UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2026

  • 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.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Government ends runaway independent special school fees [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : Government ends runaway independent special school fees [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Department for Education on 19 February 2026.

    Children’s progress put first as government ends runaway independent special school fees.

    Thousands more children with SEND will get the support that helps them achieve and thrive under new government action to end spiralling independent special school costs and reinvest funding where it makes the biggest difference to pupils’ life chances. 

    It comes ahead of the Government’s schools white paper, which will be a golden opportunity to change the course of children’s lives for the better, moving away from a one size fits all approach to one where every child belongs and where high standards and inclusion are two sides of the same coin.

    Independent special schools charge an average of £63,000 per child per year – more than twice the £26,000 cost of a state special school. Yet there is no evidence children do any better. Over 30% of these schools are backed by private equity firms, with public money intended for children and young people with the most complex needs instead flowing into private profit.

    For the first time, clear national price bands and strengthened standards will ensure every specialist placement delivers real progress for children – not higher bills for councils – ending the postcode lottery that families have faced in securing high-quality SEND support.

    Demand for SEND support has risen sharply in recent years, driving an over-reliance on expensive independent special school placements. Today’s measures will reset the specialist sector so that funding is focused on what matters most – high-quality education, better progress and stronger life chances for children. 

    And for those children who we know can thrive in mainstream schools with the right support, new research shows that children with SEND perform half a grade better at GCSE than their peers in special schools.

    Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson said:

    For too long, families have faced a postcode lottery – fighting for support that depends on where they live, not what their child needs. That ends now.

    We’re cracking down on providers who put profit before children. New standards and proper oversight will ensure every independent special school placement delivers real outcomes for children – not unreasonable bills for local authorities.

    This is about building a system where every child with SEND can achieve and thrive, at a school that’s right for them and delivers the life chances they deserve.

    Under the plans: 

    • New national price bands will end unjustified fee variation for the same provision, giving councils the confidence to challenge poor value placements. 
    • New statutory SEND-specific standards will ensure every independent special school delivers consistent, high-quality support and clear outcomes for pupils. 
    • Full cost transparency will show exactly how public money is spent. 
    • Local authorities will have a formal say on new or expanding independent provision so places are created where children actually need them. 

    Where special schools are the right setting for children with the most complex needs, the new framework will ensure places are high-quality, locally planned and financially sustainable. 

    Cllr Louise Gittins, Chair of the LGA, said:

    It is good the Government has set out plans to regulate independent special schools and measures to control costs.

    While in some cases an independent school can be the best place for a child to attend, it is wrong that when councils’ own costs are soaring that some providers are setting unreasonably high prices and making significant profits from state-funded placements.

    To reduce the reliance on independent special schools, we look forward to the Government’s Schools White Paper ensuring more children with SEND get the care and support they need in schools and other mainstream settings. 

    These measures complement work already underway to create an inclusive education system, including £3.7 billion to deliver 60,000 specialist places in mainstream schools and £200 million to train all teachers and teaching assistants to support pupils with SEND. 

    This forms the foundations of the government’s reform plans, centred around the belief that children with SEND can thrive in mainstream settings with the right support.

    For example, when looking at comparable pupils with EHCPs, the data shows that not only are those in mainstream schools considerably more likely to be entered into GCSE exams, but those who are, achieve around half a GCSE grade higher in English and maths than their peers in special schools. 

    That’s a half a grade which could mean the difference between a pass or fail at one of the most important academic milestones. 

    The forthcoming Schools White Paper will build on these reforms, setting out further action to strengthen oversight, improve inclusion and ensure public funding is directed to the support that delivers the best outcomes for children and young people.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Let this be the time that the world comes together to end the cycle of bloodshed in Sudan – UK Statement at the UN Security Council [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : Let this be the time that the world comes together to end the cycle of bloodshed in Sudan – UK Statement at the UN Security Council [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 19 February 2026.

    Statement by The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, at the UN Security Council meeting on Sudan.

    Two weeks ago, I stood in Adré, on the Chad-Sudan border. 

