And hello everybody. Welcome back to the channel. Guys, today was Prime Minister’s questions. A guest armor arrived with the attitude as if the whole thing was buried. The whole thing is over now with regard to the Peter Mandlesson appointment. He wanted to move on with things. However, of course, when being questioned by fellow MPs, uh the leader of the opposition again went in and asked more questions with regard to it.
However, again, he just didn’t want to answer them or at least answer the questions properly and had the attitude as if, oh, it’s all done now. I’ I’m all clean. That’s me. Let’s crack on and normal proceedings. And towards the end, he is asked to resign as the prime minister of the United Kingdom. And then goes off the rails, says he’s delivering for the British people, doing all this sorts of stuff.
He’s the man that’s going to deliver change to this country. Unfortunately guys, he’s not going anywhere. Have a watch of this, but first please do hit the like button and at the subscribe button for more. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the prime minister stand by his statement at the dispatch box on the 10th of September last year that full due process was followed in the appointment of Peter Mandlesson as our ambassador to Washington? >> Yes, I do. Uh, Mr.
Speaker, let me make clear at the outset that the appointment itself was a mistake. It was my mistake. I’ve apologized to the victims uh for it and I do so again. What I set out to the house on Monday is that foreign office granted security clearance to Mandlesen against the recommendation of UK security vetting.
Yesterday, Sir Ole 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 the sodesty. 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. >> Mr. Speaker, it does not put to bed anything. >> On the 11th of November, 2024, long before any uh vetting had happened, the prime minister received advice from Simon Casease, the then cabinet secretary.
The advice said the appointment would require and I quote the necessary security clearances before confirming the prime minister’s choice. This advice was ignored. >> So how can the prime minister still believe that confirming Mandlesson before the security clearances was following full due process? >> Mr.
Speaker, this was looked into by Chris Wormold. I asked him to review the appointment process including the vetting. He confirmed Mr. Speaker his words appropriate processes were followed. She’s put great weight on the order events. I remember what a reminder what s Chris said last November in evidence to the house. He said this and I quote, “When we are making appointments from outside the civil service, the normal thing is for security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.” That is
what happened in this case. Sir Ole Robbins himself, Mr. speaker uh also gave gave evidence and he said and I quote as is normally the case with external appointments to in his department the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance. Mr. Speaker on top of that sir Ollle Robbins has made clear that the fact that develop vetting was after announcement made in his words no material difference to the conclusion that was reached and Mr.
Speaker, I’d add this that what uh Sari Robbins wrote to the committee yesterday was this and I quote, “When the prime minister informed the house that the proper process had been followed in respect of national security vetting, he was correct. >> It’s very interesting that he mentions Chris Warmald.
He is relying on advice given to him after Mandolson was sacked by a cabinet secretary the prime minister then sacked. That is not relevant. I’m talking about the advice he was given before the appointment. >> 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 Mandolen didn’t need any vetting at all.
>> This clearly wasn’t proper process. Why was due process not followed? >> Mr. Speaker, let me deal with this directly, particularly this question of pressure uh in relation to the uh decision uh to appoint and to put into post Peter Mandlesson. So Ollie Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday.
He said this, I I didn’t feel under pressure personally in terms of my judgment. His words, Mr. speaker. He went on he went on to say he went on to say, “I have complete confidence that recommendations to me and the discussions we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of any pressure.” Mr. Speaker, on top of that, he was asked if any conversations led him to believe that Mandles needed to take up the role regardless of vetting outcome.
He said, “I can say with certainty, it was never put to me in that way. No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case. What is unacceptable is that the recommendation of UKSV was not given to me before Mandlesson took up his post. >> Mr. Speaker, we all heard what Sir Ollie Robbins said yesterday.
The fact of the matter is that the prime minister spent a lot of time telling us just how furious he was to learn that Mandlesson failed the vetting. The same prime minister who was trying to get into Washington without any vetting at all, which is unbelievable. The reason the cabinet secretary advised the prime minister to carry out full vetting before the appointment, this is common sense, Mr.
Speaker, carry out full vetting before the appointment was to protect our national security. The due diligence document said Mandolen remained on the board of the Kremlin linked defense company Systemma long after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The prime minister told us on Monday that he’d read that due diligence report.
Why did the prime minister want to make a man with links to the Kremlin our ambassador in Washington? >> Well, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the first allegation she put in that question. It was always the case that would be developed vetting in this case. That was the understood process that was carried out. It was reviewed by Sir Chris Warmold and he said it was the appropriate process.
So Ollie was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment. either e whatever the sequence are developed a vetting in relation to what was in the due process any issues of national security are dealt with in the developed vetting process. I knew that Peter Manderson received clearance through that process.
The problem was as I said to the house I was unaware that UKSV recommended against clearance. That is information that should have been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker. They recommend it. They recommended with red flags that there shouldn’t be clearance and it was high concern. That information should have been available to me, made available to me at the time and subsequently.
The fact that it wasn’t was a very serious error of judgment. I don’t know what planet the prime minister is on, Mr. Speaker. Appointing someone with known links to the Kremlin is not full due process. >> If anybody had brought that sort of uh name to me when I was a secretary of state, I would have said, “No way. The prime minister thought someone with Kremlin links was still probably okay.
Let’s do some vetting.” Why does this matter? He keeps leaning on Sir Ollie Robbins, a man he sacked. He keeps leaning on him. Sir Ollie Robbins said yesterday that Peter Mandlesson was given access to highly classified briefings even before he’d received clearance. That was a clear national security risk.
How can the prime minister still maintain that full due process was followed? >> Mr. Speaker um as a member of the House of Lords and Privy Counselor and in accordance with guidance documentation could have been provided to him and was provided to him. Strap material comes after developed vetting but because he was a privy counselor he could have access to other material before developed vetting.
>> This is a joke. He says a member of the House of Lords does he mean people like Matthew Doyle? I’m amazed. I am amazed. >> Yes. I am amazed at the level of chantering from Labour MPs. He promised them property. What he’s given them is cronyism and an old boy club where Matthew Doyle is being proposed as an ambassador. Ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, we all heard Sir Ollie Robbins testimony yesterday. The head of the foreign office was sacked for the prime minister’s own failings. >> His backbenches know that is not fair. Even his most loyal cabinet members won’t defend it. >> The prime minister did not follow the process the cabinet secretary set out in November 2024.
He knows he did not follow due process. Yet he told the house he had. Mr. Speaker, I cannot accuse the prime minister of dis deliberately misleading the house, >> but everyone can see what has happened here. >> This was not due process. >> Everyone knows the price of misleading the house. >> Will the prime minister finally take responsibility and go? >> Well, Mr.
Speaker, let’s be absolutely clear. Before Manderson took up his post, UKSB recommended with red flags that clearance should be denied and there was high concern that that was not brought to my attention or the attention of the foreign secretary at the time or subsequently is a very serious error of judgment and anyone in my position would have lost confidence in the former permanent secretary. But Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the opposition claimed on Friday that Manderson could not have been cleared against security advice. She was wrong about that. >> She said that ministers must have been told. She was wrong about that. >> She claimed there was deliberate dishonesty. She was wrong about that. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
She rushed to judgment as she always did, just like the Iran war. Mr. Speaker, I was elected by the British people because they let the country down for 14 long years. Whatever she says, whatever noise they make, nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.