UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Royal Family

  • Monica Harding – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    Monica Harding – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    The speech made by Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrat MP for Esher and Walton, in the House of Commons on 24 February 2026.

    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.

  • Rachael Maskell – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    Rachael Maskell – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    The speech made by Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, in the House of Commons on 24 February 2026.

    Unaccountable power must not hide, privilege must not be protected, money must be accounted for and elite networks of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanising, subjugating, exploiting and sexually assaulting women—women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr Epstein and his associates must be brought to book, and Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as a known associate, must also be held to account for his role as a special trade envoy and for his associations. We have all been revulsed by the stories that we have heard, and that is why today’s debate must also be about the victims and survivors.

    I first raised my concern because my constituency carries the name of York and the Duke of York’s ambassadorial associations with our city were causing much concern in my community. I therefore brought those concerns to the House on 21 February 2022, just days after the settlement of the lawsuit to Ms Giuffre, known to be in the region of £12 million. My city—a human rights city, no less—was clearly disturbed, and as a result of that I sought a separation between the title and the city. Later that year, after working closely with the Clerks, I brought forward a Bill to remove the title, but that still has not been done. I brought forward another Bill just last year on the removal of title, this time bringing in the option of removing the title from peerages as well, but I have still not had a positive response.

    The reasons I am speaking in this debate today are: first, that in looking into these issues, I realised that the Humble Address was narrow in its scope; and secondly, to ask what we should do with the information once it has been corroborated. Clearly the police investigation must take its course, and I am sure it will be deep and thorough because it runs so far, but ultimately, if we are just looking at the appointment, we must also ask about that period of time when Mr Mountbatten-Windsor carried out the role and the implications to wider networks. I do not want this to end up in the court of public opinion, or perhaps with the media digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories. But what does it do to this place? What does it do to change the way the systems work?

    Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)

    I recognise the work that the hon. Lady has done on titles and holding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account. She makes a good point about making sure that we do not have a court of public opinion, but I would like to give my thanks to the many media outlets—it does not matter which one you read or what its political slant—that have done tremendous work, trawling through hundreds of thousands of documents. Does she agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to light many of the awful things that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is alleged to have been associated with?

    Rachael Maskell

    I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, because I know that journalists have been up through the night poring over the Epstein files and digging deep to hold power to account. Our media have a vital role in this, and long may it continue. Their scrutiny is also important for this place and the work that we do here.

    We need a process of learning from this, and I believe that there should be a judge-led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought to account so that we can learn and hold to account in this place with regard to concerns about how these associations are formed and the depth to which they infiltrate places like this, the Government and international networks. As we have learned over the last few weeks, sensitive financial information has been shared, and this can impact on our constituencies, markets and trade. That in turn has an impact on the very people we are here to represent.

    No longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these conversations, gaining more power and exploiting whoever crosses their path without being held accountable. We therefore need to understand how to create even deeper transparency across all institutions, including all areas of Government, just as we try to do in this place each and every day. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) says, this inquiry must be far-reaching and it must pursue all these issues.

    I recognise that many Departments have been missed out in the Humble Address. We need to understand, for instance, how transport has been used, and not just civil transport but military transport. We need to see the missing logs to find out who was on those planes, where they were going and where they had come from. We also need to understand the expenses system that ensued and to find out how signing off for massages became a duty of the taxpayer. Individuals questioned this, as we have heard, but the reality is that people did not feel empowered to blow the whistle and raise those concerns. We need to institute processes where people can raise concerns wherever they see them, but at the moment we do not have the confidence that that was undertaken within the systems. How are we going to institute that?

    There are also questions about visas—we know that 90 people came in and out of the country during the period that we are looking at today—and of course there must be rigour in appointment processes. Much has been heard about that over the last few months, and it lies at the heart of this Humble Address. We need to ensure that all these appointments are transparent. I heard what the Minister said today, but we have 32 trade envoys and I have never seen one post advertised. I am not aware of the expertise that those individuals have with regard to trade or to their relations with a particular country. What do they actually add? What value do they actually bring, and how can we assess that from this place? I therefore ask for a proper review of all these appointments to assess what they bring, because surely we should have better accountability.

    I also want to mention the intelligence services. I cannot believe that our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor. How do we bring that to account, to ensure that that information is also in the public domain? Where are the minutes of all those meetings? What do they say? How do we find out? There are so many questions in response to the Humble Address being put today, but we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well. This must not be about just holding and examining the information and commenting in the tea rooms and the corridors; we must ensure that power is held to account, and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold.