    A camp of over 140,000 people who have fled Sudan’s conflict – and 85% of them are women and children. Women I met who are teachers, nurses, students, small businesswomen, market traders, mothers back home but whose lives and whose families are ripped apart,

    I spoke to a mother who didn’t know whether her children are still alive.

    A Sudanese young woman told me that most women she knew had experienced what she termed ‘bad violence’ that no one wanted to talk about it because of the shame.

    A Sudanese community worker told me she thought more than half of the women had been subjected to sexual violence. And other community workers who have told yet more distressing stories one about three sisters arriving at the Sudanese Emergency Response Room facility who had all been raped. The oldest sister was 13. The youngest was 8.

    There is a war being waged on the bodies of women and girls, and I told the women that I spoke to in Adre that I would bring their voices and their stories to the United Nations and to the world and that is what we are doing today because the world must hear the voices of the women of Sudan, and not the military men perpetuating this conflict.

    Voices that ensure this Council confronts the bitter truth, because the world has been catastrophically failing the people of Sudan.

    This is the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.

    A war that has left 33 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, 14 million people forced to flee their homes, famine stalking millions of malnourished children and a conflict that embedded in vested interests and regional rivalries with implications that go far beyond Sudan’s borders.

    Yet too often the world has looked away. We must shine a spotlight on the suffering in Sudan. And that is why in the Human Rights Council in November the UK led work across countries to commission the fact-finding mission into El Fasher and the siege and capture of the city the RSF, and that report is now published today. That report is now published today and I am bringing its evidence and conclusions before this Security Council. Page after page of the most distressing accounts imaginable. It is horrific.

    Quotes which say:

    “Survivors consistently spoke of widespread killings, including indiscriminate shootings and point-blank executions of civilians in homes, streets, open areas or while attempting to flee the city.”

    “A pregnant woman was asked how far she was in her pregnancy. When she responded, “seven months”, he fired seven bullets into her abdomen, killing her”.

    “Hospitals, medical personnel, the sick and wounded were not spared.”

    “And survivors reported being raped in front of their relatives, including their children.”

    “Ethnic targeting.”

    And calls for, as it says, “extermination.”

    So why are we here, in this Council, when we see a report concluding that the violence bears “the hallmarks of genocide.”

    This Council, whose mandate and purpose is to confront such shocking crimes and to drive action.

    Because El Fasher should have been a turning point. Instead, the violence is now continuing.

    More than three months after the fall of El-Fasher, we continue to hear and see reports of continued violations of international humanitarian law or human rights abuses unfolding.

    Aid agencies still facing barriers to getting in, schools, hospitals, markets and humanitarian convoys being destroyed. 

    Four attacks on the World Food Programme since the start of this month alone. There have been reports of strikes on aid operations by both RSF and SAF and the real risk of further escalation now across Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions.

    This is not just a humanitarian crisis, it is a regional security crisis and a migration crisis too.

    We have seen the impact for regional security on neighbouring countries and on the whole of the Horn of Africa and along the Sahel, opportunities for extremists to exploit and terror groups to take hold.  And millions displaced from their homes, the risk of increased migration destabilising nations nearby but also across and into Europe as well.

    This affects all of us.

    And that is why we need action and we need the United Nations to be a force for countries to come together from across the world to demand peace.

    First it means demanding unimpeded humanitarian access and far greater humanitarian support, protection for civilians and for aid workers. Both warring parties must lift the restrictions on aid.

    The UN 2026 appeal is just 13 per cent funded — leaving frontline agencies without the funding they need to save lives.

    The UK is the third largest Sudan donor, providing $200 million dollars this year, plus $54 million dollars for Sudanese refugees. And in Chad, I announced a further $27 million dollars to support survivors of sexual violence. But aid alone won’t stop this.

    We need an immediate humanitarian truce and a pathway to a permanent ceasefire, so I commend the work of the US and President Trump’s Special Advisor who has convened the Quad of nations with Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to discuss plans for peace, and the commitment from the Quintet, from the African union, and the European Union and others  to support plans for peace.

    But we will need pressure from every UN member state, and I urge all of those with influence on both the RSF and the SAF not to fuel further conflict but instead to exert maximum pressure on them to halt the bloodshed, to pull back and to pursue a plan for peace.

