[0:04]We all ready? Okay, let's try again. Order. Before we begin the debate on on Andrew Mountbatton Windsor, I'd like to make a brief statement. I understand that there is a huge interest from the
[0:16]public on this matter and there's been significant coverage in the media. It is and always has been possible for the house to properly debate these matters within the framework of our existing
[0:28]rules and there's been no change of convention in that respect. Whilst matters relating to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's recent arrest are currently
[0:38]not subjudicy. Members will be aware that there is an ongoing police investigation. I would therefore gently say to members that it will be helpful
[0:48]to exercise a degree of restraint. I know the house would not wish to do anything that risk prejudicing any possible prosecution. And of course any
[0:57]comments on the king or the apparent would also not be in order. Right. We now come to the opposition day motion.
[1:06]Andrew Montbatton Windsor. No, then I think it's changed to Sir Ed. Different name than I've got here. Sir Ed Davy.
[1:18]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your statements ahead of this debate. The appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates have rightly
[1:27]stunned the whole world. The scale of Epstein's operation was shocking, selling human beings for sex, turning hundreds of young women and
[1:37]girls into victims and survivors. And it's those women who are at the front of our minds today as we finally seek transparency, truth, and
[1:48]accountability. >> Mr. Speaker, Andrew Mountbatton Windsor shamed our country and the royal family. But for too long, members of parliament
[2:00]were barred from even uh raising criticisms of him, let alone properly scrutinizing his role as trade envoy. Because of the outdated tradition that mentions of any member of the royal
[2:11]family in this house must, in the words of the previous speaker, be and I quotes very rare, very sparing, and very respectful. I encountered this firsthand
[2:22]back in 2011 when I was asked to respond to an a German debate on behalf of Lord Green who was then the Minister for Trade and Investment. The German was
[2:32]brought by the late Paul Flynn. But even he, an ardent and outspoken Republican, as I'm sure many of us remember, wasn't allowed to raise any actual concerns
[2:44]about Andrew himself. Paul called it a negative privilege. That's what it was. He said his mouth was bandaged by archaic rules and that had very real and
[2:55]damaging consequences. And I'm pleased to see the minister in his place because I know he was also uh constrained by those rules when he raised similar issues.
[3:06]And in that debate, Epstein's name wasn't even mentioned once. There was no chance to debate the substance. and standing in for the responsible minister, I set out the government's
[3:16]position as it had been for a decade in support of the prince's role as the trade envoy. Looking back and knowing what we all
[3:26]know now, I'm horrified by it. >> I can't imagine what it must have been like for the survivors and their families to hear Andrew praised like
[3:35]that as they heard so often all around the world. So, I apologize to them and I'm determined to change things. Mr.
[3:46]Speaker, I was struck by the words of Amanda Roberts, Virginia Dupre's sister-in-law after Andrew was arrested last week. She said, "This could be a
[3:57]stain on the royal family for the rest of our history." Or, quote, "It could be a moment where they and we decide that this is the time when cultural change happens."
[4:09]really >> and 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 >> give way
[4:20]most grateful to the leader of the liberal demut for giving way he's making a powerful speech and he I'm sure will agree that decades of differential frankly sophantic treatment by
[4:31]parliament and state authorities are being exposed as having enabled Andrew Montbatton Windsor to behave as though he were untouchable. >> Y >> and I'm sure he will join me in calling
[4:41]on the government to introduce independent oversight of those members of the royal family who undertake official duties and require both transparency and scrutiny over anything
[4:52]from now on paid for by the state because apparently they work for us. >> I'm grateful for that intervention. We must build a culture of transparency and
[5:04]accountability. I think that is essential and I hope we as a house will look at ending the archaic negative privilege rules Paul Flynn spoke about.
[5:14]Remove the bandages from our mouths. And today, free of those bandages in relation to Andrew. Our motion focuses on finally getting the truth out about
[5:25]his role as special representative for trade and investment. >> I give way. >> I'll give way again. >> Jim, >> Mr. Speaker, can can first of all can I commend the right honorable member for
[5:35]for bringing and his party for bringing this forward. Commend him for the way that he interviewed on TV this morning. Certainly he he doesn't just speak for this house, he speaks for this nation. And we're all greatly shocked what has
[5:47]taken place. But does he agree as well? King Charles, Queen Camila, Edward, Sophie, William, Kate are members of the royal family at this time who also need our support. And does he agree that
[5:58]perhaps maybe now is a time to tell them that we in this house love them? That that this nation loves them and that we understand the pain that they're suffering and our support is worth those
[6:09]members of the royal family who are above this and above this reproach. >> I'm grateful for the honorable gentleman's intervention. I think he probably speaks for the whole house and indeed the intention of this debate is
[6:21]to bring this house together and the changes that we think are necessary would indeed protect the royal family and strengthen the monarchy which in
[6:31]some places are being criticized and I think it's important and that's why we need these reforms. But Mr. Speaker, if I can go back to uh the motion because
[6:41]it focuses at the start of this at the appointment of uh the former Prince Andrew to this role back in 2001. We've seen the reporting that the king,
[6:52]then Prince of Wales, expressed his concerns about that appointment. More alarmingly, we have read that Peter Manslson wrote to the then Prime
[7:01]Minister Tony Blair as his former trade secretary pushing for Andrew's appointment. One friend of Epstein lobbing for a job for another friend of
[7:12]Epstein, a job that might help Epstein enrich himself. So, we clearly need to get to the bottom of that appointment and the role Mandlesson himself played
[7:23]in it. and only the papers demanded by this in motion will allow us to do that. We need them published as soon as possible without delay.
[7:34]And then there are the many questions about Andrew's conduct in the role now subject to a criminal investigation. So clearly, Mr. Speaker, as you said, we do not want to jeopardize that
[7:44]investigation with anything we say today. We must let the police get on with their work, especially for Epstein's victims, survivors, and their families.
[7:54]>> They deserve to see justice done at last. >> But I would just highlight one example of the way Jeffrey Epstein sought to use
[8:03]Andrew's role as trade envoy to enrich himself. I'm happy happy to give way. >> Thank my right friend for giving way. Um my right friend talks about Andrew Mountbatton Windsor's role as a trade
[8:15]envoy. When I was working overseas for the British Council, Mount Batam Windsor came to an exhibition that I was putting on about Dolly the Sheep, which was a fine example of British scientific innovation, uh, Mambatam Windsor stood
[8:26]up in front of Japanese dignitaries and business people and said, "This is rubbish. This is Frankenstein sheep." Would my right honorable friend agree with me that that's a very poor example
[8:37]of promoting British trade interests? >> Well, I'm grateful for my honorable friend's uh intervention. It shows that not only some of the uh scandals that we've heard about are things that we
[8:49]need to focus on. But if the trade envoy was actually speaking against British commercial interests, that raises even greater questions. And I hope uh not
[9:00]just this debate, but other debates in select committ elsewhere will get to the bottom of that uh issue. Um, but I was saying I would like to highlight one
[9:11]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
[9:22]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. I think something that the minister actually
[9:34]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
[9:44]could help. And this is what it says in one of the emails. I wondered if PA could make the intro. A few weeks later, Andrew wrote back, "Libya fixed."