    As the light is shone deeper into the darkest networks of the elite’s exploitations, and as the systems are overhauled and reviewed, may the police do their job well and extensively and may we in this place always focus on the women who were exploited, gaslit, traumatised and left broken as we seek justice and seek to hold that power to account.

  • Alex Burghart – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    Alex Burghart – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    The speech made by Alex Burghart, the Shadow Trade Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 February 2026.

    I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion.

    The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on.

    I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address. However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.

    Chris Bryant

    Very humble.

    Alex Burghart

    Very humble.

    The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal.

    I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country.

    Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light.

    The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.

    Chris Bryant indicated dissent.

    Alex Burghart

    The Minister shakes his head, so I will go through the chronology again for him—there is no harm in doing so.

    Chris Bryant

    You’ve got the names wrong.

    Alex Burghart

    Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head.

    In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    By sketching out that timeline, the hon. Gentleman brings to light the reason why we are calling in our Humble Address for information about the actual creation of the appointment, which, as the Minister rightly pointed out, was a unique role created for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that we are right not only to call out the creation of that role, but to ascertain whether Mandelson had any role in it?

    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.

    Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

    The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. What concerns me deeply in this matter is the fact that my constituents and members of the public are increasingly concerned that what they see is the tendrils—as the hon. Gentleman referred to—reaching into government through this debate. In the handling of these papers and the release of information, we must at all times be aware of the reputational impact not just on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Lord Mandelson but on us in this place, as well as on previous and subsequent Governments and Parliaments. Would he agree?

    Alex Burghart

    Very much so. I know that certain hon. Members across the House will be aware of just how bad it will look if the Government do not provide information as swiftly as possible.

    I will give an example of where that is not happening. When we debated the original Humble Address—nearly two weeks ago now—I raised the fact that the Prime Minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palantir in Washington in February last year. He was accompanied on that visit, which did not appear in his register of meetings, by Peter Mandelson. Palantir was a client of the company in which Peter Mandelson held a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir subsequently received by direct award a very substantial contract from Government worth about £240 million.

    When I raised this in the House, there was concern on both sides—it was a cross-party issue. I asked the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office to confirm that the Cabinet Secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would investigate what looks like a clear case of conflict of interest, and he agreed to write to me. I still have not received any reply, despite the fact that I brought it up again at the Dispatch Box at the start of this week and was assured that I would receive a response.

    I just do not think this is good enough. It is very important that the Opposition can hold the Government to account in a meaningful way. To the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I think it is extremely important that the Government should be seen to be willingly providing information, rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the right thing.

    I will make one additional point on this score. While we do very much support the Humble Address being debated today, I ask the Government to be clear that nothing in it—nothing at all—will slow down the process of delivering on the original Humble Address. While there is historic and contemporary interest in what happened in 2001, what this Government did in choosing to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite the information they had at their disposal, is of paramount importance. They must come clean, and come clean quickly. As Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one is above the law.

  • Chris Bryant – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    Chris Bryant – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    The speech made by Chris Bryant, the Minister for Trade, in the House of Commons on 24 February 2026.

    Let me be clear from the outset: we support this motion. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others—abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere. It is not just the people who participated in the abuse; it is the many, many more who turned a blind eye, out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit—just as complicit—and I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now.

    I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern: a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle; a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were delighted and excited to meet a member of the royal family, but he insisted on coming by helicopter, unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and by car. He left early, and he showed next to no interest in the young people. That is, of course, not a crime, nor is arrogance—fortunately, I suppose. [Laughter.]

    Of course, we knew much of what is now in the public domain a very long time ago. It is all very well for some of us to say, “If only we had known then what we know now,” but I am afraid that doesn’t wash with me. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister David Cameron to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this Chamber on 28 February 2011 because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi—Gaddafi was just referred to—and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni. I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow for doing so because

    “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.]

    I did not disagree with that ruling, nor would I ever disagree with a ruling from the Chair, as you know, Mr Speaker.

    Mr Speaker

    Ahem!

    Chris Bryant

    I heard that.

    Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)

    He wants your job! [Laughter.]

    Mr Speaker

    Keep going, Chris.

    Chris Bryant

    I am taking your advice, Mr Speaker: I am just ignoring that.

    Over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain—on television, on radio and in newspaper articles—citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive £15 million paid for his Sunninghill home and many other issues besides. I am afraid the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again. I was repeatedly told off, both in the Chamber and outside it.