    A plan which includes rebuilding Sudanese civil society, supporting civil society groups and a civilian transition because it should be the people of Sudan who determine Sudan’s future.

    And that means we also need an end to the arms flows.

    There is no military solution to this conflict, but the reason that the military men still convince themselves there is a military solution is because they can still obtain ever more lethal weapons. External support from at least a dozen states funding, manufacturing, transit, training that is perpetuating the conflict and the misery.

    The Fact-Finding Mission has said that it will report back further on investigations into breaches of the UN arms embargo into Darfur, but arms restrictions need to be enforced and extended, so again I appeal to all nations – now is the time to choke off the arms flows and exert tangible pressure for peace.

    And we need accountability, it is time for more sanctions against the perpetrators of these vile crimes. The UK has already sanctioned several senior RSF commanders linked to the atrocities committed in El Fasher. 

    And this week we joined the US and France in proposing they be designated by the UN Security Council too. We are confronting impunity by supporting the ICC’s Sudan investigation so we can bring perpetrators to justice.

    Last September at the UN General Assembly the energy and determination in this Security Council but right across the UN around the peace process for Gaza, rightly, was immense. We could see and feel countries across the world coming together – countries who normally disagree coming together– to back a peace process. That is what made it possible for the US-led plan to deliver a ceasefire within weeks

    We need that same energy and determination we have rightly brought to the peace process for Gaza now to bring peace for Sudan, so that we can secure an immediate ceasefire, humanitarian truce and so that those responsible for atrocities are held to account.

    Let this be the time that world comes together to end the cycle of bloodshed and to pursue a path to peace.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New technology and medicines to combat drug and alcohol addiction [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : New technology and medicines to combat drug and alcohol addiction [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Department of Health and Social Care on 19 February 2026.

    Innovators across the UK are being offered £20 million in grants for technology designed to reduce harm and death from drug and alcohol addiction.

    • £20 million in grants for technology designed to reduce harm and death from drug and alcohol addiction
    • Wearable tech, artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality projects to be considered
    • Part of the government’s Addiction Healthcare Goals (AHG) programme to save and improve lives

    Innovators across the UK are being offered £20 million of government funding to develop cutting‑edge medicines, medical technologies and digital tools to tackle drug and alcohol addiction.

    Thousands of people die every year from substance misuse and addiction – with hundreds of thousands more suffering.

    Grants, delivered through Innovate UK, will support the development and deployment of new technologies designed to improve treatment, strengthen recovery and reduce harm from drug and alcohol addiction.

    Health Minister Dr Zubir Ahmed said: 

    Addiction ruins lives and we need to look at any way we can help ease the suffering – and aid the recovery – of hundreds of thousands of people.

    Embracing new technology will help supplement all the work this government is already doing, including expanding access to vital drugs and providing billions in funding for drug and alcohol prevention treatment and recovery.

    Finding new ways to combat the scourge of addiction could save thousands of lives and billions of pounds.

    Around 15,000 people die each year in the UK due to alcohol and drugs.

    Hundreds of thousands more suffer the effects, which costs England an estimated £47 billion each year.

    The AHG Catalysing Innovation Awards – part of the Addiction Healthcare Goals programme led by the Office for Life Sciences – will help reduce this by supporting those working on new medicines, medical devices, wearables, virtual‑reality therapies, treatment apps and AI‑enabled tools.

    These innovations have the potential to transform care for people with drug and alcohol addictions by improving treatment outcomes, preventing relapse and reducing the risk of overdose and death.

    Science Minister Lord Vallance said:

    Cutting-edge medicines and technologies could save thousands of lives lost to alcohol and drug addiction while improving outcomes for hundreds of thousands more.

    Backing both late‑stage technologies and earlier‑stage innovations means we are creating a clear and rapid route from breakthrough ideas to real‑world impact.

    This is about using the UK’s scientific excellence to prevent avoidable deaths and support recovery, while helping innovative companies to grow and thrive in the UK at the same time.

    Professor Anne Lingford‑Hughes, Chair of Addiction Healthcare Goals, said: 

    Too many lives are still cut short by drug and alcohol addictions, and healthcare innovations are urgently needed to address the immense personal, mental and physical health and societal impacts they cause.

