Fury within Whitehall over the treatment of Olly Robbins remains white hot several days after Keir Starmer sacked the senior Foreign Office civil servant. Robbins was dismissed for failing to inform the prime minister that former US ambassador Peter Mandelson had not passed UK security vetting. Supporters describe the move as a “total self-serving, narrow, selfish, political-endgame stuff”.
Senior civil servants believe Robbins was effectively sacked for doing what No 10 wanted—swiftly passing Mandelson through vetting and implementing mitigations to address security concerns. On the political side, however, there is incredulity and anger at what is seen as the prime minister being blindsided by another Mandelson-related controversy. Starmer described the failure to inform him as “staggering”.
The sacking marks a new low in relations between No 10 and the civil service, following the ousting of cabinet secretary Chris Wormald in February and Starmer’s accusation a year ago that “too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”. One mid-ranking official said: “The net effect is a chilling one. Why will we do anything vaguely risky that ministers want if we think they won’t have our backs if it goes wrong?”
Robbins learned he was losing his job by letter on Monday morning, days after Starmer forced him out as permanent secretary. At a parliamentary hearing on Tuesday, he sounded shocked at the peremptory dismissal. Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, said: “After the evidence today, people will look at this and come to the conclusion that Olly was tossed out by the prime minister and did absolutely nothing wrong.”
Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell warned of a crisis in relations between ministers and civil servants, while former diplomat Peter Ricketts described Robbins as an “outstanding civil servant”. However, ex-MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove said Robbins should have walked into No 10 and told Starmer directly about the vetting failure. The Foreign Office now fears security implications from greater disclosure around vetting, with one source saying the security establishment is “having kittens”.