    The broadcaster John Humphrys actually told me on the “Today” programme on 7 March 2011—I think Members will be shocked by this—that Jeffrey Epstein was “not quite a paedophile”, drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on 11 March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction between Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it,

    “none of the girls was pre-pubescent”,

    although he did at least admit that both were “sordid and exploitative”. I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen.

    Let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre was published in The Mail on Sunday on 27 February 2011—it is after the allegations, not before.

    Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)

    I entirely agree with the Minister on the abhorrence of the comments made in the media back then. Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?

    Chris Bryant

    I agree 100%. I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. Statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape—end of story.

    Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)

    The Minister is speaking very powerfully about this issue and has one of the strongest track records in standing up on these types of issues. I have asked that the Government release the files concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, or whatever his new name is, when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Can the Minister review that decision and ensure that, in the new spirit of openness and transparency, those files are open for all to see?

    Chris Bryant

    I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.

    The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that

    “there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]

    The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.

    Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:

    “The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]

    Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.

    As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:

    “I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”

    He continued at some length, and concluded:

    “He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]

    Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.

    Ed Davey

    The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.

    Chris Bryant

    Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.

    What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:

    “Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]

    Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called

    “censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]

    I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.

    Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that

    “the law must take its course”,

    and that the Palace would provide its

    “full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.

    The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.

    As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    I agree with everything that the Minister is saying, but what is worrying quite a lot of us, in relation not just to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but to Mandelson, is that because of the ongoing police investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly, it may be years before we see any of these papers. I would like an assurance from the Government that—notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the police investigation—they will do their utmost to ensure that there is full transparency, because scandals are made much worse by any sense of a cover-up.

    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.

    Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Chris Bryant

    I do not want to give way to every single Liberal Democrat Member, but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Lady.

    Tessa Munt

    I thank the Minister greatly. Does he agree that it is timely, right now, for the Government to press ahead with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill? Amendment 23, which is blocking everything at the moment, seems to present a way through, and to ensure not only that we have transparency and openness but that the Government, and other Members of the House, can be assured that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or security—and, indeed, matters relating to the police investigation—will not be released. There is an answer in the Government’s hands, and I know not why they are waiting and waiting and waiting to get this sorted out.

    Chris Bryant

    The hon. Lady might have to repeat what she thinks the answer that thus far evades me might be.

    Tessa Munt

    I could talk to him about the whistleblowing Bill and the independent office of the whistleblower. People should be able to reveal what they know and should tell the truth. It is shocking that we have to have legislation to tell people to tell the truth, but all this falls under the same remit: people should be free to declare exactly what they know, papers should be released, and there should be an independent High Court judge—that is what happens at the moment and that is what is in amendment 23—who says what may and may not be released.

    Mr Speaker

    May I suggest that we shorten interventions, rather than make speeches?

    Chris Bryant

    I return to what I said earlier: we will put everything into the public domain when we can. I do not want to do so at a time that would make it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes that they need to be able to carry out. I am not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process, but I would be happy to listen, Mr Speaker, if the hon. Lady catches your eye later on in the debate. With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate as well, so I will be happy to answer lots of questions.

    Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Chris Bryant

    Oh, all right.

    Daisy Cooper

    Specifically on this point, I am grateful that the Minister is willing to comply with the terms of this motion and that he is trying to manage expectations about the speed with which the Government may act. None the less, he will know that there will still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm, worried that the Government might be trying to long-grass it or put it in the too-hard basket. Will the Minister commit, either now or by the end of the debate, to the Government regularly updating this House so that Opposition parties do not repeatedly have to bring Ministers to the House to answer urgent questions? Will he agree to set out, by the end of the debate, how often the Government would intend to inform the House in regular updates?

    Chris Bryant

    I am happy to commit to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is informative to the House. The hon. Lady is quite right, however, that I am slightly trying to manage people’s expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of material and partly because there is a live police investigation and I do not want to jeopardise that.

    Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Chris Bryant

    I will in a moment.

    If there are things that are embarrassing to the Government, who cares? I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If there are charges brought, that has to go through a judicial process as well and I do not want to undermine that. I am very happy, both privately and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say.

    I am trying to get to the end of my speech. People normally like it when I get to the end of my speech—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have united the House, Mr Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).

    Jim Allister

    I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely that investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there, which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?

