Stephen Flynn MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Depending upon the results in the elections next week, this may well be my final PMQs. I suppose that the same is perhaps true for the Prime Minister as well. But before then, does he understand that, yes, it is because of inaction on the cost of living crisis; yes, it is because of the debacle of the winter fuel payment; yes, it is because of the thousand jobs being lost a month in Scotland’s North sea and the closure of Grangemouth; and yes, it is because of his judgment on Matthew Doyle and Peter Mandelson; but above all else, the reason that his time in office will soon be coming to a close is that he promised change but has delivered chaos?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 27 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked how the Government intend to vote tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that he would not answer, because the question did not pertain to the motion before us. He then used that as a justification for not answering the questions of numerous Opposition Members. How are we supposed to get an answer from a Minister when they believe themselves to be not only a member of the Cabinet, but the Speaker, or perhaps a Deputy Speaker, of the House of Commons?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  In respect of the Humble Address, perhaps contrary to what was suggested earlier, the House agreed to it only on the basis that Labour MPs were about to rebel against the position that the Government had adopted. Tomorrow, something similar may arise in respect of a potential referral of the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. Surely the Chief Secretary has an opinion as to whether his Members behind him would want to have a free vote in respect of whether the Prime Minister has misled the House.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  We are very fortunate in Scotland to already produce more renewable electricity than we consume, and of course we produce more oil and gas than we consume as well. Unfortunately, we do not experience any benefit in our bills. The Chancellor had the cheek to say that she regards the oil and gas workforce as a vital asset to the country, but they certainly do not feel like that, because a thousand of them are losing their job every single month. If she believes in jobs, investment, energy security and reducing climate emissions, will she outline why she has not yet moved to the oil and gas price mechanism? Why is the Chancellor allowing the Energy Secretary to overrule her and prioritise imports of liquefied natural gas, rather than supporting domestic energy sources?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  One reason that Norway is so successful is the certainty that is applied to its tax regime in respect of oil and gas drilling. The Conservatives’ motion, as I read it, seeks to remove the energy profits levy. As a point of clarity, can the right hon. Lady be clear with the House as to whether she would want that to be replaced by the oil and gas price mechanism, as suggested by so many in the industry in Aberdeen?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The workers who the Minister is referring to have a very different take from his own on his Government’s approach to the North sea. Indeed, I think they would be incredulous at the arguments he is making today and that his Government have made over many months, because it is costing them their jobs. He knows that moving from the energy profits levy to the oil and gas price mechanism as quickly as possible will give those workers some hope and will help assist with energy security. Is he or his Department currently in discussions with the Treasury about making that happen?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  Right honourable.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  If I have just heard the Prime Minister correctly, he has essentially rolled the same pitch in relation to Matthew Doyle as he did with Peter Mandelson, in saying that they were not clear with him. He appears to be the most gullible former Director of Public Prosecutions in history. But he has a slight problem, because some of us do read the newspapers. Towards the end of last year, on 30 December, having written to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, I received a response from the chair, who advised me that as part of their vetting, they “provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the propriety of the proposed nominees”. Will the Prime Minister release that advice?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.