'A PM in CRISIS!' - Starmer endures BATTERING in the Commons after Mandelson scandal ERUPTS

His reputation is at stake. Everyone is

watching. It is finally time for the

truth.

>> We know the prime minister personally

appointed Peter Mandlesson to be our

ambassador to the United States. We know

that Mandlesen had a close relationship

with a convicted pedophile.

>> We know that he had concerning links

with Russia and China, links that had

already raised red flags. We know that

the prime minister announced the

appointment before vetting was complete,

an extraordinary and unprecedented step

for the role of US ambassador.

>> The prime minister says that it was

usual for this because it was a

political appointment. So I will remind

him and the rest of the Labour front

bench who were heckling that Peter

Mandlesson was a politician who had been

sacked twice from government for lying.

That meant he should have gone through

the full security process.

>> And we also know finally, Mr. Speaker,

that when Peter Manderson failed the

security vetting, he was allowed to

continue in the role with access to top

secret intelligence and security

information. This goes beyond propriety

and ethics. This is a matter of national

security. On the 26th of January, 2022,

the right honorable gentleman said to a

previous prime minister at this dispatch

box, "If he misled the house, he must

resign."

>> Does he stand by those words, or is

there one rule for him and another for

everyone else? Yeah,

>> in relation to um the uh uh point she

makes um about what I said in February

in answer to a question of hers. Um I

make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, I had

not seen the security vetting file. I

did not know that UK SB the question

asked me about vetting. I knew about the

due diligence and that's why I put

before the house what I knew about the

due diligence um in relation to Epstein.

The question asked me about vetting and

I had I knew what the due diligence has

said and therefore I told the house what

the due diligence has said. I didn't

tell them what security vetting had said

because I hadn't seen the file uh in

relation um to that

>> Anderson.

>> Thank you Mr. Speaker. The problem the

prime minister's got is is no one

believes him. The public don't believe

him. The MPs on this side of the house

don't believe him. His own gullible

backbenches don't believe him. So, does

a prime minister agree with me? He's

been lying.

>> Prime Minister,

>> sorry, we don't use those words, and I'm

sure the members withdrawn it.

>> Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect

for you in your office, but I will not

withdraw. That man couldn't lie straight

in bed.

>> The order, Mr. Anderson, you'll have to

leave.

>> Mr. Speaker, the UK has some of the

highest energy prices in the world. That

is crippling our economy, pushing up the

cost of living, and leaves us

particularly exposed to energy shocks

like the one we are experiencing right

now. And yet the government seems

totally unwilling to accept the scale of

the problem and totally unwilling to

shift in their dogmatic commitment to a

net zero agenda which is making us

poorer. The right honorable lady noted

the importance of keeping fuel duty

down. But once again, she had nothing to

say about the ownerous increase in fuel

duty she still plans to bring forward in

September.

>> Exactly. Exactly.

>> Finally, Madame Deputy Speaker,

>> we have had no meaningful action today

on the issue of North Sea oil and gas.

>> The chancellor says she wants to reduce

our exposure to global energy. Yet the

government is choosing to leave us more

resilient on imported hydrocarbons.

>> The prime minister personally decided to

appoint a serious known national

security risk to our most sensitive

diplomatic post. 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. Siri 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.

Does she not believe, however, that the

sorry souls opposite us should have to

put their money where their mouth is and

that there should be a vote of no

confidence in this prime minister in due

course.

>> Uh the right honorable gentleman makes a

very good point. I think he is right

because I don't believe the prime

minister has the intention of doing the

honorable thing himself even though

that's the standard to which he held

everyone else. The decision, as I said,

about whether he will ultimately take

responsibility for his actions is now up

to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful

statements from that side of the House

yesterday. Labor MPs know that the Prime

Minister has let the country down. He's

let Parliament down and he's also let

the Labor Party down.

>> It is clear to everyone except the prime

minister himself that he has failed on

his own terms. It is clear to the public

that he is failing at the job. It is

clear to civil servants that he is

throwing them under the bus. And it is

clear to members across this house that

he is not fit to lead.

>> This cannot go on. This house deserves

better. The country deserves better. The

prime minister is not fit for office.

>> The first duty, Mr. Speaker, of any

prime minister is to keep this country

safe. This prime minister has put the

country's national security at risk. He

must take responsibility. It is time for

him to go.

>> What I set out to the house on Monday is

that foreign office granted security

clearance to Mandlesson against the

recommendation of UK security vetting.

Yesterday, Sir Ollie Robbins was asked

if he shared that decision with me,

number 10, or any other ministers. He

gave a clear answer. No, Mr. Speaker,

that puts to bed all the allegations

leveled at me by those opposite in

relation to disaster.

I believe I believe last week they were

all saying that it must have been shared

with me. So Ollie was very clear

yesterday it was not. I believe not

sharing it was a serious error of

judgment. That information should have

been shared with me and other ministers.

And if it had have been, Mandlesson

would not have been committed to post.

>> He keeps mentioning Sir Ollie Robbins.

Sir Ollie Robbins told us that the prime

minister even sought clearance from his

majesty the king before the vetting.

He'd already got agreement from the US

administration. The chair of the select

committee said that Mandlesson was a

done deal.

>> Yesterday, Sir Ollie Robbins said that

the focus was on getting Mandlesson out

to Washington quickly. He said the prime

minister's team showed a dismissive

attitude to vetting and they even argued

Peter Mandlesson didn't need any vetting

at all.

>> This clearly wasn't proper process. The