WATCH NOW: UK Parliament Votes on Starmer Probe as Kemi Badenoch Slams Government | AC14

of privilege which have agreed should

take precedence today. I now call the

leader of the opposition Kevin Mayok to

move the motion.

>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move

the motion standing in my name on the

order paper. Mr. Speaker, shall we pick

up where we left off last Tuesday when

we had an emergency debate about the

government's accountability to

Parliament over Peter Mandelson's

appointment as our ambassador to the

United States. The very next day, a

prime minister's questions, the prime

minister read out selective quotes from

Sir Ollie Robbins evidence to the

Foreign Affairs Select Committee and

deliberately left out critical sections

to make it seem as if Sir Ollie Robbins

evidence had exonerated him. Outrageous.

>> The Prime Minister told the House, and I

quote, "No pressure existed whatsoever

in relation to this case." That is not

what the record shows. Let me read Sir

Ollie Robbins exact quote. Throughout

January, my office and the foreign

secretary's office were under constant

pressure. There was an atmosphere of

constant chasing. So, how can the prime

minister tell us that Sir Ollie Robbins

said no pressure existed whatsoever?

Everybody heard what Olly Robbins said.

We are not here to test whether members

have good hearing. People can go and

look in Hansard. The question today as

the as the speaker said is whether this

should go to the privileges committee

whether this house and labor MPs really

believe in full due process. Whether

Labour MPs have the integrity to refer

the prime minister to the privileges

committee knowing what we all know and

can all read in Hansod.

>> The ministerial code is very clear.

Ministers who mislead the house must

correct the record and I quote at the

earliest opportunity.

>> It is very obvious that the prime that

the prime minister what the prime

minister said at the dispatch box was

not correct.

>> It's clear that full due process was not

followed. If Labour MPs allow the whips

to force them to block the consequences

of these decisions, it will degrade not

just them but this house. The question

is what kind of people are they? Are

they people who will live up to the

promises they made about standards and

the rules mattering or are they people

who abandon their promises to be

complicit in a cover up?

>> Yes, I will give way to the right

honorable lady. On the 4th of February,

we passed a humble address here in this

house with a unanimous vote of well a

unanimous opinion of the whole house

that that the all of the documents

should be made available and published

and those that were were that wait for

the question and those that were

considered sensitive should go to the uh

intelligence and security committee. her

party accepted that the amend that

amendment on the 4th of February if she

wasn't going to wait for the outcome of

that.

>> Why is why is she within this process

today?

>> I think yes I think that is an excellent

question. We asked for the release of

documents and then when the evidence

came showing the what the cabinet

secretary had said in November 24 about

what full due process was, it was very

clear that those instructions had not

been followed.

>> We also know that this latest

information about the problems with the

security vetting did not come from the

humble address. It came from a leak to

the Guardian. So why should we wait for

a never never process that is clearly

not happening? Even members of the

intelligence and security committee in

that SA 24 debate last week said that

there were delays to the release of the

documents. So Mr. Speaker uh members uh

opposite want uh to pretend that this is

something that only one party is doing.

Can I remind them that this is a cross

party motion supported by independence.

the Lib Dems, the DUP, the SNP members

from across this house calling this a

stunt is disrespecting this house and

disrespecting

disrespecting the speaker. It's very

obvious. Listening listening to the

media and their tweets, it's very

obvious. They've all been told to come

here today, tell everybody it's a stunt.

Tell everybody it's a stunt. Why are

they acting like sheep? Why are they

acting like sheep? They should be better

than that. We will be counting, by the

way. Some people might even be shouting

bingo at how many times people stand up

and say that this is a stunt in this

debate. We're looking forward to it.

>> Mr. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker,

>> Mr. Speaker, there is a

>> Yes. Yes, I will give way.

>> I'm grateful to my right honorable

friend. I I think she's being a little

too harsh to the limited number of Labor

MPs opposite.

I mean, here we have the entire

reputation of the prime minister of this

country, the leader of their party, and

they're not they're not turning out for

him because they know that he is now a

laughingstock. And having called round

them, they found out they had to put a

threeline whip to get them to protect

his blushes. So, can my honorable friend

be a little bit kinder to the members

opposite, especially the brave ones who

are actually prepared to come out and

defend the indefensible?

I thank I thank my right honorable

friend uh for that intervention. I will

do my best to be kind uh because he is

right. There are more people here today

than there were last time. So the whips

have really been working hard in the

last seven days. Last week not a single

Labor MP bothered to intervene. Now oh

we've got a we've got a second one. I'm

going to take an intervention uh from

the right gentleman and then I'll come

to the to the Labor MP.

>> Very grateful to the leader of the

opposition. She's right to highlight the

cross party nature of this motion and

also question the applicability of a

whip in refusing a motion before the

House. Does she not agree? And should

Labor MPs not consider that if there's

nothing to hide, there's nothing to

fear?

>> The honorable gentleman makes an

excellent point. I completely agree with

him and in fact I will be making that

case uh in due course. But I will give

way to the honorable gentleman.

>> Rushworth,

>> I thank her for giving way. And a moment

ago, she talked about selective quoting

and I'm sure that she would not want to

selectively quote Sir Ollie Robbins

herself. So, could she tell us what the

rest of that quote was? When when he

talked about pressure, was he talking

about pressure to deliver a decision in

time for President Trump's inauguration?

Or was he saying that he felt pressure

to materially change what that decision

would be? Because that is quite an

important distinction, is it not?

>> It is quite important. And if it was,

why didn't the prime minister say so

last week? Why didn't he say no pressure

whatsoever? He should go and read the

hands. Mr. Speaker, um Mr. Mr. Speaker,

>> um yes, I will give way on that point.

>> Friend, for giving way on that point,

are we really suggesting in this debate

in this chamber that anyone who does not

fully comprehensively without any

hesitation pass vetting should be given

the most important role in our

ambassadorship? The opposition seem to

be suggesting that someone who is

borderline that there are any red flags

should be put in this sort of role. Is

that not absolutely extraordinary

process?

>> It is. It is extraordinary. And the

evidence which we've heard from the

foreign affairs select committee this