Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister’s words redacted? These key pieces of information would help to solve this mystery—they would be much easier for us to understand than the words he gave at the Dispatch Box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me, which is very unusual; when I am speaking in a debate, they are normally bobbing left, right and centre.
I am raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in. With war in Europe, war in the middle east, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock, we need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister has shown “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. The same man who wrote the Prime Minister’s strategic defence review is now ringing the alarm bell to warn us of the grave consequences of the Government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending.
This matters, because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the whole, full truth about this ambassadorial appointment—a key appointment in Britain’s national security architecture—it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else. It calls into question his promises to control taxes, which he has broken, his promises not to raise borrowing, which he has broken, and his promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth, all of which he has broken. He has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister—just in being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership; without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved.
This whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction under the Prime Minister’s incurious regime. His defence yesterday summed it up: he said that no one told him and that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. However, even if we take the Prime Minister at his word—even if we believe the unbelievable—it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security; he said that due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself; and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment. In 2022, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that if you’re the leader, the buck stops with you. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is.”
How has he taken responsibility?
It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It is clear now that he is not a leader and that he has no intention of doing the honourable thing.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate, and indeed on eviscerating the Prime Minister in her speech. Does she not believe that the sorry souls on the Government Benches should have to put their money with their mouth is, and that there should be a vote of no confidence in this Prime Minister in due course?
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I do not believe the Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else.
The decision as to whether the Prime Minister will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from the Government Members yesterday. Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, let Parliament down and let the Labour party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job, it is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to Members across the House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on. This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.
Security Vetting
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Member’s point about vetting in relation to political appointments, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. It clearly was not, and that is why in September I ordered that it be changed to make sure that it is the same process, whether it is a direct ministerial appointment or any other appointment. In relation to the country, it is important that we remain focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the war on two fronts that we face, and I intend to do that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The harshest and most important truth in this entire process is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom chose to proactively ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein when he made the political choice to put Peter Mandelson in as the UK’s most senior diplomat in the United States of America, despite knowing that he had maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein himself. We have since seen Peter Mandelson investigated for potential misconduct in public office, and we of course now learn through the media that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The Prime Minister blames all this—all of it—on the judgment of others, but I am interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Laughter.] I have laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly was not made available. It should have been made available, and I would not have made the appointment had it been made available. That is why I have set out the facts in some considerable detail to the House, with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this.
Middle East
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Can I reiterate my thanks to Pakistan for the role that it is playing? I can tell the House that I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday, as we were going into the talks this weekend, about the talks and what support we could put in place, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to her counterpart this afternoon. It is very important that we support this process and try to move it forward, not to let it escalate.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to condemn the abhorrent response of the terrorists in the IRGC, but I notice in his statement that there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Donald Trump’s actions, there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Netanyahu’s action, and—despite having the entire Easter break to think about it—there was explicitly no new financial support for households on these isles whatsoever, despite the fact that the Irish Government have put down €750 billion of support for motorists and farmers. The best he can muster is to “continue to monitor the effects.” Now, I appreciate that he might not be in office for very much longer, but while he is, the public expect him to provide support—why isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we put in support and protection for our citizens in the region by taking defensive action. He opposed that —protection for Scottish citizens in the Gulf. Scottish National party Members opposed taking any action whatsoever. It is only because we have stabilised the economy that we are able to reduce energy bills. What did they do? They voted against the Budget in which we put forward the money for that. We will carefully do the work that we need to do to reopen the strait of Hormuz, which is the single most effective thing we can do in relation to household costs, and to work for de-escalation. I would have thought that he would support that, but unfortunately he is again on the opportunistic road rather than on the road to supporting what we really need to do.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; families are crying out for change, which is why it is critical that we get this right. Our reforms will fix the broken SEND system, where parents have to fight for support, replacing it with tailored support that is personal to a child’s need. A Best Start family hub in every local authority with a dedicated SEND practitioner will also help families with the face-to-face support they need. My hon. Friend is a great advocate on this issue, and I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Let us be clear on this. Donald Trump’s war in Iran is illegal and the situation that has unfolded since is verging on insane: oil is falling from the skies; sewers are exploding; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indiscriminately attacking both civilians across the region and cargo ships, as well as potentially even mining the strait of Hormuz, the economic consequences of which will be stark not just for the global economy, but for every single person living on these isles. Whether the Prime Minister accepts it or not, he did take us into that war when he allowed the Americans to use UK bases last week. [Interruption.] I have a specific question for him. He will have seen the same footage that I have of an American Tomahawk missile landing on a primary school, killing 110 children. Does he believe that to be a war crime?
