Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I could not agree more. I want to ensure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to ensure that justice happens, and I do not want to do anything that would undermine the police investigations. I hope that the police will be able to move as swiftly as possible, and we will certainly co-operate with them as swiftly as possible. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that most of the documents that might be envisaged are 25 years old—some are a bit more recent—they may be substantial in number, and many will be in hard copy. I hate to add to the right hon. Member’s fears about the speed with which things may happen, but I think we all want to ensure that we do all this in a proper fashion.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?

[Chris Bryant]

We will do two things. First, we will seek to comply with the Humble Address as soon as we possibly can, given the caveat that I have already issued about the police investigation. Secondly, we will ensure that every single part of Government co-operates entirely with Thames Valley police and with any other police forces, in respect of whatever they may be investigating. It is not for me, as a Minister, to instruct the police on what they should or should not investigate, or to point them in one direction or another. Former Prime Ministers have a different set of responsibilities. So the hon. Lady is right: I do not want to undermine the investigation, but I also do not want to delay it in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Very much so. As I say, it would have been better if the Government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the House by Opposition parties in order to release the information. I am very glad, though, that the Liberal Democrats have learned from the Conservatives’ Humble Address a few weeks ago. It is always good that once the Conservatives have designed a bandwagon, got it up and running and shown that it can move at high speed, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and get on board—better late than never.

If we go through the sequencing very carefully, we can see that it is possible that there was influence from Epstein, who, we must acknowledge, had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, although there were already rumours and reports about him, and who was, in any case, a highly influential foreign businessman. If it was under his influence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made.

[Layla Moran]

I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to a point that deeply concerns me, which is that we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things he wanted. There is an example of this in the recent Epstein files, which contain an exchange between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry of Defence in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on 7 December 2000. Andrew’s influence on government predated his appointment. What we want to understand is the extent to which he was already trying to influence government as a prince and what that led to in his role as trade envoy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incredibly important to get to the bottom of that?

[Alex Burghart]

Yes. I am afraid I do not know what year that—

[Layla Moran]

2000.

[Alex Burghart]

Ah, 2000. Well, I agree with the hon. Lady—that is an interesting point. If one looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, however, I am not sure that something like that falls within its context. She may wish to table an amendment to her own party’s motion in order to get at that.

Transparency is essential in all this. That is why the Conservatives very much hope that the Government will give us transparency quickly. I turn to the point made by the Father of the House: there is a danger that the Government will use the police process as a means of not disclosing certain information. I say that not because of what the Minister has said today so much as what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said yesterday, when, in the context of the Conservatives’ Humble Address, he said:

“I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations…That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 44.]

As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, I think it would assist the House if the Government could explain why the Met police has asked that that item is held back.

It would also be helpful if the Government could confirm that there is no bar to them handing that document over to the Intelligence and Security Committee—a point on which Mr Speaker has been very clear. On 4 February, Mr Speaker said:

“the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 375.]

There is a means that was specifically debated during the original Humble Address that enabled Members of this House—that is, the ISC—to be given this information regardless of the police investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend puts it better than I could; she is entirely right. We have seen complicity by people at the heart of the British establishment—we are in the right place to hold them to account—and the international establishment. Either they turned a blind eye to Jeffrey Epstein’s acts, or they were possibly implicated in them—we do not know for sure yet. But those who turned a blind eye must have known what was going on. It is not normal for an older businessman to be surrounded by young teenagers all the time and to receive massages from them—as we know, there were all sorts of other terrible acts. People thought that was somehow normal, acceptable or even admirable. We heard Donald Trump say that some of those girls were “on the younger side”, as if that were something to be applauded. It is appalling. Those people must have known, and if they chose not to look, they are part of the problem.

The decades-long cover-up must have compounded the trauma suffered by those women, who were children at the time. We must put the victims first and allow the police investigations to go ahead, but we need to look at the wider elements of the scandal too.

[Layla Moran]

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that human trafficking, of which those women were victims, is not currently subject to a police inquiry? It is absolutely right that the police will make their own decisions, but does she agree that the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resourcing so that, if they want to go down that rabbit hole—I urge them to do so actively—they are not stymied by a lack of resources?

[Helen Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have to forgive me for dancing around to aid my pained back.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

That quote from 1887 is of the British historian Lord Acton, and its explains how power in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. Today we are discussing how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that Members across the Chamber are all so utterly disgusted by.

