Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Stephen Flynn and Darren Jones

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

That is an important question, because it goes to the very heart of the motion before the House today. [Hon. Members: “Answer it!”] I am going to—rest your horses. It is important to place the Prime Minister’s words in the right context. When the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Opposition do not want to listen to the answer—again, they do not like the facts—but I am going to try my best. They should pay attention.

To answer the right hon. Lady’s question directly, when the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure “whatsoever”, he was specifically responding to the allegation that there was pressure that Peter Mandelson should not be vetted at all and that he should be sent to Washington regardless of the vetting outcome. Again, Sir Olly Robbins told MPs that it was

“never put to me that way”,

and the Prime Minister made the comment immediately after quoting the evidence provided to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Regrettably—we see this again today, time after time—the Opposition are just trying to expand their interpretation of the Prime Minister’s words in bad faith, because their previous claim that the Prime Minister must have known about Peter Mandelson’s clearance has fallen apart in front of their eyes, and now they are grasping at straws. That matters, because as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) argued, the processes in this House and the work of the Privileges Committee are important and integral to our constitution, but there must be appropriate thresholds for these investigations.

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Darren Jones]

These investigations cannot be done every week off the back of PMQs on an interpretation of the wording of the Prime Minister. Instead, they must be done on very significant cases that warrant the work of the Privileges Committee. That is why it is important to contrast the allegations and accusations of the Opposition parties, as many Members of the House have done today, with the seriousness of the situation when Boris Johnson was referred to the Privileges Committee in the last Parliament.

This is an important precedent. In those circumstances, Boris Johnson knowingly told this House that there were no parties in Downing Street during covid lockdowns, only for it to emerge that he had personally been at five of them and received a police fine for attending them. That is the nature of lying to this House, which he was proven to have done in the work of the Privileges Committee. It is not about the interpretation of a question and answer at Prime Minister’s questions.

This all begs the question: if there is no substance to the allegations in the motion today, what is it that is driving the behaviour of Opposition parties? That question goes to the very basis of the motion before us. I have to ask: what is it precisely about this Labour Government giving rights and powers to workers, renters and the disadvantaged that they do not like? What is it about this Labour Government standing against unearned wealth and people who use their privilege to extract value from the system, rather than adding to it, that they do not like? What is it about a Labour Government raising taxes on private jets and non-doms to raise money for our state schools, our NHS and our police and to lift children out of poverty after years of neglect by the Conservative party that the Opposition parties do not want to hear? We all know why—because they are on the side of the vested interests, and we are on the side of the British people.

To be fair to the House, this is not just an accusation that I am levelling at the Conservatives, because they are not the only ones playing games with today’s motion. The SNP, too, is desperate to distract from its record in power. What is it trying to distract from today? It is 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own, a Scottish NHS in decline, and the shameful ferries fiasco.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the right hon. Member for belatedly giving way. I do not know if he has noticed, but this afternoon, polling was released outlining that 61% of people on these isles believe that there should be an inquiry in the terms laid out in the motion. Just 20% of the public agree with the Minister’s position. Why is he once again on the wrong side of public opinion?

[Darren Jones]

I notice that the right hon. Member has nothing to say to those kids, to those patients waiting in the NHS, or to the line of other people waiting for his Government to perform.

Just for me to complete going around the House, the so-called Green party is desperate to distract from Labour’s clean energy mission, from its opposition to clean nuclear power, and from its quibbling over new solar farms that—I literally could not make this up—it thinks are too big. Get real!

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

Debate between Stephen Flynn and Darren Jones

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual applications of policy in relation to private individuals who are no longer employed by the Government, but I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that all appropriate processes were followed.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

In respect of the Humble Address, perhaps contrary to what was suggested earlier, the House agreed to it only on the basis that Labour MPs were about to rebel against the position that the Government had adopted. Tomorrow, something similar may arise in respect of a potential referral of the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. Surely the Chief Secretary has an opinion as to whether his Members behind him would want to have a free vote in respect of whether the Prime Minister has misled the House.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Debate between Stephen Flynn and Darren Jones

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the bigger issues in question about the process of appointment, disclosure and deceit, and the rules that are in place. Above and beyond all that, unfortunately, is a country and a world in which the voices of women who are subject to male violence are not heard and the abuse of power and privilege is still rampant. I think all of us—in any party and in any part of the House—would want to suggest that that is not how we wish the world to operate. We should all do what we can to change that. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and it is why we talk about how we tackle structural misogyny, whether at the heart of our political system, in business or elsewhere. I know that my hon. Friend and I share those ambitions and will do all that we can to make them a reality.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

If I listened to the Chief Secretary correctly, which I think I did, he said, “His victims must be our first priority.” Let us be clear: for the Prime Minister, they were not. On 11 December 2024, he received advice that says,

“Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008”.

The following sentence says,

“Mandelson…stayed in Epstein’s House…in June 2009.”

I repeat: the victims were not the Prime Minister’s first priority.

That being the case, how can the Chief Secretary stand at that Dispatch Box, with a straight face, and say,

“We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences”,

when it was the Prime Minister who chose to ignore those experiences, ignore those facts and appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will have heard from my—

[Stephen Flynn]

Right honourable.