The Prime Minister
We are all concerned by that footage, but let me absolutely clear with the right hon. Gentleman. We have 300,000 UK nationals, including Scottish citizens, in the region. Strikes, missiles and drones are being fired into the region, putting those people at great danger. We are taking action to protect them. I am astonished that the SNP is saying, “Don’t take action to support Scottish citizens in the region.” That is outrageous.
Lord Mandelson
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move amendment (a), at the end to add
“except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
Members will be aware that the Government came to the House on Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the United States Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the Government said on Monday, and as I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will complete my introductory remarks, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
What Jeffrey Epstein did was unforgivable, and every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. His victims are at the forefront of my mind, as I am sure they are for all right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The Prime Minister has said that anyone with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims get the justice that they have been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, is not just wrong, it is abhorrent.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am curious. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister state that he knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did the Minister also know, and if so, did he express any concerns to the Prime Minister at that time about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the second point, I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In this Chamber, just under three hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a long overdue and welcome admission. For months, he, various Labour Members, Ministers and members of the Cabinet have told us all to ignore our eyes and our ears. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but today he admitted at that Dispatch Box that he did.
Mr Speaker
Order. I can inform Members that this debate will now run until 7 pm to allow more Members to speak. Sorry for the interruption, Stephen Flynn.
Stephen Flynn
Four hours is plenty for me, Mr Speaker.
This is a dark and disgusting day for this Chamber and for each and every person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister admitted that he knew about the relationship. Of course he knew; in The Guardian in 2023, Rowena Mason wrote about the court documents that had been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. Members will know them. They were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister knew, just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship. He has seen the photos that each of us in this Chamber has seen of Peter Mandelson in luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein.
Stephen Flynn
I will not, I am afraid.
The Prime Minister knew that the two had a relationship, yet he ignored it. He ignored each and every victim of Jeffrey Epstein when he chose to appoint Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
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.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
China and Japan
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on behalf of her constituents. Yes, I raised this issue in detail and made it clear that we were calling for Jimmy Lai’s release, plus other details of his health and the situation he is being held in. I believe it is the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation—I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is apparently the policy of the Conservative party.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Carers are incredibly skilled workers. My sister is one of them, and I am very proud of them and her for their invaluable work. I am pleased that we have increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit by the largest amount since it was introduced, and we are providing £500 million to fund the first ever fair pay agreement through the Employment Rights Bill that was passed yesterday, to ensure that care workers are properly recognised and rewarded.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is indeed the season of good will, so with that in mind, I do not intend to ask the Prime Minister about his broken promises on energy bills, the 1,000 jobs being lost in the North sea, or the fact that Peter Mandelson is still a Member of the House of Lords. I will not even ask the Prime Minister about the chaos that is engulfing the Labour party, his Budget or his own leadership. I simply want to wish him a happy Christmas. How does he intend to spend his final one in Downing Street?
The Prime Minister
I am going to get an update from the Chancellor on Grangemouth in just a minute. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not interested in Grangemouth. I would have thought, on a day like this, that he would want to welcome the £120 million investment into Grangemouth. It is a landmark investment protecting 500 jobs there and hundreds more across Scotland’s supply chain, and he cannot even bring himself to mention it. That is on top of the Typhoon defence jobs in Edinburgh and the shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde. After decades of SNP rule, its Members are totally out of ideas and they cannot even welcome the Grangemouth news. Scotland deserves change next year with Anas Sarwar.
G20 and Ukraine
Stephen Flynn Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I think it is important to begin by stating that those on the far right who parrot the views of Putin, and those on the far left who seek to undermine NATO, are no friends of Ukraine. I was pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s statement his unequivocal approach to responsibility in this regard—he rightly pinned it on one person: Vladimir Putin. The Prime Minister did, however, equivocate in response to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the G8. Kaja Kallas of the European Union was very clear in her comments this morning that Russia cannot be in the G8—she said, “definitely not”. Surely he agrees?
The Prime Minister
Russia is the aggressor here. Obviously these are questions for the G7 to determine, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the focus is very much on the process at the moment, which is to get a ceasefire and an end to this conflict.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his point about those on the left. The Green party, of course, says that we should pull out of NATO—at a moment like this. It also says that it would make renting out a property—landlords—unlawful, but make selling drugs lawful, outside the school gate. I have to say, I find that a little odd.