Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Monica Harding Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think he probably speaks for the whole House. Indeed, the intention of this debate is to bring this House together. The changes that we think are necessary would protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy, which in some places has been criticised. That is important, and it is why we need these reforms.

The motion focuses on the start of this—on the appointment of the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We have seen reporting that says that the King, then the Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Mandelson wrote to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as his former Trade Secretary, pushing for Andrew’s appointment—one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a job that might help Epstein enrich himself. We clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role that Mandelson played in it, and only the papers demanded by this motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible, without delay.

There are many questions about Andrew’s conduct in the role, which is now subject to a criminal investigation. As you said, Mr Speaker, we clearly do not want to jeopardise that investigation through anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein’s victims, survivors and their families, who deserve to see justice done at last. However, I would highlight one example of the way that Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as a trade envoy to enrich himself.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is talking about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role as a trade envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mountbatten-Windsor came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific innovation, but he stood up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, “This is rubbish. This is Frankenstein’s sheep.” Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was a very poor example of promoting British trade interests?

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which shows not only that we need to focus on the scandals we have heard about, but that even greater questions are raised if the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests. I hope that not just in this debate, but in other debates, and in Select Committees and elsewhere, we will get to the bottom of that issue.

As I was saying, I would like to highlight one example of how Jeffrey Epstein sought to use Andrew’s role as trade envoy to enrich himself. Channel 4 uncovered emails in the Epstein files in which Epstein was trying to meet the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in the dying months of the Gaddafi regime, to help him find somewhere to “put his money”—something that the Minister raised at the time. In other words, Epstein looked at the deadly crisis in Libya and saw a chance to make some money, and he thought his friend Andrew could help. This is what he said in one of the emails:

“I wondered if Pa should make the intro”.

A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back, “Libya fixed.”

Although the Epstein-Gaddafi meeting does not appear to have happened, this shows clearly what these relationships were all about for Epstein: increasing his own wealth and power. The idea that the role of special trade envoy for our United Kingdom may have been used to help him do that—to help a vile paedophile sex trafficker enrich himself—is truly sickening. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister, who tried to raise this at the time, like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn. It shows again why we need to change the rules of this House that govern Ministers and the debate here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I want to speak about transparency and accountability in public life and how the system we find ourselves in has been maintained and got us to where we are.

In the early noughties, I was working overseas with the British Council, as I have said. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor visited us as part of his role as a UK trade envoy. Before his arrival, senior staff in both the embassy and the British Council were rolling their eyes—his reputation preceded him. I was told that it was a “containment” exercise, that overseas missions feared putting him out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant and that he was not on top of his brief. Rather than looking forward to his visits as an opportunity to promote Britain, it was instead thought that he would do damage.

Moreover, there were rumours about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor—that he refused to stay in the ambassador’s residence, that he would only stay in the Four Seasons or similar top-end hotels, and that he took an ironing board with him when he went overseas. That was a euphemism for a massage table. That was all well known among many officials. It even inspired the BBC TV programme “Ambassadors” in 2013, a couple of years after Andrew was forced to relinquish his role as trade envoy.

It seems that this was known about in the diplomatic circles that I experienced way back at the start of the noughties, and yet Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor enjoyed another 10 years as a trade envoy. Yet when I questioned why this was allowed to happen, I was met with a shrug. “Everyone knows,” they said. As I have said, Andrew came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the sheep. At the time, it was the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly proud of it as an example of UK scientific excellence. One of my team was a young Japanese woman who worked for the British Government as a member of British Council staff. Her job—we paid her—was to promote the UK. She showed the then prince around with some Japanese dignitaries. “Dolly the sheep,” he sneered, “It’s rubbish. Frankenstein sheep”. My team member was deflated and did not understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of.

The talk of Andrew and what he was like came to my own dinner table. My late father-in-law, an air vice-marshal in the RAF, was at a dinner with Mountbatten-Windsor on an overseas trip in the 1990s. He said, in front of many foreign military and diplomatic seniors, “No need for a Royal Air Force”. My father-in-law said nothing, and that was the problem. People could not because of his privileged position. My father-in-law raised it with the Chief of the Air Staff and was told it would be raised with the Palace. What happened next? Who knows? Did diplomats raise the concern to their seniors and to the very top from early on? Did the Palace do its own internal investigation? If they did, was it shared with the Department for Business and Trade? Where did these concerns all go? In doing so, did they—the system—unwittingly or wittingly support protection or cover-up, because of “the way things were done” or because of deference? That is the point of this debate. Some officials knew, or the system seemed to know, but the system seemingly failed to do anything about it for 10 years because of privilege and deference.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

On this point about which Departments had which papers, I note that the Humble Address uses the words

“including but not confined to”.

Surely papers in the royal household that relate to this matter should also come under the scope of the Humble Address. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Monica Harding]

I agree. There is a systematic and joined-up failure that we need to unravel, and I will come back to that in my speech.

When there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does that say about our society, how we protect privilege and what we are prepared to accept on behalf of the British state and our representatives? Can rules be broken by some people and not others? Do propriety and ethics belong to all those who represent the British state?

