the news. Last night it posted this on social media.
Our campaign is special. We are not one person, we are for the many by the many. #HillsboroughLawNow team you did this, every one of us has played some part, to every single one of you who has push in any way, big or small. You did this! Congratulations and thank you
We have comments open at the moment but we won’t be allowing comments on the Ann Widdecombe murder, in line with our usual policy of not allowing comments on cases where legal proceedings are active. Please respect this and avoid commenting on this topic. If the moderators judge that this is being ignored, exposing us to a contempt risk, comments will be turned off.
Last week it was reported that almost 80 Labour MPs have written to Andy Burnham urging him to drop the Shabana Mahmood plans requiring migrants, including those already in the UK, to wait 10 years or more to claim indefinite leave to remain (ILR), instead of five years, which is the norm now.
In the Times today Matt Dathan reports on one possible compromise option. He says Mahmood is considering letting migrant workers and their families who have been in the UK since 2021 continue to qualify for ILR after five years – but requiring them to wait longer until they can access benefits that normally come with ILR.
Dathan says:
At present, those with ILR can also access welfare including housing support, universal credit, disability payments, council tax reduction, tax credits and state pension credits.
Under the proposed changes, migrants who gain leave to remain would have to wait further before they could access such benefits, according to two government sources familiar with the plans. The waiting time would also apply to refugees.
Here is some reaction to this from Jonathan Portes, an economics professor and immigration expert.
First & foremost this would remove the main principled objection to the changes – retrospectively changing rules to (at best) keep people who came here legally with 5 year path to settlement in insecure visa status for up to 15 years – and for many effective deportation/remigration. (2/4)
Changing rules/time limits on benefit access ex post is *not* the same thing – we do it all the time (eg my pension age!).
That doesn’t mean it’s a great idea – it will increase poverty, be administratively complex, and various exemptions/workarounds will be needed.
But politically one key advantage.
As HO source implies, drives wedge between those who are (or claim to be) worried about benefit access & those who want “remigration”, whose primary motivation is racism and ethnonationalism.
The reaction to this will therefore be revealing.. (4/4)
Minister suggests Home Office will use visa threats to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader to Pakistan
Good morning. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, will be in the Commons for much of the afternoon and she is involved in several of the main news stories in the mix today. MPs are debating the second reading of the immigration and asylum bill, meaning that those Labour MPs opposed to her plans may speak out at some point. (Her most controversial proposal is about extending the amount of time migrant workers have to wait until they can apply for indefinite leave to remain [ILR], and that is not actually part of the bill, but it would be surprising if ILR does not come up.) We are also expecting a Home Office statement about security, in the light of the murder of Ann Widdecombe. As Aletha Adu reports, the police, who have arrested a man on suspicion of murder, have said at this point there is no evidence to suggest the killing was politically motivated. But that has not stopped Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, doing exactly that.
And Mahmood is also due to give MPs details of how she plans to amend the law so that the Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed, can be deported.
Ahmed is a former British-Pakistani joint national who has now had his British nationality revoked and who has recently been released from jail after serving 14 years of a 22-year sentence for 30 child rape offences. Victims were told that, because his British nationality had been revoked, he would be deported on his release. But in fact that is not possible because under the Immigration Act 1971 there is an exemption for people who, like Ahmed, came to the UK before 1973.
When the government first indicated that it would change the law to get rid of this exemption, the Tories said that, on its own, this would be pointless because Pakistan has said that it will not take Ahmed back anyway. They said the government should stop issuing visas to Pakistan unless it agreed to his deportation.
Today it sounds as if Mahmood will adopt this approach. Catherine Atkinson, the victims minister at the Ministry of Justice, was giving interviews this morning and on the Today programme, when it was put to her that Pakistan was refusing to take Ahmed, she replied:
I understand that the home secretary will be having more to announce on this later today.
She has been absolutely clear that this government will take action to see Shabir Ahmed removed, and we’ve seen the success that she has had when it comes to removals in previous cases.
I think she threatened visa penalties for Angola, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo unless they took back illegal immigrants. And four months later, all three were co-operating.
And, at another point, she said:
There were previous negotiations where countries refused to take back foreign national offenders. And Shabana was able to secure those returns.
Asked if the UK would be willing to return some political dissidents to Pakistan as part of a deal to secure the deportation of Ahmed, Atkinson replied:
I can’t get ahead of what the home secretary will be announcing today, but she has a strong track record on being able to see progress where people previously have said things weren’t possible.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
3.30pm: Officials from the Crown Estate and the Royal Household give evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about the use of Crown Estate properties
After 3.30pm: A Home Office minister is expected to make a Commons statement on the security of politicians, Politico is reporting.
4.40pm: Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee about the BBC charter renewal.
Afternoon: Mahmood opens the debate on the second reading of the immigration and asylum bill.
8pm: Andy Burnham takes questions from Labour MPs at a private hustings event.
And Keir Starmer is in Paris today, where he and Emmanuel Macron, the French president, are co-chairing a meeting coalition of the willing group of Ukraine alllies.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
About the Author