    Chris Bryant

    If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I will quite happily explain to him outside the Chamber precisely why I disagree with him. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the Chamber, that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. I am happy to explain to him outside the Chamber and I think he might come back in and agree with me.

    Mr Speaker

    He might not.

    Chris Bryant

    I think he might. Just sometimes, he agrees with me, but not very often. Small mercies and all.

    I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the former Duke of York’s role as a special trade representative was very different to the one performed by the Government’s current trade envoys. That is often confused in the public discussion. Today, trade envoys are appointed by Ministers with a formalised set of rules of conduct, they are unpaid and they work with my Department on attracting and retaining inward investment, while supporting UK firms to take full advantage of new trade opportunities. They are all Members of either this House or another.

    I have recently emphasised to all those trade envoys the importance of maximising the programme’s impact and ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial strategies. They are under the same obligations as Ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, which are the same ones outlined in the ministerial code. In sum, trade envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies, and helping British businesses to export. I will stress this again: the role held by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today. I am enormously grateful to today’s trade envoys who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK plc. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role was a separate one entitled UK special representative for international trade and investment.

    There is unanimous agreement across this House that those who may be guilty of misconduct in public office should face the full force of the law. That applies to everyone, regardless of who they are or how they were appointed. This was a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister prior to the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest. One of the core principles of our constitutional system is the rule of law. That means that everyone is equal under the law and nobody is above the law.

    I share the anger and the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated by the police and in that investigation they will, of course, have the Government’s unwavering co-operation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. Actually, there is only one rule: the rule of law.

  • Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    Ed Davey – 2026 Speech on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (former Prince Andrew)

    The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 24 February 2026.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement ahead of this debate.

    The appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly stunned the whole world. The scale of Epstein’s operation was shocking—selling human beings for sex, turning hundreds of young women and girls into victims and survivors—and those women are at the front of our mind today as we finally seek transparency, truth and accountability.

    Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shamed our country and the royal family, but for too long, Members of Parliament were barred from even raising criticisms of him, let alone properly scrutinising his role as trade envoy, because of the outdated tradition that mentions of any member of the royal family in this House must, in the words of the previous Speaker, be

    “very rare, very sparing and very respectful”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]

    I encountered this at first hand back in 2011, when I was asked to respond to an Adjournment debate on behalf of Lord Green, who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The debate was led by the late Paul Flynn, but even he—an ardent and outspoken republican, as I am sure many of us remember, was not allowed to raise any actual concerns about Andrew himself. Paul called it “negative privilege”, and that is what it was. He said his mouth was “bandaged by archaic rules”, and that had very real and damaging consequences. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because I know he was also constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues. In that debate, Epstein’s name was not mentioned once, and there was no chance to debate the substance. Standing in for the responsible Minister, I set out the Government’s position, as it had been for a decade, in support of the prince’s role as trade envoy. Looking back and knowing what we all know now, I am horrified by it. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praised like that, as they did so often all around the world, so I apologise to them, and I am determined to change things.

    I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Giuffre’s sister-in-law, after Andrew was arrested last week. She said this could be a stain on the royal family for the rest of our history, or

    “it could be a moment where they, and we, decide that this is the time when cultural change happens.”

    As a staunch supporter of His Royal Highness the King and the royal family, I believe we must help to bring about that cultural change now.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    The leader of the Liberal Democrats is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that decades of deferential and, frankly, sycophantic treatment by Parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. I am sure he will also join me in calling on the Government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties, and in requiring transparency and scrutiny of anything paid for by the state from now on, because apparently, they work for us.

    Ed Davey

    I am grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and accountability; I think that is essential. I hope that we as a House will look at ending the archaic “negative privilege” rules that Paul Flynn spoke about, and remove the bandages from our mouths. Today, we are free of those bandages, when it comes to Andrew. Our motion focuses on finally getting out the truth about his role as a special representative for trade and investment.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    First, I commend the right hon. Member and his party for bringing forward the motion, and for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. Certainly, he speaks not just for this House, but for this nation. We are all greatly shocked at what has taken place, but does he agree that King Charles, Queen Camilla, Edward, Sophie, William and Kate are members of the royal family who need our support at this time? Does he also agree that now is perhaps the time to tell them that we in this House love them, and that this nation loves them? We understand the pain they are suffering, and we support those members of the royal family who are above reproach on this.

    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.

    Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)

    I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. [Interruption.] Sorry, the leader of the Liberal Democrats—I stand corrected. [Hon. Members: “More!”] It’s coming.