[9:56]Though the Epstein Gaddafi meeting doesn't appear to have happened, it does show clearly what these relationships were all about for Epstein. increasing his own wealth and power. >> Shame.
[10:07]>> 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 pedophile sex trafficker enrich himself is truly sickening.
[10:19]>> And again, I want to pay tribute to the minister who tried to raise the time like his colleague, the late Paul Flynn. Uh and it shows again why we need to change the rules of this house that
[10:29]govern the debate here and ministers. Okay, I give way. I thank thank the leader of the opposition for giving way. Uh I posed the question. Sorry the lead
[10:39]the lead of the Liberal Democrats. I sound corrected. >> It's coming. It's I I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats for giving way. Um I asked the question to the chief secretary
[10:51]yesterday uh in this house about uh the speed of bringing legislation forward uh victims members of the house members of the
[11:00]lords we all all need this uh process to be done as swiftly as possible. I just wonder if you agree that whatever happens with with Andrew or anybody else that you also agree that the chief
[11:11]secretary's comments that we do need to bring this forward and that we need to keep uh pushing to get legislation swiftly not in years to come. >> Well, I'm grateful for the honor gentleman's intervention both for his
[11:21]fraud and slip uh and indeed for his suggestion that we do need to speed up uh action in this area. But if I can begin to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in many
[11:32]ways, this is first the the first truly global scandal from the White House and Silicon Valley to Oslo and Paris, but it's also a deeply British scandal
[11:44]reaching right to the top of the British establishment. Because 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
[11:56]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
[12:06]behalf while trusted with the privilege of public office are a stain on our country. Today we must begin to clean away that
[12:16]stain with the disinfectant of transparency because whether it is the president of the United States and his commerce secretary or Peter Mandlesson and Andrew Mount Batten Windsor or
[12:27]Epstein himself, their victims and survivors have seen those responsible evade accountability and escape justice
[12:36]for far too long. I hope I desperately hope that is ending now and I hope the house will approve this motion. >> The question is as on the order paper I
[12:50]call the minister to Chris Bryant. >> Thank you very much u Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear from the outset. We support this motion today.
[13:00]Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others. the abuse that was enabled,
[13:10]aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled, and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere. It's not just the people
[13:20]who participated in the abuse. It's the many, many more who turned a blind eye out of greed, familiarity, or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit,
[13:32]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.
[13:42]Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr. Mountbatton Windsor and they all betray the same pattern. A man on a constant self-
[13:54]argandizing 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
[14:05]own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the sea cadets in Tonapandi. They were absolutely delighted and excited to meet a member of the royal
[14:15]family but he insisted on coming by helicopter unlike his mother who came twice to the Ronda and always came by
[14:23]car. He left early and he showed next to no interest in the young people. That is of course, Mr. Speaker, not a crime, nor
[14:32]is arrogance. Fortunately, I suppose. Of course, we knew much of this, much of
[14:45]what is now in the public domain actually a very long time ago. And I say very gently, it is all very well for some of us to say, "If only we
[14:55]had known then what we know now." But I'm afraid that with me that does doesn't wash. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister
[15:07]David Cameron to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this chamber on the 28th of February 2011 because of his close friendship with Sif Gaddafi as has just been
[15:17]referred to and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tar Kituni. I was rebuked by Speaker Burko then for doing so because references to members
[15:27]of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful. I didn't disagree with the ruling of Mr. speaker, nor would I ever, as you know, Mr. Speaker, disagree with the ruling from the chair.
[15:39]I heard that over the next few days. I I'm taking your advice, Mr. Speaker.
[15:49]I'm just ignoring that. Um, over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain on television, on radio,
[15:59]and in newspaper articles, citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive 15 million pound cost paid for his Sunning Hill home and
[16:09]many other issues besides. Um, I'm afraid the willful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The
[16:20]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
[16:31]the chamber and outside the chamber. John Humphre, the broadcaster, actually told me on the Today program on the 7th of March, I think honorable members will
[16:41]be shocked by this, that Jeffrey Epstein wasn't quite a pedophile. drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of prepubescent and other children.
[16:53]Dominic Lawson writing in the Sunday Times on the 11th of March defended Andrew and made the same distinction distinction between Epstein's involvement with teenage girls and
[17:03]pedophilia since as he put it none of the girls was prepubescent. Although he did at least admit that both were sorted and exploitative.
[17:14]I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen. So let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his
[17:26]arm around Virginia Duayra was published in the mail on Sunday on the 27th of February 2011. It is after the
[17:34]allegations, not before. Uh well, I'll give a word there and then to the Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful to the honorable member for giving way and
[17:45]I entirely agree with him in relation to the abhorance of the comments that were in the media back then. But does he also agree with me that we still have a degree of that problem now that often in
[17:55]the media we talk about underage girls where actually what we're talking about is children and does he agree with me that we should be ensuring that when we talk about Epstein's crimes we talk
[18:06]about the children that were involved >> 100% and I think we should also be referring to statutory rape because that is what it is and statutory rape is no
[18:17]better than any other kind of rape it is rape end of story >> grateful to the minister for giving way speaking very powerfully about this issue and has a a strong track record one of the strongest track records in
[18:28]standing up on these types of issues. I have asked that the government released the files um concerning uh whatever his new name is Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
[18:38]when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Um can I ask gently the minister uh to review that um that decision and to ask that all of these
[18:49]files in the new spirit of openness and transparency that those files are open for all to see. >> Of course I completely respect my honorable friend um and he's made this point several point several times not
[19:01]only in the chamber but also to me privately and uh I agree with him that is the direction of travel that we're going in and that's why we agree with the humble address today as it's been presented. uh we're not standing in the way. We will do everything we can to
[19:12]comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a little bit later, but I just want to pursue the the point about what we knew in the past because um the the leader of the Liberal Democrats quite
[19:24]rightly said that on the seven that Paul Flynn had a debate on the 4th of May to which he responded as the not actually as the minister of responsible but standing in for the minister of responsible. But actually Paul Flynn
[19:34]also had another debate on the 17th of March in Westminster Hall um uh which was granted to him by the backbench business committee um which had relatively recently then been set up um
[19:45]and and he concluded 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 um that there really is no point in continuing with the debate. That is a direct quote from him and in fact the
[19:56]then um deputy leader of the house David Heath who was another Liberal Democrat member of the government at the time made the point that um as as I think Mr. Speaker has been made both by Mr. Burko and by yourself um that if there is a
[20:08]substantive motion of course we can make these comments um uh in relation to certain numbers but it has to be a substantive motion and you have to find a means of being able to table um that motion as indeed we have a substantive
[20:20]motion today. Um and then um following that um Paul Flynn tried to get a substantive motion which was then the debate um but it was actually an adjournment debate on the 4th of May which is therefore not a substantive
[20:31]motion again and he he struggled again and this is what he said in that debate. Um the speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the house and tell me I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the
[20:43]enboyality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and members of parliament that I am not I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done
[20:53]only in an oblique way by discussing the effects of the holder of his of the office, his role and the comments that are being made. And of course he felt um
[21:03]furious um angry. He was he wrote a great book about being an MP which um I I commend to all honorable members. Um, and the right honorable member, as he said, as he knows, he responded to that
[21:14]debate as follows. 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
[21:24]the world and helps to attract inward investment. He went on at some length and then Ed added at the end, he has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role and
[21:35]continues to do so. I I just say gently to him, I think if he'd followed the debates in the public domain at the time, he would have known better than to
[21:45]have made those comments. I I I won't go any further. Um but well, I I'm happy to give way if he wants. >> David, >> well, the the minister knows that I apologize for that comment. taking the
