Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Minister has so far given us two reasons why the statement he has just given at the Dispatch Box is different from the one that was sent, embargoed, an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed? I should also say, dare I say it, that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House.

It has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK special representative for trade and investment, and until today the Government have published only one written statement, which told us very little. The Minister has not previously come to the Dispatch Box at all; I note the difference from the response to the Humble Address, in the name of the official Opposition, relating to Peter Mandelson.

The files that we have seen show that there was no vetting by the Government and that, even then, no questions appear to have been asked. The lack of documentation provided is itself concerning, as is the time taken to get this far. The Minister has said that he is not sure whether there are more documents. When will he be sure, and when will he release any remaining documents? The documents we do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. Why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting, not just at the start but at any stage during Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s tenure as an envoy? The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect more than a year after Ministers said that they were happy for it to happen, and the files also show that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and did nothing. There was time for the warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period?

In his written statement to the House today, the Minister excused the lack of vetting and oversight because Andrew was a royal replacing a royal. Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future such appointments? Can he tell the House whether officials or Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when the appointment was made? Was this connection monitored? Finally, can the Minister confirm, given their absence from this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about the appointment?

[Chris Bryant]

If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.

I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.

We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.

The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.

I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.