Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), who has done no harm whatsoever to his case to soon become a junior Whip in the Government—[Interruption.] Or a trade envoy, of course. [Hon. Members: “An ambassador!”] I will let hon. Members have their fun soon.

I wish to start on a much more important note, which is to dwell not on what the Prime Minister said when he is accused of having misled the House—I will come to that—but on something that he said at the Dispatch Box a few months beforehand. In response to the Leader of the Opposition, he stood up just there and said that he knew—he knew—that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with the world’s most notorious paedophile and child trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. When he stood up at that Dispatch Box and finally admitted that he knew, that should have been it—that should have been curtains for him. At that moment, Labour Members should have made a moral decision that he was not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Lord of the Treasury because his judgment was flawed and it was wrong, but they proactively chose to ignore that and to defend him. In the weeks that have passed, all we have seen is even greater scandal engulf this Prime Minister and Labour Members, whether they realise it or not; some appear not to.

We have now received confirmation from the Prime Minister’s chief bag carrier that as Parliament returns after the Prorogation that is to come, the second tranche of the Mandelson files will become apparent. Each and every one of the Members opposite will be wedded to the Prime Minister as their leader, despite everything that the public know and everything that the public will come to learn. Let me tell them something, as someone who has sat in this House and watched a little bit of chaos up close: it will come back to haunt them, and it will come back to bite them far sooner than they realise.

All of us in all our political parties go through these moments. I have seen it in my own party in recent years, just as Conservative Members have said they have seen it in theirs. But what we should seek to do in politics is to learn from those mistakes, not to repeat them. I remember sitting outside the Chamber during a contentious vote to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred, where Conservative Members were whipped to support the indefensible and all chaos broke loose. That was the legacy that the Conservatives built for themselves, and that is why they got hammered at the last election. That is what will befall Labour Members. They cannot outrun Peter Mandelson. They cannot outrun their own Prime Minister and his record.

What Members of this House are being asked to do today is very simple. If they believe that the Prime Minister is innocent of the accusations that are being put to him, all they need to do is accept the premise of taking this to a Committee of their peers in this House—ourselves—to decide whether it is accurate. A confident Labour party and a confident Government would believe their Prime Minister; they would have courage in their convictions and go to that Committee posthaste to clear his name, but they will not do that because they are not acting from a position of strength. They are acting from a position of profound weakness. The public see that and smell it, and all they are going to believe is that there is a cover-up on behalf of each and every one of the Labour Members who traipse through the Lobby behind those who sit on their Front Bench.

[Peter Fortune]

Referring to the whiff that the public may pick up, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister’s concern could be that the Privileges Committee will deliver a result that he might not like?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

It is hard at this stage to come to any other conclusion. If Labour Members had confidence in their Prime Minister, they would already be going to the Privileges Committee, irrespective of the views of any of us in this here House.

Notwithstanding the arguments that have been made regarding Olly Robbins, Simon Case and others, or the Prime Minister’s decision to throw everyone under the bus bar himself, I do wonder what the public make of all this, at a time when they are—I am sure we can all agree on this—profoundly anxious about the very basics in their life. They are anxious about being able to afford things in the supermarket and about being able to fill up their car because the price of diesel is near two quid, yet when they turn on their TV they see a Labour party that should be acting in their best interests and looking to protect and save their jobs, and to give them hope and opportunity for the future, seeking to defend the indefensible. That breach of trust with the public cannot simply be renewed.

When the Prime Minister first came to the Dispatch Box following the general election, I did as many others did: I congratulated him and wished him well. The phrase that sits most acutely in my mind from that moment was his attempt to convey to the people of these isles that he would tread lightly on their lives. He has done the opposite. He promised to be change, but I am afraid to say that he has delivered more of the same. The public deserve better. The Government can do better, but that will happen only if the Labour Members who are sitting behind their Front Bench find the courage that those on the Front Bench so badly lack.

--- Later in debate ---

[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!

Iran: Protests

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the care that she puts into these issues in her constituency. The Jonathan Hall review sets out some of the reasons why, in his view, a state-focused proscription-like tool is necessary. We accept his recommendations and we intend to legislate.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

There is a shared horror across the Chamber at the killing of protesters in Iran, just as there is a shared condemnation of the brutal regime and, it appears, a shared view that the IRGC should be proscribed. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, but I gently suggest that he has a consensus, which he should use to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible to send a clear message to the Iranian people that we stand with them.

Gaza and Hamas

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there has been a significant increase in settlements and in violence associated with those settlements. This is a continued problem, and we will continue to work at it, alongside our partners, to try to see that terrible trend reversed.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I get the impression that the Minister shares my despair at what feel like constant impediments to real progress that are being put in place by the impunity of both Hamas and of Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal regime. The United States of America has indicated that Israel’s response last night was proportionate, and it backed the action. I am curious: is that view shared by His Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Falconer]

For the reasons I gave earlier, I am reluctant to be drawn into a day-by-day commentary on the actions of both sides. What is key is that we keep the ceasefire going, and that is what the Americans have been clear is still in place. This is going to be difficult. The events of the last 24 hours have been difficult, and I am sure that we will have further difficult days ahead. This is not a straightforward path, and if the right hon. Gentleman doesn’t mind, I will not be drawn on an individual instance today.