    To meet this challenge, I am pleased to be working with Innovate UK to launch these Catalysing Innovation Awards, supporting the development of the most promising medicines, devices and digital tools to enhance treatment and care.

    These awards will support UK companies and innovators to build the evidence needed to show what works in real services, ensuring innovations reach the people who need them sooner, prevent deaths and strengthen recovery.

    Dr Stella Peace, Managing Director, Healthy Living and Agriculture, Innovate UK, said:

    Working with the Office for Life Sciences, Innovate UK is accelerating the development of cutting‑edge drug and alcohol addiction treatments and interventions to move quickly from research into real‑world services.

    By fast‑tracking these innovations into the hands of clinicians and support teams, we can improve outcomes for people with these addictions and drive economic benefit for the UK.

    Applications open today (16 February 2026), with awards of up to £10 million available to support late‑stage, high‑impact projects that can demonstrate real‑world effectiveness, UK market readiness and progress towards regulatory approval.

    These grants will support projects expected to be close to deployment and capable of delivering impact within health and care services.

    A second strand will support earlier‑stage innovations, with awards of up to £1.5 million to help promising technologies demonstrate initial effectiveness, strengthen business planning and help them progress.

    Successful projects will also receive exclusive access to an education session from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), supporting innovators to navigate evidence requirements and the pathway to UK certification, approval and roll‑out.

    How to apply

    Applications for funding close on 6 May 2026.

    More information about the funding available and where to apply is on Innovate UK’s website: supporting innovation in drug and alcohol addiction healthcare challenges.

    An online briefing event will be held on 19 February to guide organisations through eligibility, scope and the application process. Register for the online event

    Background information

    The AHG programme is being delivered by the Office for Life Sciences, alongside the dementia, mental health, cancer and obesity Healthcare Goals.

    The AHG is working to make the UK a globally leading location for researchers and industry to develop, trial and deploy innovative treatments and technologies which will help people recover from drug and alcohol addictions, save lives and benefit society.

    Other opportunities from AHG include the Addiction Healthcare Goals Research Leadership Programme, with over £10 million of funding available, to support career development and training for a pipeline of future leaders in addiction research across the UK.

    The AHG programme forms part of the Department of Health and Social Care’s ambition to deliver a world-class treatment and recovery system for people experiencing drug and alcohol addictions.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Record funding to protect faith communities [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : Record funding to protect faith communities [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Home Office on 19 February 2026.

    Government announces a record £73.4 million in funding in 2026 to 2027 for protective security at Jewish, Muslim, and other faith sites.

    Faith communities across the UK can feel safer, thanks to record levels of funding for protective security announced today.

    Up to £73.4 million in funding will be available in 2026 to 2027 through the government’s different protective security schemes for Jewish, Muslim and other faith sites. This funding will pay for on-site security staff and equipment such as CCTV, fencing, intruder alarms and floodlights. 

    Up to £28.4 million will be available through the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant, which is managed by the Community Security Trust (CST), for measures at synagogues, Jewish schools and community centres. 

    Up to £40 million will be available through the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme, which supports mosques, Muslim schools and community centres.

    Eligible organisations can apply on a rolling basis directly with the Home Office. 

    Last October, the Prime Minister announced the Jewish and Muslim protective security schemes would receive an additional £10 million uplift in 2025 to 2026 to respond to increased threats. Today’s announcement confirms those record funding levels will be maintained through next year.

    Meanwhile, the Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme, which is for all non-Jewish or Muslim faiths, will receive an uplift of £1.5 million, bringing the total available to protect Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and other faith sites to a record £5 million.

    The next application window for this scheme will open later this year.

    Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said:

    Nobody should be forced to live a smaller life in this country because of their faith. 

    The funding we have announced today will protect places of worship, faith-based schools and community centres across the country. 

    This government will never tolerate religious hatred or intimidation.

    Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said:

    We are ensuring record funding to protect faith communities all across the UK.

    This goes further than cameras and alarms, it’s about restoring peace of mind and sending the message: religious persecution and intolerance has no place in Britain.

