Flynn spoke during a Westminster debate on Tuesday on Keir Starmer’s Government’s appointment and eventual sacking of Mandelson as US ambassador – despite knowing that he had kept up relations with Epstein even after his paedophilia conviction.
Starmer defended Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday, only to sack him the following day after emails of which the UK Government already had knowledge were reported in the media.
MPs raised questions about Starmer and the Labour Government in the debate in the Commons on Tuesday, demanding to know who knew what about the Mandelson-Epstein relationship and when.
On his turn to speak, Flynn drew a warning from the deputy speaker after saying: “What a pitiful state to find ourselves in. What a pitiful state for the Prime Minister to find himself in.
“And this is mired in politics, I hate to say, because this is a political decision by the Prime Minister. He chose to stand at that despatch box last week and not tell us, but tell 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, not for hours, not for days, but for months.
“He was the man who appointed Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States, the man who said to an FT journalist earlier this year, to ‘fuck off’ – his quote, not mine – because he was being enquired about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
“That was what Lord Mandelson said. He said it was an FT obsession. Well, guess what? It’s our obsession now, and we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this.
READ MORE: The 7 questions Keir Starmer must answer on Peter Mandelson scandal
“The Prime Minister is not above the scrutiny of the House of Commons, neither is he above the scrutiny of the public at home.
“But the greatest scandal of all, 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 Jeffrey Epstein had been convicted in 2008 in Florida.
“Convicted, convicted for having 14-year-old girls masturbate him – and 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.”
Flynn branded the saga a “complete disgrace”, before highlighting that the Prime Minister’s position appeared to be that maintaining a relationship with Epstein was acceptable, but believing he was not guilty – as Mandelson suggested he thought – was not.
The SNP MP said: “What has happened to the moral compass of this place, of the office of 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 – and the Minister shakes his head, is there an intervention that he wants to make?
“Is there something that he disagrees with in that assessment of those facts? Or does he want to present the additional detail to this house which makes any of that untrue whatsoever?
“No, I notice he’s not shaking his head now, but I tell you who is shaking their head, the public at him and his Prime Minister for the decisions that they have taken.”
READ MORE: John Curtice gives verdict on biggest threat that could oust Keir Starmer as PM
Flynn concluded by saying that, as Westminster is going into recess, Starmer may hope that the scandal around Epstein will “go away”.
“I and every other member who’s sitting in this House right now can assure him that it is not,” he finished.
After the SNP Westminster leader’s speech, deputy Commons speaker Nusrat Ghani asked MPs to keep “language tempered” and “make sure that we’re being moderate in everything that we say”.
The UK Government is under pressure to publish the “Mandelson-Epstein files” in full to allow the public to understand what exactly was known and when.
