Starmer RUNS SCARED As Emergency Debate Unfolds In The Commons!

And hello everybody. Welcome back to the

channel. Guys, what a busy day in

Westminster. Earlier on today, we of

course shared with you what Ollie

Robbins said uh with regard to his sort

of giving evidence with regard to what

Kstar has said as he tries to cover up

this whole Peter Mandelain thing and

take no accountability. Now, straight

after that, there was an emergency

debate. Um and Kstarma wasn't there.

However, there was MPs there. Kenny

Bnock, the leader of the opposition,

wiping the floor with Karma yet again,

essentially dragging him through the

final drags of this failed Labor

government. Um, and yeah, as I said, as

you spoke, he wasn't there as he tries

to again just try and bury this story,

but it's quite a long one, and I think

you will want to see what she said. As

always guys, please hit the like button

and hit the subscribe button for more.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this

House has considered the matter of the

government's accountability to the House

in connection to the appointment of

Peter Mandlesson. And can I thank you,

Mr. Speaker, for granting this important

debate.

>> The Prime Minister personally decided to

appoint a serious known national

security risk to our most sensitive

diplomatic post. Peter Mandlesson was

not just a man who had already been

sacked twice from government for lying,

not just a man who had a public

relationship with a convicted pedophile,

but a man with links to the Kremlin and

China. Links so close that they were

raised as red flags with the prime

minister before his appointment.

>> Yesterday, the prime minister did not

deny that he knew about these links

before he appointed Mandlesen. He could

not deny this because by his own

admission he had seen the documents that

proved the links. I cannot overstate how

serious a matter this is.

>> The prime minister sent a known security

risk to Washington to a position where

he would see our most important allies

top secret intelligence.

>> What if he had seen something and leaked

it to one of our enemies? How much would

that have damaged our security

partnership? We cannot even be sure that

didn't happen. What is most

extraordinary is the prime minister

appointed Peter Mandlesson before

vetting was complete. He did this

despite a letter from the then cabinet

secretary Lord Casease clearly

expressing to the prime minister that

the process required security vetting to

be done before the appointment. So how

can he then have claimed on the floor of

this house that the process was followed

when he knew that it had not been?

>> He mentioned the word process, Mr.

Speaker, more than a hundred times in

parliament yesterday, but he was the one

who didn't follow that process.

>> Yes.

>> This morning we have heard the bombshell

testimony of the former permanent

secretary of the foreign office, Siri

Robbins. Sir Ole Robbins had a long and

distinguished career serving ministers.

He is not the sort of person to give us

a frank personal account of how things

played out last January. So when he told

us today that Downing Street put the

foreign office under constant pressure

to clear Peter Mandlesson, that number

10 showed a dismissive approach to

Mandlesson's vetting process. When he

told us that it would have been very

difficult indeed to deny clearance and

that doing so would have damaged US UK

relationships, we know he is giving us

the slightest indication of how bad

things were. that there was actually

over an overwhelming drive from the

prime minister's office to ensure Peter

Mandlesson was installed as ambassador.

>> He has told us that number 10 showed no

interest in the vetting, no desire to

wait and ensure due process was

followed. In fact, the cabinet office

even questioned the need for Peter

Mandlesson to be vetted at all. the same

cabinet office that had discovered

Mandlesson's links to Epstein, China,

and Russia in its due diligence. The

cabinet office which the minister is in

charge of right now.

>> Where's the prime minister?

>> Instead, Mr. Speaker, according to

Robbins, the focus was on getting

Mandlesson out to Washington quickly.

And before the vetting even started,

Peter Mandlesson had already been

granted access to, and I quote, highly

classified briefing on a case-bycase

basis. This is what the prime minister

calls full due process.

>> Yes. Yes, I will give way. Also in the

testimony today, did she not find it

astonishing that uh that the ex leader

of the of the foreign office said that

he was made to understand that before

they had completed their clearances that

Mandlesson already had strap clearance

which gives him access to the most

secure and most dangerous information

held by government.

>> Uh can I thank my right honorable friend

for that intervention? He is absolutely

right. It is extraordinary. It is

shocking.

Now the prime minister might have

refused to answer my question around his

knowledge of Mandlesson's links to the

Russian defense company systemma

yesterday but that is only because he

knows we know the answer. It was there

in the due diligence. his choice of

ambassador retaining an interest in a

Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin

after the invasion of Crimea and the

prime minister's response to seeing that

information according to Robin's

constant pressure on the foreign office

to get the appointment done.

>> The prime minister, as my right

honorable friend uh has just mentioned,

placed top secret intelligence in the

hands of a man he knew to be a national

security risk. He did so before the

official security vetting, not just

knowingly but deliberately and to an

extent that left a senior civil servant

with a distinguished career under the

clear and obvious impression that the

vetting must return only one possible

outcome that Peter Mandlesson was

appointed. None of this was following

full due process by the letter or the

spirit of that phrase. This is no longer

just about what the prime minister was

or wasn't told. This is about what he

did before the vetting process had even

started.

>> Yes.

>> And we now know that Mandlesson wasn't a

one-off.

>> According to Sir Ollie Robbins, number

10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew

Doyle, the Prime Minister's then

director of communications, to be made

an ambassador.

Astonishingly, the prime minister's

office even told Robbins to keep this

request a secret from the foreign

secretary.

>> Outrageous.

>> The idea that it is number 10 who are

the victims of others not following due

process is quite frankly laughable.

The prime minister told parliament

yesterday that it was staggering that

Olly Robbins had not shared the

recommendations of the UK security

vetting with the then cabinet secretary

Chris Warmold.

But today we learned from Robbins that

he had never seen the original vetting

file. So if the prime minister is

furious that Siri Robbins did not share

the vetting details with him or the

former cabinet secretary, why is he not

furious with the cabinet office for not

sharing it?

>> Put simply, why exactly did he sack Oie

Robbins?

>> It is no surprise the prime minister is

not here today. These are difficult

questions.

He cannot claim not to have known about