[21:57]brief from someone else. Uh I really wish um I hadn't said those words because I'm thinking about the victims and he uh I've praised him for the role he took. I hope he will acknowledge that
[22:09]uh two months after that debate uh Andrew left that role and that was right that he did and the government I wasn't uh privy to those discussions but the
[22:19]government did get get rid of him. >> Uh yes, he left his post in in in July I think of 2011. I it couldn't have come soon enough for many of us and uh it is
[22:30]a regret I think to many that um the government wasn't able to listen faster and and to act faster at that time. Um Mr. Speaker, what I believe this whole
[22:39]sorry saga shows is that difference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others. Uh we look for the best in
[22:49]others. Um there was another instance in that um first um debate that shows the generosity we often show and I have told the honorable member that I'm going to raise this. The right honorable member
[23:00]for New Forest East, who is a gentleman um to his fingertips um and is always a very magnanimous fellow said, "Does the minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable
[23:10]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 um uh
[23:22]inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have. Of course, I understand the point that the right honorable member was making back then in 2011. But of course, the fear is that
[23:32]when deference tips over into subservience, it can be terribly dangerous because the victims don't get heard, respected, or understood in the
[23:41]same way as those with grand titles do. And this of course has implications for this house. As the right honorable member said, Mr. Speaker, of course, the conduct of business in this house in is
[23:52]entirely a matter for you and interpreting with the clarks the um um Eskim and the standing orders. Um I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011
[24:02]who denounced what he called censorship on honorable members discussing an issue of great importance. I I know you too would want to denounce such censorship.
[24:13]I want to issue one caveat about the motion today. The government will of course comply with the terms of the humble address in full. As I say, we support the motion, but as the house will know, there is a live police
[24:25]investigation into the former Duke of York after his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on the 19th of February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on
[24:35]behalf of the king. His Majesty emphasized that the law must take its course and that the palace would provide its full and wholehearted support and cooperation. The statement concluded with a commitment that his majesty and
[24:46]the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that is a sentiment that the whole house will support. As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of
[24:58]their investigation is protected. And now these proceedings are underway, it would be wrong of 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
[25:09]inquiries unless and until the police are satisfied. I'm sure the honorable member would agree with that point. >> Yes, of course. and would >> I agree with everything he's saying but
[25:19]I think what's worrying uh quite a lot of us and not just concerning um Andrew Mount Batt Windsor but Manderson as well is that because are these ongoing police
[25:31]investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow it might be years before we see any of these papers and I just really want to have an assurance from the government that they
[25:43]will do their utmost despite what he just said about the police investigation to ensure there's full transparency because actually scandals are made much
[25:53]much worse by any sense of cover up. >> Couldn't agree more um with the honorable gentleman. I want to make sure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to make sure that
[26:04]justice does happen and I don't want to do anything that would undermine the the police um uh investigations. Um I hope that they will be able to move as swiftly as possible and we will
[26:15]certainly cooperate with them as swiftly as possible. I should just say um it's worth bearing in mind um that the documents that might be envisaged in
[26:23]this um uh are mostly 25 years old some of them a bit earlier um they are they may be substantial in number um and many
[26:35]of them will be in hard copy. So I hate to add to the honorable the right honorable members fears about the speed with which things may be able to happen but I think um we would all want to make
[26:46]sure that we do do all of this in a proper fashion. Um all of that uh yes of course >> um giving way point of clarification
[26:56]regarding the police investigations. You might have seen the intervention that Gordon Brown made on Sunday um asking uh conabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had
[27:08]been released as part of the data dump. One of the questions that's arisen um and I appreciate he won't be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not do um but that all
[27:19]government departments including the Ministry of Defense and including the Department for Transport would be fully cooperative with anything that they would need. Could he give the assurance that every single department without
[27:29]fear or favor will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation? >> Thank you. >> Uh we will do two things. First of all, we will seek to comply with the um humble address as soon as we possibly
[27:40]can given the caveat that I've already issued about the police investigation. We will also make sure that every single part of government cooperates entirely um with both the Temp's Valley Police and any other investigations by any
[27:51]other police forces that that police force that there may be um on whatever they may be investigating. It's not for me as a government minister to instruct the police what they should or shouldn't investigate um or point them in one
[28:02]direction or another. Um former prime ministers have a different respons set of responsibilities. Um and um so she's quite right. I don't want to um undermine the investigation, but I also
[28:14]don't want to delay it in any way. And we will make sure that every department and yes, I I I don't want to give way to every single member of the Liberal Democrats, but um I will of course
[28:25]>> thank the minister greatly. Uh would he agree with me that it's actually timely right now that the government presses ahead with the public office
[28:34]accountability bill which allows that the amendment 23 which is blocking everything at the moment seems to be a way through and to ensure that we have
[28:45]transparency and that there's openness. But there is the security that the government can be assured as can other members of the house that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or
[28:56]security and indeed matters related to the police investigation will not be released. There seems to be a there's there's an answer in the government's hands and I I know not why they are
[29:07]waiting and waiting and waiting to get this sorted. >> I I'm not sure. She might have to repeat to me what she thinks the answer that is that I'm that is thus far evading me
[29:19]might be. >> If I may, I will just say that actually this all relates I could talk to him also about the whistleblowing bill and the office for an independent office for
[29:29]a whistleblower. It is the matter that people should be able to reveal what they know. They should tell the truth. I think it's shocking that we have to have legislation that people are told to tell
[29:40]the truth. But actually it all of this falls into the same remitt in that people should be free to declare exactly what it is. They know that papers should be released. But you have an independent
[29:52]judge which is what happens at the moment and is what is in this number 23 amendment. An independent judge, high
[30:02]court judge says what may and may not be released. C >> can I just suggest we shorten interventions rather than making speeches? Minister
[30:12]I I think I just want to return, Mr. Speaker, to what I said earlier, which um uh the the government will be will put everything into the public
[30:22]domain when we can. Um I don't want to do so at a time which would make it impossible for the police to secure um um the the proper processes that they
[30:32]need to be able to do. Um I'm not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process. Um, but I'm happy to listen if she catches your eye later on in the debate and and m Mr. Speaker,
[30:44]with the leave of the house, I'll be responding to the debate as well. So, I'm very happy to answer lots of questions. All right. >> Very specifically on this point, I'm
[30:55]grateful that the minister is very willing to say that he will comply with the terms of this motion, but is also trying to manage expectations about the speed in which the government may act. He will know that there will nonetheless
[31:06]be still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm. They will be worried that the government might be trying to long grass or put it in the too hard basket. Could the minister commit either now or by the
[31:16]end of the debate that the government will regularly update this house so that opposition parties don't have to repeatedly bring ministers to the house to urgent questions. Could he agree perhaps to set out by the end of this
[31:28]debate how often the government would intend to inform this house about regular updates? I'm very happy to commit now to updating the house as often as I possibly can in
[31:38]a way that is informative to the house. But she's quite right that I am slightly trying to manage people's expectations about timeliness partly because of the quantity quantity of material and because there is a live police investigation and I just don't want to
[31:50]jeopardize that. Um I if there are things that I will in a moment if there are things that are embarrassing to the government that that's who cares. um I want to make sure that we end up getting
[32:01]the proper justice that is necessary for um the victims and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure um if if other invest if there are charges brought then that has to go through a judicial process as well and I
[32:12]don't want to um undermine that but of course I'm very happy both on a private way and publicly to update the house when I have anything possible to say um now I am trying to get to the end of my
[32:23]speech and people normally like it when I get to the end of my speech so I see I've united the House, Mr. Speaker. So, but I will give way to the honorable gentleman.