[Darren Jones]

Forgive me. The right hon. Member will have heard from my statement that in response to the reported allegations that are listed in the Cabinet Office due diligence—at the time they were, of course, allegations—questions were put to Peter Mandelson by No. 10 advisers. His responses to those questions are part of documents that we would have liked to publish today but are not yet able to. Since then, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that Peter Mandelson lied to him. He regrets believing those lies and if he had known the depth and extent of that relationship, which nobody in this House understood until the Bloomberg publication of documents and the US Department of Justice disclosures, he would never have appointed him in the first place.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Debate between Stephen Flynn and Darren Jones

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why the Government have written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that that work is now started.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I do not understand why the Minister, whom I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though the Government did not know about the relationship and connection between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I cannot understand why the Minister is not standing at the Dispatch Box saying that this House will sit until whatever hour required to pass legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. I cannot understand why the Minister is acting like the Labour party has been proactive on this, when it has known for months about Peter Mandelson’s revelations and yet has allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. I cannot understand why half an hour ago the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologise for his decision making and lack of judgment and say that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a criminal investigation.

[Darren Jones]

Neither the Labour party nor the Government, or indeed this House or the right hon. Member, knew about the information that was made available by the US Department of Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the Government have acted accordingly. In respect of the previous decision of the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the Prime Minister was very clear with this House and, indeed, the public that he did so quickly, as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The Prime Minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the Prime Minister acted quickly and removed him from office.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Flynn and Darren Jones

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. May I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) on his moving ten-minute rule Bill, which he just presented?

The purpose of the Crown Estate Bill is to bring legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century. The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment, yet it is restricted in its ability to do so by legislation that has not been amended since 1961. With less ability to compete and to invest, it is less able to deliver returns for the public purse than it might otherwise be able to do.

Existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s powers have meant it has had to generate capital for investment by selling its assets, which is neither desirable nor sustainable. Under current legislation, the Crown Estate is constrained in its ability to support sustainable projects and to preserve our heritage for generations to come. These are the reasons why the Bill is necessary and why the Crown Estate has asked successive Governments for reforms.

The Bill has been expanded and improved during its passage in the other place, with requirements relating to sustainable development, GB Energy and the composition of the board. Fundamentally, the changes that the Bill proposes will give the Crown Estate new freedoms, including the power to borrow as their competitors can, enabling them to adopt a sustainable and competitive business model.

The Bill has two key objectives. First, it broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can invest in, in order to support the delivery of its core purpose across net zero, nature recovery, economic growth and generating returns to the public purse. In its current form, it is predominantly a property estate and is significantly limited in its investment options. The Bill would provide it with the ability to invest more widely in new growth opportunities—for example, investing in the further mapping of our seabed. This will enable it to undertake significant de-risking activity, such as pre-consent surveys and supporting grid connections, thus increasing the frequency of leasing for offshore wind and supporting the clean energy transition.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I hope the Minister will not hear much disagreement about the points he is making so eloquently. However, may I query why these provisions and powers, which he believes are relevant for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, are not also being provided to the Crown Estate in Scotland?

[Darren Jones]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Crown Estate Scotland is a separate organisation to the Crown Estate that is the subject of the Bill. Of course, we continue to have conversations and we will be pleased to talk to him and others about that issue for the future.

[Stephen Flynn]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman should not take my not knowing the answer as meaning that other people are not paying sufficient attention to the issue. He has asked a very technical question, and I commit to making sure an answer is made available to him and the House before the Bill goes to Committee.

The Bill currently places an obligation on the commissioners in relation to salmon farming, due to an amendment made in the other place. The Government do not believe this obligation would be effective or, indeed, appropriate, given that it relates to a devolved policy area. We therefore intend to seek to remove this measure in Committee.

The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 inserts two new measures into the Crown Estate Act 1961 to clarify and broaden the commissioners’ powers. It also removes section 3(4) of the 1961 Act, thereby removing limitations on the commissioners’ investment powers.

The two new measures grant a power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent, and clarify that the commissioners have the powers to do that which is connected, conducive or incidental to meeting their general functions, including enhancing and maintaining the Crown Estate and the returns obtained from it. This allows the Crown Estate to borrow from the National Loans Fund, the Treasury or otherwise, subject to Treasury consent, and authorises the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the commissioners or to provide loans from the National Loans Fund.

Clause 2 makes two amendments to modernise the Crown Estate’s governance, by increasing the maximum number of board members from eight to 12 and removing the requirement for the salaries and expenses of its commissioners to be paid out of voted funds.

Clause 3 requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Clause 4 requires the commissioners’ annual report to include a specific report relating to the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy.

Clause 5 requires the commissioners to make assessments relating to salmon farms on Crown Estate land, and to refuse or revoke a licence for a salmon farm if the assessment determines that it may cause, or is causing, environmental damage, or if it raises significant animal welfare concerns.

[Stephen Flynn]

The Minister has mentioned GB Energy and the desire to get on with allowing the Crown Estate in England and Wales to borrow. He will not have forgotten that GB Energy is likely to be located in my Aberdeen South constituency, and many of its projects to drive the net zero agenda across the UK will come to fruition in Scotland. Will he provide a little clarity on why he believes these powers should apply to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, yet his Government are not legislating for the powers to be provided to Crown Estate Scotland? I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the ambitions for GB Energy are broader than those relating to the provisions of this Bill. On the connection between the Crown Estate and GB Energy in relation to this Bill, it is merely about the partnership that has already been announced to facilitate the investment opportunities that are available in relation to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer on Crown Estate Scotland.