We have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the Palace does not open itself to scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, Parliament must. I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor given the role of trade envoy? Who put him forward and was there resistance to it? While he was trade envoy, what concerns were raised and with whom, from what date and how were they actioned? Money was put up by the royal family to protect him. Does Parliament have a right to understand why that money was put up and that public funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre? Can Parliament find out that not one penny of public money was used in that settlement?

I know you will share with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the concern about levels of public confidence in all our institutions and the people who represent them. Parliament must assert itself in this regard, and I, along with my colleagues, call for the full publication of all documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment as a special envoy and for an end to negative privilege, so that MPs in this place can speak freely about their concerns and disclose information in the House of Commons, even if that individual is a member of the royal family.

I will end, as I must, with thoughts for the victims of the Epstein scandal, which has triggered so much of this debate, and all those who are victims of power, privilege and deference. They are foremost in our minds as this furore continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the extent of Epstein’s crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am conscious that she was close to concluding, but her words about the victims are powerful. I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. We have just started our work, but Members may have heard a powerful interview on the “World at One” a couple of weeks ago, which talked about the lack of acknowledgement of what had taken place and the fact that the police did not properly understand trafficking. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), described this as a global enterprise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do much more work around this and that it is not just about the victims of Epstein, but other trafficking victims, too?

[Monica Harding]

My hon. Friend is quite right. This is about systemic failure, and we are at the very beginning of this, not the end. For the victims of Epstein, we must do everything we can to ensure that this investigation and inquiry continue. On behalf of those victims and those who are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up, and we must facilitate that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

The answer is quite simple: nobody can be above the law. Everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. As the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place, and I will return to that point. Fundamentally, regardless of rank or privilege, nobody should be above the law.

Many people will be embarrassed by what has happened, not least, as we have heard, the now leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, as Under-Secretary for Business, Innovation and Skills, and, I presume, with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back, was forced to stoutly defend the then Prince Andrew. He said:

“I…believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job”.—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649.]

He called him a “long-standing success” and said he had been great for British business, but what else could he have said as a Government Minister? We are not allowed to speak the truth about certain individuals in this place. Within three months of the right hon. Member making those comments, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor had resigned in disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted paedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

It was not just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s relationship with Epstein that caused concern. In February 2011, the Minister attempted to raise a question about the special representative role and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s links to a notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler, only to be told by the then Speaker that

“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]

These archaic rules make a mockery of our democracy. The situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly as the royal family can and do both have a constitutional role and involve themselves in the political realm.

[Monica Harding]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite extraordinary that we are urging the Parliament of a foreign country—Congress—to investigate this matter when it concerns our trade envoy and a member of the royal family?

[Brendan O’Hara]

There is a slight irony here. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments and the cradle of democracy, yet when it comes to an issue such as this we are bound by archaic rules that mean that we cannot hold the most powerful people to account. Let’s be honest: there may be some very good members and some very bad members of the royal family, but if we believe in the hereditary monarchy, it is pot luck what we get.

I have seen the rules that have led us to where we are now and it is surely time to review them. It is beyond ridiculous that someone in a similar position could be appointed to exactly the same job as Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was, but, because they have been lucky in the great genealogical sweepstake and found themselves born into the royal family, be automatically above scrutiny and accountability and therefore beyond reproach.

Rogue Builders

Monica Harding Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders.

I am conscious that we may have to go off for multiple votes before half-past 4, so I will crack on with what was going to be 45 minutes of the most magnificent speech—I will abridge it to just 42. I am missing out the bit where I was going to be nice about builders—I am afraid I will concentrate on the nastiness of builders.

I start by defining the area that I am keen to concentrate on, which is the smaller end of the market. Known as the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, or RMI, this is the area where we see many appalling stories of people’s lives being ruined by unwittingly taking on so-called dodgy builders.

There are countless stories in the press, and there are TV shows specialising in these types of problems. I could turn to any number of articles in the national and regional press that talk about cowboy builders. A relatively simple search for stories of rogue and cowboy builders reveals 1,500 such stories in the last five years alone, and that is just the stories that made the press. This is a very insidious problem.

Chat to almost anybody who has had any building work done to their home, and they will roll their eyes and admit that they have had trouble of one sort or another. But we do not have to rely on hearsay and the media to understand the problems and the implications. The Federation of Master Builders conducts surveys to see what the effect is on the RMI market, and a recent poll of homeowners discovered that one in three were put off having work done on their home because of the fear of being ripped off. That equates to a possible £10 billion of lost economic activity.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I would like to shine a light on one of those many stories. My constituent in Esher and Walton paid over £16,000 for a kitchen remodelling that was never delivered, and the same company is alleged to have defrauded other constituents, including one this year who lost £20,000. When fraud occurs on this scale, it is theft from honest people, but consumers find that the civil courts are slow, complex and costly. Does the hon. Member agree that the Ministry of Justice should ensure accessible routes to redress, which may be small claims courts or an ombudsman scheme, so that consumers can get justice quickly?

[Mark Garnier]

I will talk about that in my speech. The fundamental problem is that, at the moment, the only course of redress is through the court system, and it is not good enough.