    Hate crime sits at unacceptable levels across the UK. The 2025 hate crime statistics for England and Wales show overall religious hate crime was at all-time record levels. Jewish people were proportionately more affected by these shameful crimes, while 45% of all religious hate crimes last year targeted Muslims. Meanwhile, statistics published by the CST last week show that antisemitic incidents in 2025 were at their second-highest levels since the CST began keeping records.

    Local police forces have also stepped up patrols in at-risk areas, and we have given police more powers and resources to manage repeat, intimidating protests, investigate religious hate crimes, and support communities who feel targeted.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Joint Ministerial Statement on Protection of Civilians and Humanitarian Operations in Sudan [February 2026]

    PRESS RELEASE : Joint Ministerial Statement on Protection of Civilians and Humanitarian Operations in Sudan [February 2026]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 19 February 2026.

    Joint Ministerial Statement from the UK and partners on the Protection of Civilians and Humanitarian Operations in Sudan.

    We express grave concern over the continued deadly unlawful attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure and humanitarian operations as heavy fighting across the Kordofan and Darfur States continues. The recent severe escalation in drone and aerial attacks including those affecting displaced civilians, health facilities, food convoys and areas near humanitarian compounds have resulted in a significant number of civilian deaths and injuries and is further disrupting humanitarian access and supply lines.

    In recent weeks alone, drone and rocket strikes on trucks and warehouses of the World Food Programme, as well as on health facilities, have resulted in the deaths and severe injuries of civilians and humanitarian personnel and the destruction of urgently needed humanitarian supplies and infrastructure. Intentional attacks against humanitarian personnel, vehicles, or supplies, as well as wilfully impeding relief supplies, are contrary to international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes.

    The Darfur and Kordofan States remain at the epicenter of the world’s largest humanitarian and protection crisis. Sexual and gender-based violence is rampant, famine is confirmed and severe hunger continues to spread. Up to 100.000 people have been displaced in recent months in the Kordofan states alone. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, violations and abuses committed by the RSF and its allied militias in and around El Fasher last October risk being repeated in the Kordofan region. We urgently repeat our call to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and their allied militias to immediately cease hostilities.

    We condemn the abhorrent violence against civilians, particularly women and children and all serious violations of international humanitarian law in the strongest terms. These violations may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity and must be promptly and impartially investigated, with those responsible for international crimes brought to justice.

    All parties must respect international humanitarian law which includes an obligation to allow and facilitate the rapid, safe and unimpeded access of food, medicine, and other essential supplies to civilians in need. Civilians including humanitarian personnel must be protected at all times, particularly women and girls, who remain at risk of sexual and gender-based violence. Those fleeing must be granted safe passage.

    We stand with the people of Sudan and humanitarian organisations – local and international – who are working tirelessly and under extremely challenging conditions to assist them.

    This statement has been signed by:

    Johann Wadephul, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany

    Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada

    Antonio Tajani, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy

    Baiba Braže, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia

    Beate Meinl-Reisinger, Federal Minister for European and International Affairs of Austria

    Constantinos Kombos, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus

    David van Weel, Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands

    Dr. Ian Borg, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Tourism of Malta

    Elina Valtonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland

    Espen Barth Eide, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway

    Hadja Lahbib, European Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management

    Helen McEntee TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ireland

    Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France

    Jose Manuel Albares Bueno, Minister for Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation of the Kingdom of Spain

    Juraj Blanár, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic

    Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark

    Margus Tsahkna, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Estonia

    Maria Malmer Stenergard, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden

    Maxime Prévot, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Affairs and Development Cooperation of Belgium

    Oana Țoiu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania

    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Minister of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand

    Yvette Cooper, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs of the United Kingdom

    Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia

    Tanja Fajon, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovenia

    Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland

    Xavier Bettel, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and Minster for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Affairs of Luxembourg

    Ana Isabel Xavier, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Portugal

    Dominik Stillhart, Head of Swiss Humanitarian Aid, Deputy Director General of Swiss Development Cooperation

    Jiri Brodsky, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic

    Nikolay Berievski, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria

    Péter Sztáray, State Secretary for Security Policy and Energy Security of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary

    Croatia

    Poland