[32:34]>> I understand the concern about not treading upon the peace investigation, but surely the police investigation is
[32:43]about the conduct of Andrew Mount Batton Windsor in the role whereas this humble address is about the appointment and the
[32:53]process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there which means that this humble address of itself should not on
[33:02]jury impede any police investigation or be hindered by it? Well, I'm if he doesn't mind, I'm quite
[33:13]happy to explain to him out of the chamber um precisely why um I disagree with him because um I I don't again if I were to explain more fully in the
[33:24]chamber, I think that that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. But I'm very happy to explain to him um outside the chamber. And I think he might come back in and
[33:33]agree with me. Um uh I think he might just sometimes he agrees with me. He agre very often but anyway um you know small
[33:45]mercies and all e um Mr. Speaker I also want to make it absolutely clear to the house um 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
[33:56]envoys. Um this has often been confused I think in the public um discussion at the moment. Trade envoys today are appointed by ministers with a formalized set of rules of conduct. They are
[34:07]unpaid. Uh 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 house. Um
[34:18]and I have recently emphasized to the to all of those trade envoys the importance of maximizing the program's impact on ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial
[34:28]strategies. Um they are under the same obligations as ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, the same
[34:37]ones outlined in the ministerial code. In some trade envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies and helping British business
[34:47]to export. I'll stress this again, Mr. Speaker. The role held by Andrew Mcbat and Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today. And I'm enormously grateful to
[34:58]the trade envoys today who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK PLC. Um his Andrew Mountbatton Wiz Windsor's role
[35:08]was a separate one entitled UK special representative for international trade and investment. Mr. Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous agreement across this house that those who may be guilty of
[35:19]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
[35:29]point made by my right honorable friend prior to the news of Andrew Mcbatton 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
[35:40]nobody is above the law. I share the anger, the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behavior of Andrew Mountbat and Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full fair and proper process by which
[35:52]this issue is investigated by the police. And in that investigation, they will of course have the government's unwavering cooperation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of
[36:02]our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. But actually there is only one rule, the rule of law.
[36:12]to share secretary of state Alex Burk. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to congratulate the right honorable gentleman uh for securing this
[36:23]debate. I should say at the outset, the Conservatives support this motion. And the uh the truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein, who helped him
[36:33]by supplying him with contacts and information, were the people who enabled him to become powerful. And those people effectively enabled him to build his net
[36:44]of influence uh his net uh of abuse and that network of power in turn enabled him to abuse more and more
[36:55]people. So it is quite right that this house is enabled to scrutinize what went on and how it went on. I uh I listened to the minister's remarks and I
[37:06]appreciate the way that uh that he's approached this debate and the way that the government is uh going to constructively cooperate with the terms of the address. But I must say that this is the second occasion in only a few
[37:17]weeks when the government has had to be brought here by opposition parties under the terms of a humble address to disclose information that it could quite obviously have disclosed without the
[37:28]need for a humble address in the first place. And so whilst I uh uh accept the humility with which he's taken the debate, actually the government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the
[37:39]start. And uh and I appreciate the the humble way in which he came to the house uh and reminded us that he had been right all along.
[37:49]>> Very humble. Um uh he um uh and uh you know and I uh but I I the right honorable uh gentleman the leader of the liberal democrats referred to this as
[37:59]the first um global political scandal and indeed it is a global political scandal political scandal that uh is has reached its tendrils into the operation
[38:09]of many governments uh across the west and indeed the east and the fact that our allies in Poland have launched uh an intelligence investigation into Epstein's links with Russia. The fact
[38:21]that in the published Epstein papers, it's clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at very top end of Putin's regime with sensitive information about the American
[38:32]leadership shows that this is is an international um scandal and one in which uh our government and our um security services must uh must play their part in uncovering things. I I I know that the right honorable gentleman
[38:44]is a lover of history. So I I must gently take issue with his claims that this is the first global political scandal. I think the Drafus affair uh you know the XY Z scandal, the Panama
[38:54]scandal, there there there have been there have been many but this is to take a substantive point a global political scandal. Uh and I' very much like to associate myself with the remarks made
[39:04]by my honorable friend from Strangford. um that you we we can only be uh as a general point very supportive of the royal family's role in promoting our
[39:16]country. I think those people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using its awesome soft power to uh support what we do best uh can only uh
[39:27]you be in awe of the the vast commitment it makes to public service and to the life of the country and and indeed if it is the case as reported in the press
[39:37]that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about Mr. to Mount Batton Windsor's appointment in 2001, one can only feel enormous
[39:47]sympathy with them about what has subsequently come to light. uh because these revelations uh surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatton Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein uh just uh
[39:58]as with the relationship between Peter Mandlesson and Jeffrey Epstein and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and make
[40:10]it right that information is brought before this house. And if one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify uh
[40:19]the hand of Epstein in uh Mr. Mountbatton Windsor's appointment. Uh it is reported that uh Peter Mandlesson
[40:27]first met Epstein in the summer of 2001. uh Mount Batton Windsor had first met Epstein I believe in 1999 and shortly after Mandelson's first
[40:39]meeting uh in October 20 uh 2001 uh Mandlesson is appointed as uh trade envoy. Um so uh so the the minister
[40:51]shakes his head. I I'll go through the chronology again for him because it it's you know there's no there's no harm. Mandlesson Mandlesson met uh uh Epstein a few I well I I hand it maybe that the
[41:02]numbers were juggled up in the minister's head uh that the uh the summer in the summer of 2001 Mandelon met Epstein for the first time and in October 2001
[41:13]um uh uh Mount Batton Windsor was appointed as trade envoy and so it's possible that Mandlesson influenced Now what I also said uh is that uh in 1999
[41:23]Mountbatton Windsor met Epstein for the first time. So, he was already an associate of Epstein. So, I I'm glad to have that sorted out. I can go through it again, but I'm sure the minister can read about it uh tomorrow. Happy to give way to the honorable lady.