    I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister yesterday in this House about the speed of bringing legislation forward. Victims, Members of this House and Members of the Lords all want this process to happen as swiftly as possible. Does the right hon. Member agree with the Chief Secretary’s comments and that whatever happens with Andrew or anybody else, we must keep pushing to get legislation brought forward swiftly, not in the years to come?

    Ed Davey

    I am grateful for both the hon. Gentleman’s Freudian slip and his suggestion that we need to speed up action in this area.

    Let me begin to conclude. In many ways, this is the first truly global scandal, from the White House and silicon valley to Oslo and Paris. But it is also a deeply British scandal, reaching right to the top of the British establishment. Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former Business Secretary, First Secretary of State and ambassador to the United States? Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country.

    Today, we must begin to clean away that stain with the disinfectant of transparency. Whether it is the President of the United States and his Commerce Secretary, Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice for far too long. I hope—I desperately hope—that is ending now, and I hope the House will approve this motion.

  • King Charles III – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    King Charles III – 2026 Statement on the Arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    The statement made by King Charles III on 19 February 2026.

    “I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.

    What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.

    In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.

    Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.

    As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter.

    Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.

    Charles R.”

  • King Charles III – 2024 King’s Speech to Parliament

    King Charles III – 2024 King’s Speech to Parliament

    The speech made by King Charles III to Parliament on 17 July 2024.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, My Government will govern in service to the country.

    My Government’s legislative programme will be mission led and based upon the principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all.

    Stability will be the cornerstone of my Government’s economic policy and every decision will be consistent with its fiscal rules. It will legislate to ensure that all significant tax and spending changes are subject to an independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility [Budget Responsibility Bill]. Bills will be brought forward to strengthen audit and corporate governance, alongside pension investment [Draft Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill, Pension Schemes Bill].

    Securing economic growth will be a fundamental mission. My Government will seek a new partnership with both business and working people and help the country move on from the recent cost of living challenges by prioritising wealth creation for all communities. My Ministers will establish an Industrial Strategy Council. It is my Government’s objective to see rising living standards in all nations and regions in the United Kingdom.

    My Ministers will get Britain building, including through planning reform, as they seek to accelerate the delivery of high quality infrastructure and housing [Planning and Infrastructure Bill]. They will also pursue sustainable growth by encouraging investment in industry, skills and new technologies.

    My Government is committed to making work pay and will legislate to introduce a new deal for working people to ban exploitative practices and enhance employment rights [Employment Rights Bill]. It will seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models.

    My Government believes that greater devolution of decision making is at the heart of a modern dynamic economy and is a key driver of economic growth and my Ministers will introduce an English Devolution Bill [English Devolution Bill]. Legislation will be introduced to give new powers to metro mayors and combined authorities. This will support local growth plans that bring economic benefit to communities.

    A Bill will be introduced to allow local leaders to take control of their local bus services [Better Buses Bill]. My Ministers will bring forward legislation to improve the railways by reforming rail franchising, establishing Great British Railways and bringing train 8 operators into public ownership [Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, Rail Reform Bill].

    Taken together these policies will enhance Britain’s position as a leading industrial nation and enable the country to take advantage of new opportunities that can promote growth and wealth creation.

    My Government recognises the urgency of the global climate challenge and the new job opportunities that can come from leading the development of the technologies of the future. It is committed to a clean energy transition which will lower energy bills for consumers over time. A Bill will be introduced to set up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power company headquartered in Scotland, which will help accelerate investment in renewable energy such as offshore wind [Great British Energy Bill]. Legislation will be brought forward to help the country achieve energy independence and unlock investment in energy infrastructure. A Bill will be introduced to support sustainable aviation fuel production [Sustainable Aviation Fuel (Revenue Support Mechanism) Bill]. My Government recognises the need to improve water quality and a Bill will be introduced to strengthen the powers of the water regulator [Water (Special Measures) Bill].

    My Government will seek to strengthen the border and make streets safer. A Bill will be introduced to modernise the asylum and immigration system, establishing a new Border Security Command and delivering enhanced counter terror powers to tackle organised immigration crime [Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill]. Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen community policing, give the police greater powers to deal with anti social behaviour and strengthen support for victims [Crime and Policing Bill, Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill].

    Measures will be introduced to improve the safety and security of public venues and help keep the British public safe from terrorism [Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill]. My Government will bring forward plans to halve violence against women and girls.

