Ambassador to the United States

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I often think it is a grave pity that the cameras in this House tend to be trained just on the individual speaking, because it means that the public did not get the opportunity that we did earlier to look at the faces of the Labour MPs as this debate began—to see the glum, serious look on their faces as they recognised the significance of the situation that faces their Prime Minister here and now. And I am sure that that glum, angry, serious look is shared not just by those here on the Treasury Bench today but by those who have been flogged in the public domain across broadcasting stations throughout the course of the last week.

The Chief Whip is no longer in his place, but I like to think that Sunday was the first occasion when he was happy to be in his new role, because he did not have to appear on the Sunday media rounds as Business Secretary to defend the indefensible and to tell us all, in the public domain, that Peter Mandelson has singular qualities that nobody else on these isles—nobody else on the planet—could possibly have that made him fitting to be the ambassador to the United States of America. What a pitiful state to find ourselves in. What a pitiful state for the Prime Minister to find himself in.

I hate to say it, but this is mired in politics, because this was a political decision by the Prime Minister. He chose to stand at the Dispatch Box last week and tell not just us but the public that there was nothing to see here—that he had absolute confidence in Lord Mandelson. It is the Prime Minister who chose to ignore the facts that were plainly in front of him, not for weeks, hours or days, but for months. He was the man who appointed Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States. Peter Mandelson told a Financial Times journalist earlier this year to “fuck off”—his quote, not mine—when he was asked about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. That was what Lord Mandelson said. He also said it was “an FT obsession”. Well, guess what? It is our obsession now, and we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this.

The Prime Minister is not above the scrutiny of the House of Commons; neither is he above the scrutiny of the public at home. The greatest scandal of all is the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appointed a man to that role, knowing that that man had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein despite the fact that Epstein had been convicted in 2008, in Florida, of having 14-year-old girls masturbate him. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thought it was fitting for the best friend of that individual to hold the highest diplomatic office in the United States of America on behalf of the people of these isles. What a complete disgrace.

The only thing that seems to have caused any consternation for the Prime Minister in any of this is not that that happened, but the fact that for a short period, Peter Mandelson appeared to think Jeffrey Epstein was innocent. That draws us to the conclusion that if Peter Mandelson had maintained the friendship with Jeffrey Epstein but thought he was guilty, he would still be in post. What has happened to the moral compass of this place, and of the office of the Prime Minister, where we can simply accept a rationale such as that?

How can any victim of child sex abuse in these isles or elsewhere have confidence in the structures that we put in place when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), shakes his head. Does he want to intervene? Is there something he disagrees with in my assessment of those facts, or does he want to present the additional detail to this House that makes any of that untrue whatsoever? No. I notice he is not shaking his head now, but I can tell him who is shaking their head: the public—at him and his Prime Minister for the decisions they have taken.

We are going into recess. All of us are mindful of the fact that this House is shutting down. But when we come back, we expect answers. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom hopes that this is going to go away, but I and every other Member sitting in this House right now can assure him that it is not.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not give way at first. I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate, after which I will happily take some interventions.

The Prime Minister took this decision after new information showed that the nature and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for early release, and said that Epstein had been through “years of torture”. We know that the only people tortured were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein’s heinous crimes. I associate myself with the remarks that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made on that point, both about the crimes and the victims.

[Stephen Flynn]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way on that specific point.

[Stephen Flynn]

Is the Minister effectively telling the House that Lord Mandelson retaining his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein despite him being a paedophile was fine, and that the only problem was that Lord Mandelson thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent? Is the Minister conveying the message to the public that if Lord Mandelson had not sent those emails and had said to the Prime Minister that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty, that would not have been a problem?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Prime Minister has been explicitly clear that the new information was not compatible with the duty that we owe to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls, and with this Government’s clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. As such, the Prime Minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. He has also been clear—he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday—that Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time. I point the House to what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday:

“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”

Following Lord Mandelson’s departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice, the deputy head of mission, James Roscoe—an experienced and capable diplomat—has been put in place as the chargé d’affaires.