[41:35]>> Very grateful to the shadow minister for giving way. I think by sketching out that that timeline, I think that brings to light the reason why in our humble address, we are calling for information
[41:45]in relation to the actual creation of the appointment, which the minister rightly pointed out was a unique role that was created for Andrew Mountbatton Windsor. Does he therefore agree with me
[41:54]that we are right to not only call out that creation of the role but also to ascertain whether Mandosen had any role within it?
[42:04]>> No, very much so. And um as I say, what would have been better is if the government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the house by opposition parties in order to
[42:15]release this information. And I'm very glad that the Liberal Democrats have learned the lesson of the Conservatives humble address of a few weeks ago. you know that once it's always good that once the Conservatives have, you know, designed a bandwagon, you know, got it
[42:27]up and running, showed that it can move at high speed, you know, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and um and get on board. But, you know, better better late
[42:35]than never. Um the um and so is sorry is that was there anybody fine the um so as we we see if we we go through the sequencing uh very carefully it's
[42:46]possible that there was uh influence from Epstein who we must acknowledge was not a um uh had not been arrested or convicted in 2001 but about whom uh
[42:57]there were rumors and reports and who in any case was a highly influential foreign businessman and if it was under his influence that Mr. Mountbatton Windsor was appointed as trade envoy.
[43:08]Then it would be useful to see what the prime minister knew uh when when that appointment was made. Um I will give way to the honorable lady. >> I'm extremely grateful to him giving way. I think what he's trying to get to
[43:20]is a is a is a point that deeply concerns me which is we need to understand the extent to which the then Prince Andrew was leaning on government for things that he wanted. And an
[43:32]example of this is in the recent Epstein files. There is an exchange between Gileain Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein about how Andrew had written to the Ministry
[43:43]of Defense in order to allow their plane to land at an RAF base in Norfolk on the 7th of December in 2000. So his influence on government predated his
[43:54]appointment. And what we want to understand is to what extent was he already trying to influence government as a prince and what did that lead to in his role as a trade envoy? Would he
[44:04]agree that that is incredibly important to get to the bottom of? >> Uh yes, and I I'm afraid I don't know what year uh that uh 2000. Well, I I I I agree with her. That's an interesting
[44:16]point. Although I think if one looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrat humble address, something like that might not fall within uh its context. So, you know, she may wish to table an amendment to her own party's um uh humble address in order to get at
[44:28]that. But I look, transparency uh is is essential in all of this. And that's you know why on this side of the house um we very much hope that the government will
[44:39]give us transparency quickly and I turn to the point that my right honorable friend father of the house made uh that there is uh a danger that the government
[44:50]uh uses uh police process as a means of not disclosing certain information. Uh and I I say that not because of what uh the minister has said today uh so much
[45:00]as uh what was said yesterday by um the right honorable gentleman who is chief secretary to the prime minister um when in context of our own humble address he
[45:11]said I can confirm that those documents will be made available subject I'm afraid to the exclusion of one particular item in which number 10 asked Peter Mandlesson a number of questions.
[45:21]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
[45:31]published very shortly. I think it would assist um this house if um and I think this is a point that my honorable friend from North made. It would assist the this house if the government could
[45:42]explain why the Met Police have asked that that item is held back. And I also think it would be helpful if the government would confirm that there is
[45:52]no bar to it handing that document over to the ISC. And this is a point on which the chair has been very clear. Uh you know on the 4th of Feb uh 4th of February, Mr. Speaker said um you the
[46:03]Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction over this house. Uh 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
[46:14]want to let members know that the police cannot dictate to this house that the police cannot dictate to this house and there is a means that was specifically debated during the original humble
[46:25]address which enabled members of this house i.e. the ISC to be given this information regardless of police investigation. Happy to give way to the honorable lady. I thank the honorable
[46:36]member for giving way what is the very important point that he is making and something which concerns me deeply in this is that my constituents, members of
[46:45]the public are increasingly concerned that what they see is the tendles that the honorable gentleman referred to reaching into government through this debate and that in the handling of these
[46:57]papers and the release of information, we must at all times be aware of the impact on the reputation Not just on Andrew Mountbat Windsor or uh Lord
[47:08]Mandlesson but on us in this place previous governments and subsequent governments in parliament. Would the honorable member agree?
[47:19]>> Very much so. >> Uh and I know that um you know I know that honorable members or certain honorable members on all sides will be aware of just how bad it will look if the government does not provide
[47:30]information swiftly as possible. I now I'll give an example where where that is not happening given that the original humble address was nearly 2 weeks ago. Now during that debate uh I raised the
[47:41]issue of uh Palunteer and how uh in February last year the prime minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palunteer in Washington didn't appear in his
[47:52]register uh of meetings. Uh he was accompanied on that visit by Peter Mandlesson. Peter Mandlesson uh whose company in which he held a commanding
[48:00]show um you uh was had Palunteer as a client and then subsequently later in the year Palunteer received a direct award from government uh worth about
[48:12]£240 million you know very substantial uh contract uh and you know when when I raised that in the house there was concern on both sides cross party issue
[48:22]and the minister agreed to write to me confirming or I asked him to confirm um that the cabinet secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would be investigating
[48:32]what is it clearly looks like a case of um uh a case of of conflict of interest. Uh and um I still have not received a
[48:43]reply. I have not received any reply despite me bringing it up again at the dispatch box at the start of this week and being assured that I would re receive a response. I just I just don't
[48:54]think that this is good enough and it's you it's very very important that the opposition can hold the government to account in a meaningful way. So to the honorable lady's point, I think it's
[49:05]it's extremely um extremely important that the government uh should be seen to be willingly provide providing information rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the
[49:16]right thing. And it's I just sort of make an additional point on this school. And whilst we do very much support the humble address today, I I'd just ask the
[49:26]government to be clear that nothing in this humble address is going to slow down the process of delivering on the original humble address. Nothing at all.
[49:36]Because yeah, whilst uh there there is historic interest and contemporary interest in the history of what happened in 2001, what this government did in
[49:46]choosing to appoint Peter Mandlesson despite the information that it had at its disposal is of paramount importance. This government must come clean and come
[49:57]clean quickly because as Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one is above the law. Rachel Mascow.
[50:06]>> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Unaccountable power must not hide. Privilege must not be protected. Money
[50:16]must be accounted for. And elite networks of men operating here and overseas must meet their reckoning for dehumanizing,
[50:26]subjugating, exploiting, and sexually assaulting women. Women who must have justice. The web of abuse surrounding Mr. Ebstein and his associates must be
[50:38]brought to book and Mr. Mountbatton Windsor as a known associate must also be held to account in his role as a
[50:49]special trade envoy and for his associations too. We have all been revulsed by the stories
[50:59]that we have heard and that's why today's debate must also be about the victims and survivors. I first raised concern obviously because
[51:10]my constituency carries the name York and the Duke of York's ambassadorial associations with our city caused much
[51:21]concern in my community and therefore I brought those concerns to the house on 21st of February 2022
[51:29]and um this was just days after the settlement to the lawsuit to Miss Jeffrey uh known to be in the region of 12
[51:40]million pounds. Clearly my city was very disturbed and as a result of that a human rights city no less I sought to see a separation between the title and
[51:51]the city and brought forward later that year after working very closely with the clarks um a bill in order to remove the title something which still has not been
[52:03]done. I brought forward another bill just last year uh for the removal of title again bringing in the option of removing the title from periodes as well
[52:14]and um having worked through that still um not had a positive response to that but the reason I'm speaking in this debate today
[52:25]is because in looking into these issues I realized that um the humble address itself is narrow in its scope.