    My Ministers will seek to raise educational standards and break down barriers to opportunity. Action will be taken to get people back in employment following the impact of the pandemic. A Bill will be introduced to raise standards in education and promote children’s wellbeing [Children’s Wellbeing Bill]. Measures will be brought forward to remove the exemption from Value Added Tax for private school fees, which will enable the funding of six and a half thousand new teachers. My Government will establish Skills England which will have a new partnership with employers at its heart [Skills England Bill], and my Ministers will reform the apprenticeship levy.

    Legislation will be introduced to give greater rights and protections to people renting their homes, including ending no fault evictions and reforming grounds for possession 9 [Renters’ Rights Bill]. Draft legislation will be published on leasehold and commonhold reform [Draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill].

    A Bill will be introduced to establish an independent football regulator to ensure greater sustainability in the game and strengthen protections for fans [Football Governance Bill].

    My Government will improve the National Health Service as a service for all, providing care on the basis of need regardless of the ability to pay. It will seek to reduce the waiting times, focus on prevention and improve mental health provision for young people. It will ensure mental health is given the same attention and focus as physical health. My ministers will legislate to modernise the Mental Health Act so it is fit for the twenty first century [Mental Health Bill]. A Bill will be introduced to progressively increase the age at which people can buy cigarettes and impose limits on the sale and marketing of vapes [Tobacco and Vapes Bill]. My Ministers will also legislate to restrict advertising of junk food to children along with the sale of high caffeine energy drinks to children. A draft Bill will be brought forward to ban conversion practices [Draft Conversion Practices Bill].

    My Government will take steps to help rebuild trust and foster respect. Legislation will be brought forward to introduce a duty of candour for public servants [Hillsborough Law]. A Bill will be introduced to establish a statutory Armed Forces Commissioner to act as a strong independent champion for our gallant Armed Forces and their families [Armed Forces Commissioner Bill].

    Legislation on race equality will be published in draft to enshrine the full right to equal pay in law [Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill].

    My Government will strengthen its work with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the best outcomes possible are delivered for citizens across the United Kingdom. My Ministers will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions to renew opportunities for the Prime Minister, heads of devolved governments and mayors of combined authorities to collaborate with each other.

    My Government will continue to support the political institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland. In consultation with all parties, measures will be brought forward to begin the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 [Northern Ireland Legacy Legislation].

    Measures to modernise the constitution will be introduced including House of Lords reform to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords [House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill]. My ministers will strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process.

    The Government will propose a modernisation committee of the House of Commons which will be tasked with driving up standards, improving work practices and reforming procedures.

    My Government will ensure a strong defence based on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Its commitment to NATO will remain unshakeable. It will maintain a strong Armed Forces, including the nuclear deterrent. To ensure that the United Kingdom’s defence capabilities are matched to the changing nature of global strategic threats, my Government will conduct a Strategic Defence Review.

    My Government will continue to give its full support to Ukraine and its people and it will endeavour to play a leading role in providing Ukraine with a clear path to NATO membership.

    My Government will seek to reset the relationship with European partners and work to improve the United Kingdom’s trade and investment relationship with the European Union. My Ministers will seek a new security pact to strengthen cooperation on the mutual threats faced by the United Kingdom and the European Union.

    My Government will play its part in trying to secure long term peace and security in the Middle East. It is committed to a two state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

    Later this week, my Government will host the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim Palace. The Queen and I look forward to our Visit to Samoa alongside the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October, and our Visit to Australia.

    Members of the House of Commons

    Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • Lee Anderson – 2023 Comments Saying Republicans Should Emigrate

    Lee Anderson – 2023 Comments Saying Republicans Should Emigrate

    The comments made by Lee Anderson, the Vice-Chair of the Conservative Party, on Twitter on 7 May 2023.

    Not My King? If you do not wish to live in a country that has a monarchy the solution is not to turn up with your silly boards. The solution is to emigrate.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Comments on the Coronation

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Comments on the Coronation

    The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 6 May 2023.

    Today’s Coronation is a moment of extraordinary national pride. No other country could put on such a dazzling display. But it is not just a spectacle. It’s a proud expression of our history, culture, and traditions. It is a vivid demonstration of the modern character of our country. And a cherished ritual through which a new era is born. God Save The King.

  • King Charles III – 2023 Speech at the German Bundestag

    King Charles III – 2023 Speech at the German Bundestag

    The speech made by King Charles III at the Bundestag in Germany on 30 March 2023.

