Lord Mandelson
Debate between Scott Arthur and Stephen Flynn(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Flynn
No, I will not.
Today’s debate is important because we will get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson did—I will come to that—but also because we in this Chamber cannot forgive or forget the judgment of the Prime Minister when he chose to make that political choice. It was a choice that Labour Members have told us repeatedly was a political risk. It was not a political risk. It was a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because Peter Mandelson knew when he continued the relationship that the man was a convicted sex offender.
Stephen Flynn
I said I will not. The hon. Member can sit down and listen to my speech today, as his colleagues should have done on many occasions in months gone past.
The Prime Minister has let down not only himself but his office and the public—a public to whom he promised change. He said that he would tread lightly on their lives. Do any of the public believe that today? Do any of them have confidence in his judgment? Are the Labour party seriously saying to the public that they still have confidence in the Prime Minister’s judgment—that we can trust him to make the big decisions, when he cannot even accept that a relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein should have stopped Peter Mandelson becoming the ambassador to the United States of America?
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I really do think that he is misreading the mood of the House. We are trying to find consensus on what is being debated. He talks about articles in The Guardian and what was in the public domain, but he will know that last year, John Swinney stayed in Peter Mandelson’s house in Washington. He does not always stay with ambassadors, but he chose to then. If John Swinney knew about this—it was in the public domain—why did he stay with Peter Mandelson, and why did he not answer questions on this yesterday, when he was asked them five times?
Stephen Flynn
What a desperate and foolish intervention. I would have let the hon. Member intervene earlier, if I had known that was coming. He knows fine well that the First Minister of Scotland does not appoint the ambassador to the United States of America. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does. I thought that for once we had consensus in this House, and agreed that the Prime Minister lacked judgment by appointing Mandelson. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member disagree and think that the Prime Minister should have appointed him?
Stephen Flynn
Yet another one—the hon. Member excels himself.
On Monday, the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box, and I asked him two questions. I asked him to make an unreserved apology to each and every victim of Epstein for his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. He chose not to. I then asked him if he agreed, at that moment, that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation, because I had just reported him to the police. He chose not to agree; he said:
“Only the SNP could go about this in this way”.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 34.]
Here we are, two days later, and Peter Mandelson is being investigated. Importantly, the Prime Minister has still not said sorry. That is an abdication of his responsibility, as he has had numerous occasions to apologise. It is another betrayal of those victims.
We must support this motion to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored, and to properly understand why the Prime Minister took the decision that he took. Let none of us be in any doubt: these discussions about manuscript amendments and motions, and how we decide on anything, will not matter as much to the public as the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment. That will lead to his departure from No. 10.