[52:34]But secondly, what do we do with the information once it's been corroborated? Clearly, there's the police investigation which must take its course and I'm sure will be deep and thorough
[52:46]because it runs so far. But ultimately, if we just look at the appointment, what about the period over that time
[52:55]where he carried out the role and also the implications of to the wider networks. So, I don't want this to end up in the
[53:05]court of public opinion or perhaps the media de digging deeper and deeper into more and more stories, but what does it do to this place? What does it do to
[53:16]change the way that systems work? I'm happy to give way. >> I'm very grateful for uh the honorable lady for giving way and I I recognize definitely her the work she's done on on titles and uh holding Andrew Mount Bton
[53:28]Windsor to account. Um, I think she's raising a good point around making sure we don't have a court of public opinion. But I would like to give my thanks to many of the media outlets. It doesn't matter which one you read, what your
[53:38]political slant is, who have done tremendous work, tr trolling through tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of documents and I do think we owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing to
[53:49]light uh many of the uh awful things that um Andrew Mountbett and Windsor is alleged to have been associated with. Does she agree with me on that point? I do agree with the honorable gentleman
[54:00]because I know that journalists have been up through the night pouring over the Epstein files digging deep to hold power to account and it's a vital role
[54:09]that our media does and long may it continue their scrutiny is important for this place and the work that we do here. But in saying that, we need a process of
[54:21]learning from this and I do believe there should be a judge-led inquiry to ensure that the multiple strands of this global network of power are brought into
[54:32]account so we can learn and we can hold to account in this place any future uh concerns that we may have around how these associations are formed, the
[54:44]depths in which they infiltrate places like this or indeed the government and indeed international networks which we as we have learned over the last few
[54:56]weeks where sensitive information has been shared, financial information has been shared, issues which impact on our constituents as markets, trade and that
[55:06]has an impact on uh the very people we're here to represent. And I think for no longer can these powerful men swan around the world having these
[55:17]conversations gaining more power and exploiting whoever passes their path and not be accountable. And therefore we need to understand how to bring
[55:28]transparency across all institutions including all areas of government even deeper as we try to do in this place
[55:38]each and every day. As the uh the honorable member for Oxford West and Abington says, it's farreaching this uh inquiry that must
[55:48]pursue. Uh I recognize that many departments are missing missed out in the humble address uh to understand for instance how transport has been used. We need to understand not just civil
[56:00]transport but military transport, the missing logs, who were on those planes. Where were they going to and where did they come from? We need to understand
[56:11]the expenses system that ensued how signing off for massages became a a a duty of the taxpayer.
[56:22]Clearly individuals questioned it as we heard. But the reality is people weren't feeling empowered to blow the whistle
[56:32]and to raise those concerns. So we need to ensure that we institute processes where people can raise concern wherever they see that. We don't have the confidence at the moment within the
[56:44]systems that that was undertaken. So how are we going to institute that? Then there's questions about visas. We know that 90 people came in and out of the
[56:53]country during the period um that we are looking at today and of course rigor in appointment processes. Much has been heard over the last few months around
[57:05]that. And of course that comes to the heart of the humble address today, but we need to ensure that all those appointments are transparent. And whilst
[57:15]I heard what uh the the minister said today, we have 32 trade envoys. I've never seen one post advertised. I'm not aware of the expertise that those
[57:27]individuals have with regards to trade or their particular relations with a particular country. Um, and what they actually add, what value they actually
[57:38]bring, how we assess that from this place. And therefore I do ask that we have a proper review over all of these appointments that we hear about as to
[57:47]what they bring because surely we should have better accountability. And finally I just want to raise the intelligence services as well. I cannot believe that
[57:58]our intelligence services were not aware of some of the movements that Mr. Mountbatton Windsor had. How do we bring that to account too to ensure that that
[58:10]information is also in the public domain and where are the minutes of all of those meetings? What do they say and how do we find out? So there are so many
[58:20]questions in response to the humble address being put today. But I do think we have to think about what we want to do from this point on as well. Not just
[58:30]holding that information, not just examining that information, not just commenting in the the T-rooms and the corridors. What we want to do is to ensure that account that power is held
[58:41]to account and that those with privilege know that they are answerable for the responsibilities that they hold.
[58:50]So I conclude as the the light is shone deeper into the darkest of these networks of the elite exploitations and
[59:01]as systems must be overhauled and reviewed. May the police do their job and do it well and extensively. And in this place,
[59:10]may we focus always on the women who were exploited, gaslit, and traumatized and left broken as we seek justice, but
[59:20]also seek to hold that power to account. >> Harding. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And I want to speak today about transparency
[59:31]and accountability in public life and how the system that we find ourselves in today has been maintained and got us to where we are. In the early naughties, I was working overseas. As I've said, with
[59:42]the British Council, Andrew Mountbatton 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.
[59:53]His reputation preceded him. I was told it was a containment exercise, that overseas missions feared putting me out there in case he said something inappropriate, that he was arrogant, and
[1:00:04]that he wasn't on top of the detail of his brief. Rather than looking forward to his visits as an opportunity to promote Britain, instead it was thought that he would do damage. Moreover, there
[1:00:14]were rumors about him that he refused to stay in the ambassador's residence, would only stay in the Four Seasons or similar top-end hotels, and that he took with him an iring board overseas when he
[1:00:25]went. That was a euphemism for a massage table. That was all well known amongst many officials. It even inspired a BBC TV program, The Ambassadors, in 2013, a
[1:00:36]couple of years after Andrew was forced to relinquish his role as trade envoy. that this it seems was known about in the dipl diplomatic circles I experienced way back at the start of the
[1:00:47]naughties. And yet Andrew Mountbaten Windsor enjoyed another 10 years as a trade envoy. But yet when I questioned why this was allowed to happen, I was
[1:00:57]met with a shrug. Everyone knows it was said. Andrew, as I have said, came to an exhibition I had put on about Dolly the Sheep, at the time the pinnacle of British innovation, and we were rightly
[1:01:09]proud of it as an example of UK scientific excellence. And one of my team, a young Japanese woman who worked for the British government as a member of staff of the British Council, her
[1:01:18]job, we paid her, was to promote the UK, showed the then prince around with some uh Japanese dignitaries. Dolly the sheep, he sneered. It's rubbish.