    Delivered in German:

    Mr President, President of the Bundestag, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    It is a great honour to be here today. It means a great deal to both my wife and myself that we have been invited to Germany on my first overseas tour as Sovereign, and it is a particular honour to be here with you where I wish to renew the pledge of friendship between our nations. There could be few better places to do so than in this building which, in its very stones, tells the history of the twentieth century. It is, in itself, a demonstration of what binds our two countries. Burnt in 1933, severely damaged in 1945, in the 1990s it was rebuilt by a British architect to be the Parliament of a re-united democratic Germany; its iconic glass dome a symbol of the transparency and accountability of parliament, from which the citizens, looking down, can literally oversee their politicians at work. Democracy in action!

    My wife and I last had the honour of joining you in this chamber in November 2020, on the occasion of Volkstrauertag. Seventy-five years after the Second World War, it was of great importance to me to stand with Germans in honouring all victims of war and tyranny, and to be the first members of my family to participate in those deeply moving commemorations.

    That you invited us to join you on that occasion showed how far the United Kingdom and Germany had travelled together in friendship and in peace – just as was demonstrated so powerfully 2 years before, by your presence in London, Mr President, for the centenary of the end of the First World War.

    Delivered in English:

    Today, it gives me particular pride to be with you once again, now as King, and to renew the special bond of friendship between our countries.

    This friendship meant so much to my beloved Mother, The late Queen, who often spoke of the 15 official visits she made to Germany, including her 5 state visits.

    The first of those, in 1965, came when our continent was still deeply scarred by war, and the trauma of conflict. Hers was the wartime generation, and like my father, The Queen had served in uniform. That my parents’ 11-day tour of Germany should prove to be a pivotal moment in the reconciliation between our nations was, therefore, a matter of great personal significance to them both.

    Delivered in German:

    My Mother understood the immense achievement that reconciliation represented, and in returning to Germany time and again, she was determined to play her own part. It is, perhaps, for this reason that Her late Majesty won a particular place in the affection of the German people.

    My family and I were so deeply touched by the reaction in Germany to my Mother’s death. The tributes offered in this chamber, the Union Flag projected onto the Brandenburg Gate, and the thousands of messages in condolence books across the country, offered a tremendous comfort in our time of grief. On behalf of my entire family, I can only offer our heartfelt thanks for the extraordinary kindness that the people of Germany showed to us.

    Mr President, President of the Bundestag, since I last spoke in this building the scourge of war is back in Europe. The unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has inflicted the most unimaginable suffering on so many innocent people. Countless lives have been destroyed; freedom and human dignity have been trampled in the most brutal way. The security of Europe has been threatened, together with our democratic values.

    The world has watched in horror – but we have not stood by. Even as we abhor the appalling scenes of destruction, we can take heart from our unity – in defence of Ukraine, of peace and freedom.

    Germany and the United Kingdom have shown vital leadership. As Europe’s 2 largest donors to Ukraine, we have responded with taking decisions which might previously have seemed unimaginable. Germany’s decision to send such significant military support to Ukraine is remarkably courageous, important and appreciated.

    Today, our pilots are flying side-by-side on joint operations over our Baltic allies. Here, in Germany, our armies have established a joint Amphibious Engineer Battalion, which I will visit later today. Germany is the only nation in the world with which the United Kingdom has such a joint unit, an extraordinary testament to the partnership we enjoy.

    Delivered in English:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I can hardly begin to express the pride I feel in the strength of the partnership between our 2 countries. Germany, her people and distinctive culture have made such a profound impact on me over so many of my previous visits. Since I first came to Germany when I was just 13 years old, I have grown to become familiar with the different corners of this remarkable land.

    Like many British people, I have close personal ties here – in my case, cherished family relationships and associations that go back generations. For all of us, however, there are countless points of connection and common experience in the British-German story, which has unfolded over nearly 2 millennia.

    Throughout the Middle Ages, the renowned Hanseatic League traded goods from Lübeck and Hamburg to ports up and down the English coast, establishing a trading partnership which underpins our shared prosperity to this day.

    Where goods travelled, ideas travelled too. Our people came to be inspired by each other’s example.

    Delivered in German:

    We developed a profound admiration of one another’s literature and music, and it is not surprising, therefore, that German was the first language into which Shakespeare was translated. The first Shakespeare Association in the world was established in 1864 – not in England, but in Weimar.

    In just a few weeks’ time, the astonishing music of Georg Friedrich Handel – who was born a German, and died British – will once again soar through Westminster Abbey at the Coronation, just as it has at every Coronation since that of my 7 times great grandfather, King George II, in 1727.