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.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree that this is decisive action. The Prime Minister has acted in the light of that additional information, the Foreign Secretary has acted, and Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador to Washington.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Minister is delighted that he has not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including this morning, in trying to defend Lord Mandelson and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister. I do not know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with a notorious child trafficker and paedophile, which should have rung some alarm bells in No. 10 before this decision was taken. If I listened correctly, the Minister did not confirm to the Father of the House that all relevant materials will be published. Did the Prime Minister know about these emails prior to standing up at the Dispatch Box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr Mandelson, and does he retain the Labour Whip in the House of Lords?

[Stephen Doughty]

What I can commit to is that we will keep the House updated on these matters. A decisive decision has been made. As I have made very clear, all candidates are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. The Prime Minister, in the light of the additional information, has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. In particular, the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. But I agree, of course, with the right hon. Gentleman on the appalling crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, and the thoughts of all of us are with his victims, as they are every day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a decision for me. The Treasury has heard, and if the Minister wishes to respond, I am more than happy to let him. He is not going to.

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am not going to continue the debate, but I will take a point of order.

[Stephen Flynn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome clarity further on points just made. The Minister was asked on numerous occasions when the Prime Minister was made aware of the additional email information that led to Mr Mandelson’s sacking. He has not provided the House with that information. What avenues are available to us Members to find out when the Prime Minister knew this additional information?

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member and party leader knows very well the mechanisms that he can use. I do not think that today is the end of the matter. I think this will be returned to at some point. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the House would be updated as and when the Government had the information. The points have been taken, and I expect the questions to be answered at some time. There is a long weekend before we get to Monday. Let us leave it there; I do not want to continue the debate.

Middle East

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. He will know that, alongside the Home Secretary, we commissioned work from Jonathan Hall on the specific issue of state threats. We will be coming forward with further plans in the coming months.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary has just said:

“On the ground, it is unimaginably bleak. Horrifying images and accounts will be seared into the minds of colleagues across this House. They are almost impossible to put into words. But we can and must be precise with our language.”

I agree. It is a genocide, isn’t it?

[Mr Lammy]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but there are many lawyers who take that view. As he knows, we made an assessment, based on a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law, that meant we suspended arms sales that could be used in Gaza.

Middle East

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I set out in my statement the action that this Government have taken, and I stand by it. I regret that we have not brought about a ceasefire. I have also set out that we are attempting to get in more aid and how we are supporting the Palestinian people, including the Palestinian Authority, and I stand by that.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On the Foreign Secretary’s watch and in his statement today, he has refused to call it a genocide, he has refused to end all arms sales to Israel and, of course, he continues to refuse to recognise a state of Palestine, so here is something he could do. On his watch, just two wee kids who have been bombed or shot by the Israeli forces have been evacuated to the UK for medical treatment. The First Minister of Scotland wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we stand ready to provide hospital treatment to such children. Shamefully, the Prime Minister has not even bothered to respond. Will the Foreign Secretary do what his boss will not, and commit the UK to making sure that children who have been bombed by Israel are treated—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Foreign Secretary.

Middle East

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

A lot of people watching and worrying over the weekend will have seen many of the hallmarks of Iraq. Despite that, the Foreign Secretary cannot tell us whether or not he believes that the strikes were the right thing to do, or whether or not he believes that the strikes were legal, and he has failed to outline today whether this House would be given a vote on any potential military action in this conflict. Is he purposely treating the public as fools?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman may just have got a soundbite, but I am afraid that I am not going to take any lectures from him on the nuclear question. He has a very sorry record on that serious matter. We have been very clear that diplomacy is the way and that de-escalation is our position. That is what a Government pursue if they are serious about foreign policy, and I would recommend our approach to him.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We abide by all of our international legal obligations and keep these matters under rapid review. My hon. Friend rightly highlights the risks of malnutrition and famine in Gaza, as identified by the integrated food security phase classification. We take very serious note of all of these reports as they come out.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I cannot help but feel that the Minister is treating Members with a significant level of contempt by telling us that something will happen, but not telling us what that will be or when it will happen. On a more acute point, can he perhaps clarify for the House why he believes it is consistent for his Government to condemn the Israeli Government for starving a civilian population while at the same time providing them with the component parts to bomb a civilian population?

[Mr Falconer]

I am surprised that the right hon. Member thinks that there is any question as to why Foreign Office Ministers might need to leave some degree of ambiguity about when they take actions, including all the ones that have been discussed this afternoon, such as sanctions. These principles of why we might want to do things without pre-notifying the House of each and every step are relatively well-established, I think, but I am happy to discuss in further detail why we do that. On the point about F-35 components, where we know that they are going to Israel, we are suspending that. It is only because we are not able to control the onward transmission of the global spares pool that this at least theoretical risk exists.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—no pressure.

To see the Foreign Secretary finally find some fire in his belly on this issue was certainly most appreciated, but it was long overdue. Ultimately, as has been mentioned, the Government are still a block to action. Would he support this House being given votes on whether we support the work of the ICJ and the ICC, on whether we recognise the state of Palestine, and on ending all arms sales to Israel?

[Mr Lammy]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have had fire in my belly since the day I was born in the Whittington hospital in north London—he can be sure of that. This House led the call for the international criminal architecture that we have, and we will continue, as successive Governments have, to support that international architecture.