[1:01:28]Frankenstein sheep. He said, "My team member was deflated and didn't understand why this representative of the British state diminished what she was rightly proud of." And the talk of
[1:01:40]Andrew and what he was like came to my own personal dinner table. My late father-in-law vice marshall in the RAF was at a dinner overseas with Mount Batton Windsor on an overseas trip in
[1:01:52]the 1990s. Windsor said in front of many foreign military and diplomatic seniors, "No means for a Royal Air Force." My father-in-law said nothing. And that was
[1:02:03]a problem. You couldn't because of Windsor's privileged position, but he raised it with the chief of air staff and was told it would be raised with the
[1:02:11]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
[1:02:22]investigation? If they did, was it shared with the Department for Business and Trade? Where did these concerns all go? And in doing so, did they the system unwittingly or wittingly support
[1:02:33]protection or cover up? Because of the way things were done, or deference that, Madame Deputy Speaker is the point of this debate. Some officials knew or the
[1:02:44]system seemed to know but the system seemingly failed to do anything about it for 10 years because of privilege and because of deference. >> Will she give way? >> I will give way.
[1:02:56]>> Thank you for giving way. I mean just on this point around which departments had which papers. Does she not also think and I I not in you know the humble address today it says departments
[1:03:06]including but not limited to surely the royal household papers in the royal household that relate to this matter should also come under the scope of this humble address. Does she agree
[1:03:18]>> my honorable friend? I do agree. I think here there is a systematic failure and joined upness that we need to unravel and I will come back to that in in the
[1:03:28]course of this speech. Um when uh there was scrutiny after 2011, there was still a failure of oversight. What does this say about our society?
[1:03:39]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
[1:03:50]belong to all those who represent the British state? >> Madame Deputy Speaker, we have a parliamentary monarchy. That means that if the palace does not open itself to
[1:04:00]scrutiny and carry out its own inquiry, then parliament must. And madame deputy speaker, I have some questions. On what basis was Andrew Mountbatton was given
[1:04:11]the role as 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
[1:04:21]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
[1:04:30]put up and that public f funds were not used in the civil settlement with Virginia due friend? Can we as parliament find this out that not one penny of public money was used in this
[1:04:42]settlement? >> Madame Deputy Speaker, I know you will share with me the concern about levels of public confidence in our institutions, all our institutions and in the people that represent them.
[1:04:53]Parliament must assert itself in this regard and I call along with my colleagues for the full publication of all documents related to Mount Bat and Windsor's appointment as a special envoy
[1:05:03]and an end to negative privilege so that MPs in this place can speak freely about the concerns they have and disclose information in the House of Commons even if that individual is a member of the
[1:05:14]royal family. I will end as I must with thoughts of the victims of the Epstein stag scandal which has triggered so much of this debate and all of those who are
[1:05:23]victims of power and privilege and difference. They are foremost in our minds as this for all continues. It is thanks to their bravery that we know the
[1:05:33]extent of Epstein's crimes and the wider implications for our own establishment. I will give way. I I'm very grateful for her for giving way and I'm very conscious. She said she was close to concluding but her words at the end
[1:05:44]there for victims are very very powerful and I co-chair the hedro's survivors of aliad ag and we've just started our work
[1:05:55]but members may have heard a very powerful interview on the world at one a couple of weeks ago which talked about the fact that that lack of acknowledgement of what had taken place
[1:06:05]and also that the police were not properly understanding trafficking. The H shadow minister described this as a global enterprise. Does she agree with me that we need to do much much more
[1:06:16]work around this? And it isn't just about the victims of Epstein. It is about other trafficking victims. >> I thank my honorable friend and she is quite right. This is about systemic
[1:06:26]failure and we are at the very very beginning of this. This is not the end. This is the beginning and for the victims of Epstein. We must do
[1:06:36]everything we can to ensure this investigation and inquiry continues into it. On behalf of those victims, on behalf of
[1:06:46]those victims that are suffering right now from the same thing, we must ensure that the wider system cleans itself up and we must facilitate that. >> Brendan O'Hara.
[1:06:58]>> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. The release of the Epstein files has shone a light where so so many people did not want a light to be shone. Because even
[1:07:09]with millions of documents still to be released, what's abundantly clear is that for decades the rich, the politically powerful, and the
[1:07:19]well-connected have colluded to cover up their utterly appalling behaviors. And that light which is now being shown doesn't just illuminate those who are
[1:07:29]personally responsible for their behavior. It also reveals those who knew what was happening, who enabled it, and
[1:07:38]who chose to turn a blind eye to it. And the people of this country are rightly furious. And that's why at the humble address yesterday on the release of the
[1:07:50]Peter Mandlesson files, I made this point and I'll make it again today. that with trust in the government at an all-time low, they really only have one
[1:08:00]chance to come clean about everything that they know and about everything that they hold pertaining in this case to the creation of the role of special
[1:08:11]representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to that post. Of course, unlike the Mandlesson files which this house demanded be released,
[1:08:23]the appointment of Andrew Mcbach in Windsor didn't happen on the current government's watch. But Mr. Mandlesson leaves a long trail. And there may well
[1:08:34]be information which relates directly to him and which will cause serious embarrassment to many senior Labor Party figures who were in power at the time.
[1:08:44]Because let's not forget the author Andrew Looney in his book entitled Details in into great detail about how it was a
[1:08:53]former trade secretary Peter Manderson who assisted Mr. Mcbatton Windsor in landing the role of UK's special representative seemingly against the
[1:09:04]advice of Mr. Mcbatton's brother the then Prince Charles. So, let me repeat my warning from yesterday that these files must be released and they must be
[1:09:15]released in full because any attempt to sanitize what is in them and to save face for any government ministers past
[1:09:24]or present could have serious long-term consequences for our democracy. But it is also, Madame Deputy Speaker, the very
[1:09:33]least the victims and the survivors deserve. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know there are serious questions that need answered
[1:09:42]about the appointment of Andrew Mcbatton Windsor as trade envoy back in 2001. Those questions include whose idea was
[1:09:51]this? Who vetted him? Was he vetted at all? What role did Peter Mandolson play in making this appointment happen? What in his previous life made him uniquely
[1:10:02]suitable for the position of UK trade envoy? What warnings were given before and during his stint as trade envoy about his character and his behavior?
[1:10:13]Who was he responsible to while serving as trade envoy? Who scrutinized his behavior and his spending and what warnings were given during his time as
[1:10:24]trade envoy and how were those warnings handled? Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to say in a normal functioning democracy, we wouldn't have to have
[1:10:34]waited until Andrew Mcbatton had been stripped of his titles, evicted from his royal house, and was facing removal from the line of succession before being able
[1:10:45]to discuss this issue. There have been serious concerns about Mr. Mcbat in Windsor for decades, much of it relating to his time as trade envoy. There are
[1:10:56]reports of him requesting that the public purse cover the cost of his massage services. And when one understandably angry and unhappy civil
[1:11:08]servant complained, he was promptly overruled by his bosses. That now retired civil service commented recently, "I can't say
[1:11:18]it would have stopped him, but we should have flagged that something was wrong." Of course, something was wrong. But what difference would it have made to us in this house?
[1:11:30]Because as a member of the royal family at that time, we were not allowed to question or examine what Mr. Mountbatton was doing as our special trade envoy.