    Delivered in English:

    Throughout the centuries, people have travelled back and forth between our lands. In the 19th century, many Britons fell in love with Germany whilst on the ‘Grand Tour’. William Turner’s mesmerising paintings of the Rhine sparked in his countrymen the ambition to see those landscapes for themselves – a demand later met by Thomas Cook, the pioneer of tourism, who would organise his first foreign trip along the Rhine, with stops at Cologne, Frankfurt, Heidelberg and Baden-Baden.

    Today millions of Britons visit Germany each year, just as millions of Germans travel to our shores. Britons come to admire Berlin’s vibrant culture and nightlife, making up Europe’s largest visitor group to this wonderful city. So we are still admiring of each other’s culture; dependent upon each other’s economies; and inspired by each other’s ideas. More recent generations may think as readily of The Beatles or Kraftwerk, as they do of Brahms or Byron, but the web of cultural connections is as strong as ever.

    And perhaps most importantly, for the last 50 years we have laughed together – both at each other, and with each other. And while Miss Sophie’s “The same procedure as every year, James?” does not – I hope – give a very accurate impression of modern Britain, it is, I know, an integral part of a German Happy New Year. In Britain, Germany’s comedy ambassador Henning Wehn has given us an understanding of German quirks, as Monty Python brought our own here. Like all old friends at moments, the warmth of our relationship allows a small smile at each other’s expense.

    Delivered in German:

    In some areas there are rivalries, of course, and I think especially of our encounters on the football pitch.

    Against this backdrop, it was particularly special last year that the England women’s football team – the Lionesses – could win the Euros against Germany last year. Beyond their sporting success, both teams have promoted gender equality in such an impressive way. In so doing, they inspired a generation – in Britain, Germany and far beyond.

    Delivered in English:

    This is just one example of how our countries, together, can offer a compelling example to the world. There are, I am delighted to say, very many more. Faced with so many shared challenges, the United Kingdom and Germany are together providing leadership to secure our shared future.

    Today, the United Kingdom and Germany are Europe’s 2 largest producers of power from offshore wind. Many German firms are involved in the production and erection of turbines off the British coast. The North Sea, across which our people have travelled and traded for generations, is soon to be the site of a new interconnector allowing us directly to trade electricity.

    Our countries are both accelerating the expansion of our hydrogen economies, the fuel which could transform our future and I am looking forward to seeing Hamburg’s plans to use hydrogen in its efforts to become a fully sustainable port.

    These innovations are vital in combatting the existential challenge of climate change and global warming which confronts us all, and as such I was delighted to meet participants of the Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue yesterday to hear how countries are accelerating this transition.

    Delivered in German:

    For a long time, British and German scientific research has been leading the way. Our countries rank in the top 2 in Europe for founding successful new technology start-ups. Our universities and research institutions collaborate more often with each other than any other two countries in Europe.

    This helps to explain why a Berlin-based company has pioneered in London the use of lampposts for electric vehicle charging points, while in Berlin you can book a ride in a fully electric, London-style taxi.

    Internationally, too, we are working closely together. We helped initiate the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa at the climate conference in Glasgow. A further such partnership with Indonesia was the result of much work during Germany’s G7 Presidency.

    Delivered in English:

    Mr President, President of the Bundestag, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This essential partnership between our 2 countries is built of the expertise, dedication and ingenuity of countless people in both Germany and the United Kingdom. To them all, I can only offer my sincere and heartfelt gratitude.

    Tomorrow, we will once again stand with the people of Germany in solemn remembrance. In Hamburg, I will pay my respects at the memorial to the Kindertransporte, which, 85 years ago, saved the lives of more than 10,000 Jewish children from Nazism, and gave them safe passage to new lives in Britain. I will also join you, Mr President, and you, First Mayor Tschentscher, in remembering those who perished in the Allied bombing of Hamburg in 1943.

    Delivered in German:

    Heeding the lessons of the past is our sacred responsibility, but it can only be fully discharged through a commitment to our shared future. Together we must be vigilant against threats to our values and freedoms, and resolute in our determination to confront them. Together we must strive for the security, prosperity and wellbeing that our people deserve.

    In the long and remarkable story of our 2 countries, there are many chapters yet unwritten. Let us fill these with the restless pursuit of a better tomorrow. The legacy of our past, and the great promise of our future, demand nothing less. Thank you for your attention.