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.

Middle East Update

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the importance of the humanitarian principles she outlines. Those are important principles not just in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but right across the world. It is a proud part of British history that we have been such forceful advocates for those principles, and we will continue to be so with Israel and any others who seek to undermine them.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The hon. Member will forgive me, but there are few things more infuriating in this House than listening to Ministers—whether they are of the blue persuasion, or of the red persuasion, as now—fail to call out collective punishment for what it is, fail to call out war crimes for what they are, continue to justify the sale of arms to Israel, and find every excuse possible not to recognise the state of Palestine. Perhaps he will be the one who surprises me, gets to his feet, and says that the plan as laid out by Benjamin Netanyahu is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. Will he do that, yes or no?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unsurprisingly, goes for rhetoric, and he wants me to opine on questions of law and make determinations that Ministers, for a long time, have rightly chosen to treat as questions for the courts. He asked me to take action. As a Government, the Labour party has taken action. It has taken action on arms, and on sanctions—we have a record that we can defend; we are not simply here for rhetoric.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend has been invited to that conference. It is important that we have links at a parliamentary level with countries in the western Balkans, particularly on these important matters. I mentioned earlier that we are working, including through our presence at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo, on investing in and strengthening the capabilities of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces, and considering how they might be deployed internationally too. That is very important. We will continue to work with European partners, both inside and outside NATO, to ensure that we can all collectively contribute to European defence, particularly in response to the hybrid activities and new advances in warfare we see, whether it be cyber or drone technology.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last November, I visited the Srebrenica memorial centre, and I am sure the Minister will share my revulsion at the fact that it had to close its doors for a short period just a few weeks ago due to the political situation there. Before he does so, can he elaborate on the position that the United States of America has adopted in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether he views the US as a stable ally that recognises that the western Balkans are crucial to the security of Europe as a whole?

[Stephen Doughty]

We and the United States played a crucial role in the western Balkans, particularly in achieving the Dayton peace agreement itself. We continue to be committed to that. As I said, there has been strong unity among the Quint, and it is important that the United States and Europe work together on these issues. There has been a legacy of 30 years of relative stability—I say “relative” because there have been deep threats to it at different points—and we need that to continue for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am sure we are all committed to that.

Ukraine

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right, and we know that Ukrainians felt let down by the Budapest memorandum. They felt brutally let down by the Minsk agreement, and they cannot be let down again. We also know that because of the unbelievable Ukrainian spirit, they would fight on, with guerrilla warfare if need be. These are the most admirable of people fighting for their self-determination, and the United Kingdom will continue to stand with them.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party has stood alongside the people of Ukraine in solidarity—not just for the last three years but for the last 10 years, following Putin’s invasion of Crimea. I will not invite the Foreign Secretary to agree with me on this in the Chamber, but I am sure he thinks that President Trump’s remarks about Zelensky being a dictator were beyond repulsive. Surely we all know that no deal can be made with Vladimir Putin that he will not break. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman has a point. Russia and Putin have been clear about the terms that they want for peace, which have often included the removal of 14 of NATO’s 32 members. That is unacceptable. We have seen Finland and Sweden join recently. The precondition for talks has been that Ukraine should effectively give up the territory now occupied by Russia. It seems to me that such demands show utter contempt for Ukrainian territorial integrity. The Russians will not be serious about discussions until they reconsider the criteria that we heard once again from Lavrov last week.