The FMB does a lot of work in this area, and it is worth looking at some of its statistics. Thirty-seven per cent of customers report unreliability, and many of them cite apparently unqualified operators. Nearly a quarter—that is 25%—of all customers have lost money to rogues, with losses averaging £1,760, but in many cases the amount is far higher. The national loss is horrific. The FMB estimates that, over five years, homeowners have lost an astonishing £14.3 billion to unreliable builders, putting an astonishing burden on the housing market and households. It turns out that young adults are more at risk, with 33% scammed by rogue traders found via social media.

The consumer is not the only victim of rogue or cowboy builders. Within the industry, many find themselves a victim of the same problem. Subcontractors find they are not paid, and it is the same for merchants. Plant hire companies are frequently the victims of theft and abuse of equipment. Alarmingly, health and safety is a low priority among many small and medium-sized building firms operating in the RMI market.

Budget Resolutions

Monica Harding Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. He may remember that at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, I raised precisely that point with the Deputy Prime Minister and advised the Government that if they went ahead with the rise in national insurance contributions, it would affect social care. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, remember that it was the Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson who stood on the steps of Downing Street in 2019 and promised to reform social care “once and for all”, but clearly failed to do so.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Two managing partners from GP practices in my constituency have written to me about the significant impact of the increase in employer NI contributions, which they say will directly undermine access and patient care. They will also have a huge impact on the brilliant work of Princess Alice hospice in my constituency, which is already hugely stretched—it will cost that hospice £400,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that hospice and those GP practices should be exempt?

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. I absolutely agree that they should be exempt; I think the rise in national insurance contributions is the wrong thing to do, full stop, but if it is going to go ahead, there must be exemptions. In my own area, for example, one local hospice in Hertfordshire will see its national insurance contributions go up by £150,000. Its warning is very clear: that if this rise goes ahead, beds will have to close.

People must see opportunities in enterprise as well, but the rise in national insurance contributions will hit small businesses hard, especially those on the high street. The success of our high streets really matters, not just for growth but for confidence: for so many people, the high street is the most visual and visceral mark of whether or not the economy is thriving. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate later today whether the Government intend to bring forward a high streets strategy, and if so, when we might see it.

I have been inundated with messages from small businesses on my high street in St Albans. Here are just some of the quotes: one business said that

“the reality of last week’s budget will mean no more investment and no further recruitment as was planned and in all likelihood redundancies.”

Another small business said:

“I provide employment locally, raise money for local charities and have created a much-loved addition to our town centre…I am worried about how much longer I can go on.”

One business said that it

“would be impacted mainly with our business rates increase and my plea is that that can’t happen. The high street challenges are hard enough as they are”

without having to face

“an uncertain Christmas trading period.”

Other colleagues have mentioned the impact on medical charities, hospices and GPs. In Hertfordshire, the local medical committee said:

“Since 2014 we have seen 56 practices close or merge across Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, representing 35% of the 216 practices that existed back in 2014.”

GP practices need certainty as to whether any of these costs will be passed on to them at a time when they are already feeling the squeeze. I can guess what the Minister may say: he may encourage Members on the Opposition Benches to indicate how we would raise taxes instead. In the spirit of constructive opposition, we Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, because we believe the burden of fixing our public services should fall on the shoulders of the big banks, the gambling companies and the big tech companies, not the small businesses that are the beating heart of our communities. Suppressing small business is not the route to growth.

The business rates reforms in the Budget not only fall short of what we need, but actually make things worse in the short term. The last Conservative Government promised to reform the business rates system, but failed to do so. The current system penalises bricks-and-mortar retailers, while out-of-town retailers manage to get off almost scot- free. Pubs, high street shops and the rest of the hospitality sector have been hit really hard, with the discount being reduced from 75% to 40%. That is going to have a major impact. St Albans is renowned for its pubs—as many of the more long-established Members will remember, I talk about the pubs in St Albans on many occasions. We have more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in the UK, but those pubs will now face additional business rates bills of between £5,000 and £35,000. Some fear that this could push them over the edge.

Over the past few days, much has been said about food security as well. We Liberal Democrats agree that the loopholes that are being exploited by big corporations that buy up swathes of our land must be closed, but we are concerned that the Government’s approach is rather crude—that as they try to close those loopholes, some family farms will be collateral damage. Again in the spirit of constructive opposition, I encourage the Government to look again at our proposal for a proper family farming test, as is used in some other countries.

Finally, I will say a word or two about investment. We Liberal Democrats believe that the Government have done the right thing in changing the fiscal rules, and in principle, we believe in the importance of borrowing for productive investment. However—once again, I say this in the spirit of constructive opposition—I think the Government have put all of their growth eggs in the building back basket. I understand why they may be doing that. However, given the Trump presidency and the prospects of potential tariffs and trade wars that could drive up the price of products such as semiconductors and construction materials, there is a very real risk that the investment that the Government make will not reap the rewards that we all hope for—through changes in the global climate, rather than any fault of their own. We need a resilient economy, so I praise the Government for investing, but urge them to look at the question of resilience. At this time, it is even more important that we look to small businesses and high streets for growth, so I urge the Government to think again and unleash the power of our high streets and small businesses, rather than hamper them.