I speak on behalf of all residents who have been in touch with me over the last few weeks, whether they are a republican, a monarchist or ambivalent to the general principle. We see a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family. As was said correctly by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), we must ask who knew what and when. What was known about the £12 million that was paid out to Virginia Giuffre in 2022, and how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit concerning allegations of Andrew’s alleged offences? How was that allowed to happen in the first place?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has said, we have seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially, which has resulted in two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address refers to how that began, and it is absolutely the right place to start. As a politician, trying to convince the public that we are here to serve and represent them, that the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there is no elite paedophile ring that runs the world’s institutions becomes increasingly difficult when we see links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family.

We talk about standards in public life and integrity, but that is difficult to maintain if such things are known about and the information in the files is understood by the public but we are then unable to scrutinise it or to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. As discussed, the Humble Address covers quite a narrow set of papers about Andrew’s appointment as the special representative for UK trade and industry. However, we have also discussed the parliamentary gymnastics required to get a discussion in the Chamber about the outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man. We have to call out those parliamentary gymnastics as an outrageous impediment to our performing our job as MPs and we need to dispel them from this place entirely.

We have talked about the implications of Andrew’s position in the line of succession. When the photos of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. When that scandal was occurring, he was very close to the throne—it is disgusting. Will the Minister give us an update on legislation that the Government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession? Andrew is eighth in line now, meaning his position may not be such a worry, but the principle of his being in the line of succession to become our Head of State is obnoxious in the extreme, so I would like to hear an update from the Minister about that.

[Layla Moran]

People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber.

To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention; she made a number of very good points this afternoon reminding us of previous scandals and the importance of ensuring that we learn from them.

In the Peter Mandelson debate a few weeks ago, in which I sat in the same place, I think it was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) who talked about shame needing to change sides. That alludes to some of the cultural changes that we need to bring about. We as parliamentarians have a leading role to play in bringing about the cultural changes that we need to see. Anybody who is a victim or survivor must know that the stigma is not with them but with the perpetrators, and anybody who turns a blind eye should know that the stigma is with them for doing so.

Nobody should be above the law, and nobody in public office or in receipt of public funds should be out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Layla Moran]

I am reminded of the debate brought forward by the Conservatives on Lord Mandelson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers-twisting that had to happen to work out that the way to deal with the issue of the intelligence services was indeed to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to look at the papers. Is it not the case that we have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinise most things, but when it comes to the royal family we do not? Even if a Select Committee wants to do something on these matters, we self-censor with our own conventions that we apply to ourselves. Only we can change that. I am curious to know what the Government are going to do and whether there is a mechanism by which we change those conventions, because they are clearly the nub of the issue when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Lisa Smart]

Nobody should be above the law, and nobody should be above scrutiny. When good people get together, there is a willingness to embrace creativity and the nerdery of parliamentary procedures so that we can find a way to get to the truth that we need to get to.

Trust in our politics is vital, and trust in our institutions is further eroded every time we have one of these debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) talked about the impact on the reputation of this House and the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people involved in politics for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful. The stoking of division and mistrust means that there is space for voices that, in my view, are not welcome and we should reject. It is in all our interests and the whole country’s interest for there to be trust in our institutions and our political set-up.

During the debate we have been reminded of the need for proper processes to be in place. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) reminded us, not everybody can be relied on to be a good bloke. Many of our systems are based on gentlemen’s agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke—and as has been repeatedly proven, it is simply not the case that people will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Layla Moran]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will continue for a moment, if the hon. Members do not mind.

We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is precious. As hon. Members will know, article 8 of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place, which means we can say things here without the threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. It is a really important and precious privilege, and one that we must guard carefully, which is why we have a sub judice rule. Mr Speaker has decided that the rule does not apply to today’s debate, because no charges have yet been brought—when the sub judice rule applies is quite specific.

I do think that we need to guard that privilege quite carefully, because we have a separation of powers. We do not think that we should have Acts of attainder, with the House deciding by a Bill that somebody is guilty of some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I think the hon. Gentleman with a bad back wanted to intervene.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, yes, and I also think that the truth of the matter is that we probably need more Paul Flynns. I have always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I have always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs, who are one of the backbones that really allow Parliament to function effectively. I love the Whips—of course I love the Whips—but there is a but.

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really do want to finish my remarks.

[Layla Moran]

I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I myself made all those arguments about phone hacking in 2011. A chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the matter at a time when that was not easy, because the whole media were not in favour of us moving on that. The point I would make is that I think the single most important thing for a Member of Parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favour.