Ministers speak out in cabinet meeting over Keir Starmer’s sacking of Olly Robbins | Civil service

Cabinet ministers have expressed concern about Keir Starmer’s decision to sack senior Foreign Office official Olly Robbins over the Peter Mandelson investigation scandal, warning him not to alienate the civil service, sources have told the Guardian.

Multiple ministers spoke about the decision to fire Robbins at a sombre cabinet meeting on Tuesday, according to multiple government sources.

Among those who intervened was deputy prime minister David Lammy, who warned against the creation of a “them and us” mentality among ministers and officials as Whitehall reels from the fallout from the investigation scandal.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is understood to have questioned whether sacking Robbins was justified after he failed to tell Starmer that Mandelson had failed the review and then praised him as an outstanding civil servant.

Three others, including health minister Wes Streeting and chancellor Rachel Reeves, warned the prime minister not to fight with officials and instead keep them “on side”; Starmer also said he agreed with this view.

The row, described by one source as a “disagreement”, is the latest sign of deep unease within the government over the Guardian’s revelation that Mandelson was appointed ambassador to Washington despite failing due diligence checks.

Robbins, who was sacked hours after the Guardian report, confirmed to MPs on Tuesday that he had not told anyone at Downing Street about the inquiry’s recommendation that Mandelson not be given leave.

A senior cabinet minister is understood to believe the senior official should not be sacked but instead suspended until all the facts come to light.

But many in Labor believe Mandelson’s statement, in which he described intense pressure from Downing Street for his postal confirmation, raises questions about the prime minister’s decision and risks increasing tensions with Whitehall.

A source said: “There was a long discussion in cabinet about the implications of Robbins’ departure. There were questions about how we should justify this to others, given that we also said what an honorable civil servant he was.”

According to information from Downing Street, the prime minister said Robbins “made an error of judgment but … is an honest and professional man.” “There are thousands of hard-working civil servants across the country who do excellent work every day, full of integrity, with a deep sense of public duty,” he also said, according to No 10.

The revelation that Mandelson had been appointed as US ambassador despite investigators recommending he be denied security clearance sent shock waves through the government and once again called the prime minister’s future into question.

Starmer said he regretted appointing Mandelson, whom he sacked after less than a year in office following revelations that he had a closer relationship with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged.

The Prime Minister said he was not told of the original review recommendation rejected by Robbins. But MPs are questioning why Starmer appointed Mandelson in the first place and was later sacked for granting security clearance to Robbins.

That uneasiness was also highlighted on Wednesday morning by Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, who repeatedly refused to say whether Robbins’ dismissal was fair. “I think very highly of him,” he told Times Radio. “If the Prime Minister has decided that he doesn’t trust the head of the State Department, I think it’s hard to move on.”

It is understood McFadden was not one of those who intervened in Tuesday’s cabinet debate.

Former senior Whitehall chiefs have called for Robbins to be reinstated. Simon McDonald, one of Robbins’ predecessors at the Foreign Office, wrote in the Guardian on Wednesday that the prime minister was “in a hurry”.[ed] Making a wrong judgment.”

Former cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill wrote a letter to the Times saying: “The Prime Minister must withdraw his accusations against Olly Robbins and reinstate him to the job the country is called to do.”

The row has reignited concerns within Labor ranks about the prime minister’s future; Several senior sources have said they believe Starmer is on borrowed time.

A minister said he was in a “holding pattern” and was given another 12 to 18 months in the job. “There is no fundamental change,” they said. “The result remains the same… A lot depends on Andy [Burnham, one of Starmer’s most likely challengers].”

Commenting on the current atmosphere, another added: “It’s weirdly resigned and everyone’s kind of in gallows humor and depression. I guess it’s not over yet and it’s just a little bit deadly.”

The pressure is unlikely to break in the coming days as MPs continue to weigh in on appointing Mandelson. On Thursday, the Cabinet Office’s chief civil servant, Cat Little, will testify before the foreign affairs select committee. He will be followed next Tuesday by the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.