Stephen Flynn MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) did not get an invite, because we got to hear his excellent speech then. Five hundred jobs being saved is incredibly important and, contrary to what the Prime Minister said earlier, everyone will welcome that, but we cannot escape the fact that 500 jobs are being lost every two weeks in Scotland’s North sea—not my figures but those of Paul de Leeuw from Robert Gordon University, and they are emphasised by the GMB trade union, local charities and industry itself. The Chancellor, while at Grangemouth — [ Interruption. ] I do not know why Labour Members make quips about people losing their jobs in the North sea. How dare they! While the Chancellor was at Grangemouth today, she was asked whether she agreed with that expert analysis. She said no. Does the Minister agree with her?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Prior to the election, the Daily Record reported the Chancellor as having said that Labour will be as economically radical as Thatcher. With the closures at Grangemouth and Mossmorran, uncertainty over the Acorn project and 1,000 jobs being lost every month in the North sea, have I finally found a promise that this Chancellor has kept?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister said with a straight face to me that he would not take lessons on credibility. I understand the error of my ways now; I should have given those lessons to the Chancellor, because since then we have seen that she has not been entirely truthful with the public—as one of my constituents said to me today while I was travelling down from Aberdeen, she lied to the public. While she was doing that, my constituents were fearing for their jobs through the Government’s punitive energy profits levy. Some 100 more jobs are being lost at Harbour Energy as a result of the Minister’s policies. Why is it okay for them to lose their jobs, yet she keeps hers?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Clean Energy: Private Sector Investment · Hansard source

  More

  On this Government’s watch, Grangemouth has shut and oil and gas jobs are being pushed off a cliff. In the last 20 minutes, it has been announced that 400 jobs are to be lost at the Mossmorran plant back home in Scotland. The company blames the UK Government’s policy environment. The Government stepped in to save jobs at the steelworks in Scunthorpe. Are they going to intervene to save jobs in Scotland?

• 18 Nov 2025 · ExxonMobil: Mossmorran · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately for the Minister, some of us have also spoken to Mr Greenwood today. Although the Minister argues that this decision has nothing to do with the Government’s policy on the North sea, that is certainly not what was conveyed to me, but I am sure that he will clarify that from the Dispatch Box. The Minister also says: “Exxon are not suggesting that this closure was due to a lack of action or will on behalf of the Government.” Meanwhile, Exxon’s statement says that the decision is down to “the UK’s current economic and policy environment combined with market conditions”. What we have tonight is 400 families knowing that they do not have certainty over their ability to pay their bills going forward, a whole community impacted as a result of this decision, and a UK Government Minister who is not being clear with them about why this has happened and why he is not helping them. He stated from the Dispatch Box just a moment ago that the Government have before chosen to intervene—we know that they chose to intervene in Scunthorpe—but they chose not to do so in Grangemouth, as Labour Members will recall, and the Minister is choosing not do so now in Mossmorran. The Government are sleepwalking into the deindustrialisation of Scotland. This is on them.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  There is no doubt that the chaos and uncertainty of this Budget process is having enormous consequences for the credibility of the Labour party, and maybe even for the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am, surprisingly, less interested in that and more interested in the damage that the Government’s policies are having on my constituents and their livelihoods. I am not asking him to speculate but to clarify: does he acknowledge that if the energy profits levy continues in its current form, more of my constituents will lose their jobs?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The week of 22 to 28 November marks BBC Scam Safe Week—it feels like it comes around quicker every year. By sheer coincidence, the Chancellor has chosen that week, of all weeks, to deliver her Budget. Given her previous broken promises on energy bills, on inflation and to businesses, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the public that if they see something suspicious on tax at the Budget, they should report it?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Charities, trade unions, academics and industry are united in their view that replacing the energy profits levy is not just an economic imperative, but a moral one. How many more of my constituents need to lose their jobs before the Government do just that?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. And not to apologise on this occasion—yet.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  I will give it a minute! At business questions last week, I put it to the Leader of the House that he should afford time for my early-day motion in respect of Prince Andrew to be heard. He intimated that options are always available to Members to pursue that, so in due course I wrote to the Prime Minister, seeking clarity that we would get that opportunity. Since then, there have been further revelations with regard to Prince Andrew hosting not just Harvey Weinstein but the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein at the Royal Lodge in Windsor. There have been suggestions that this House and this Parliament can take action on his succession and his place in line to the throne, and that we may well end up compensating Prince Andrew, should he move out of the Royal Lodge. May I have guidance from you, Mr Speaker, as to how I solicit an early response from the Prime Minister to my correspondence?

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  May I convey in the strongest possible terms to the junior Minister the anger and anxiety that is felt by my constituents in Aberdeen? Right now they are providing energy security to each and every one of us on these isles, as well as revenue to his Treasury, yet their only reward, and the only certainty they seem to have on this Government’s watch, is that of looming job losses. May I ask— [ Interruption. ] He shakes his head. May I ask him to come to Aberdeen and explain to my constituents when he is going to listen to the trade unions, the academics, the workers and the industry and protect that industry, not only for our energy security but for Scotland’s economy?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In a 2019 “Newsnight” interview, Prince Andrew stated that he broke off ties with the notorious international paedophile Jeffrey Epstein after going to visit him for four days in New York. We have since learned through email chains that he in fact got in contact with Jeffrey Epstein subsequently to that, and stated that he was looking forward to “playing some more”. Following those revelations and further allegations that are in the public domain, I have laid a motion before this House that calls on the Government to listen to parliamentarians, the public and victims, and take legislative action to remove the dukedom from Prince Andrew. [That this House calls on the Government to take legislative steps to remove the dukedom granted to Prince Andrew.] When will the Government introduce that legislation?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by expressing relief at the release of the hostages, but anger that so many have not lived to see this day, and relief that Palestinians are not sheltering from the skies today, but anger that so many are doing so without friends and family by their sides and without homes to return to. As we all embrace that collective relief, let us not forget that access to aid is essential. Access for the world’s media and investigators to document crimes against humanity is essential. A two-state solution is essential. Accountability is essential. With those words in mind, I say to the Prime Minister what I said to his predecessor two years ago: history will judge us by our response and by our actions. Up until now, on too many occasions we have failed. Let us not do so any more.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source

  More

  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?