[1:11:42]But it wasn't just civil servants who found getting information on Mr. Mountbatton Windsor all but impossible. The author Andrew Looney again has reported that he's had multiple freedom
[1:11:53]of information requests rejected, including on the grounds that it would be too timeconsuming for the government departments to go through the volume of information with one rejection actually
[1:12:04]saying that looking at just one year of Mr. Mountbatton's time as trade envoy would mean going through 1,927 digital files, each containing multiple
[1:12:15]pieces of information. Yet until now and until Mr. Mcbatton's status changed, we in this house were not allowed to discuss it. >> On that point,
[1:12:27]>> yes, absolutely. >> I'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman for giving way. And he's speaking, I think, to the uh fact that the title prince has uh protected uh Andrew Mountbatton Windsor from greater
[1:12:39]scrutiny and inspection of his activities. What does he think we should do around ensuring that other titles, whether they be royal or prime minister or secretary of state, don't protect
[1:12:50]powerful individuals? >> Thank you, honorable member for that intervention. And the answer is quite simple, madame deputy speaker. Nobody has to be nobody can be above the law.
[1:13:01]Well, everybody has to be equal in the eyes of the law. And as Paul Flynn, the great Paul Flynn said, we have to remove the bandages from our mouths in this place. And it's a point I will return
[1:13:12]to, but fundamentally nobody regardless of rank or privilege should be or must be allowed to be above
[1:13:21]the law. And and I know that then it's many people will be embarrassed by what has happened, you know, not least as we've heard the the the now leader of
[1:13:32]the Liberal Democrats who is under secretary for business innovation and skills. and I presume with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back was
[1:13:42]forced to come out and stoutly defend the the then Prince Andrew saying I believe the Prince of York is doing an excellent job. He's a long-standing success and you know he's been great for
[1:13:54]British business but the reality is as a government minister what else could he have said because we are not allowed to speak the truth in this place when it
[1:14:05]comes to certain individuals and within 3 months of the right honorable member making those comments Mr. Mountbat in Windsor had resigned from the job in
[1:14:15]disgrace because of his continued relationship with the convicted pedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. But it wasn't just his relationship with Epstein that caused
[1:14:26]the concern. In February of 2011, the the minister for at the dispatch box today, the right honorable member for Ronda and Ogore attempted to raise a question about this special
[1:14:37]representative role and his links to the notorious convicted Libyan arms smuggler only to be told from the then speaker
[1:14:47]references to the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful. Madam Deputy Speaker, these arcade rules
[1:14:56]make a mockery of our democracy and the situation we face now was always going to occur, particularly when the royal family can and do have both a
[1:15:06]constitutional role and involve themselves in the political realm. Absolutely. >> Would the honorable I think the honorable member's given that way. Would the honorable me member agree with me that it's quite extraordinary that we're
[1:15:18]urging the parliament of a foreign country, Congress, to investigate this matter when this is uh our trade envoy and uh a member of
[1:15:29]there there is there is a slight I thank the honorable member for that intervention. There's a slight irony you know that we are talking you know we like to you know talk ourselves as being the the mother of parliament the cradle
[1:15:40]of democracy and yet when it comes to an issue such as this we are bound by archaic rules which means we cannot hold
[1:15:50]the most powerful people to account and let's be honest when it comes to the royal family there may be some very very good ones there may be some very very bad ones but if you believe in a
[1:15:59]hereditary monarchy it's your pot luck what you get. Madame Deputy Speaker, having seen the rules that have led us
[1:16:09]to where we are now, it is surely time to review them because it is beyond ridiculous that someone in a similar position could be appointed to exactly
[1:16:20]the same job as Mr. Mountbatton Windsor was. But because they have been lucky in the great genealogical sweepstake, they find themselves born into the royal
[1:16:32]family and therefore automatically above scrutiny, accountability and therefore above beyond reproach. Absolutely. >> Grateful to the honorable member for
[1:16:43]giving way. I'm listening very closely what he's saying. But given that Andrew McBT in Windsor is no longer a royal, there's not really anything stopping us
[1:16:54]having a judge public in inquiry into his affairs and and all that attends thereupon. >> Does he agree? >> I could not agree more with my honorable
[1:17:05]friend. Absolutely. But isn't it ridiculous? Isn't it ridiculous that the king had to strip him of his titles, evict him from his home for us to be
[1:17:16]able to have this discussion? And I think that is what has to change. So I in conclusion, I urge the minister, you know, for that great trailblazer Paul
[1:17:27]Flynn, the former member for Newport East. I hope that the government not only release everything that they hold pertaining to the appointment of Andrew
[1:17:37]Mountbatton Windsor, but they also remove what he described as the bandages on our mouths so that no one no one is
[1:17:46]above the law and no one's behavior is beyond scrutiny by members of this house. >> Aris, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Um, a lot's been said on the the nature
[1:17:57]of being a trade envoy and the fact that a special trade envoy role was created for Andrew Mountbam Windsor. Um, and quite rightly the minister pointed out that we wouldn't recognize trade envoys today as as they were then. Um, he also
[1:18:08]mentioned the excellent parliamentarian David Heath who represented Summerton and Froom which covers part of my constituency. Um, David was a trade envoy when he served in government. And uh, when he was the trade envoy to
[1:18:19]Nigeria and Angola, the government wouldn't pay for his yellow fever jabs in case he went somewhere else with yellow fever when he wasn't on government business and he derived some private benefit from the jabs and he had to pay for his own. His wife Caroline
[1:18:30]tells me the only thing he got out of his chips was food poisoning. And so I think that while it would be nice to think there wasn't one rule for some one for the other, there clearly was. And it's really important that we understand the nature of the brief that Prince Andrew Andrew Mbaton Windsor was given
[1:18:42]when he became trade envoy because the others certainly weren't getting massages on the taxpayer. Um but while this debate concerns Mount Bam Windsor, it's not about one man. It's really about the structural sexism that is uh
[1:18:53]embedded in our institutions. Violence against women and girls doesn't persist in this country for a lack of speeches in this chamber. It persists because structurally it's still not treated as foundational to our policymaking. There
[1:19:04]are many members across this house utterly committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Many have dedicated their political lives to this cause, often in the face of horrific abuse. This isn't a party political issue, nor is it about individual
[1:19:16]commitment. It's about whether the system itself is designed to prioritize women's safety, and too often it's not. >> Defense is seen as core business. The Treasury is seen as core business. Infrastructure is seen as core business.
[1:19:28]But violence against women and girls is too often siloed, assigned to one minister and under one strategy as though half the population's safety is a niche concern rather than a central test
[1:19:37]of whether the state is functioning. >> Give way. >> Sure. >> I thank my honorable friend for giving way. Does she not does she not agree with me that a powerful illustration of
[1:19:48]the point she's making is that women inequality ministerial questions in this place gets just 30 minutes each week and a very compressed one just before prime minister's questions each time. I absolutely agree with my honorable
[1:19:59]friend and I'm actually just coming on to to give another example of of the way in which this sexism is embedded. Um I recently wrote to both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Safeguarding and Violence against women and girls to ask why the recent draft national
[1:20:10]planning policy framework made no mention of women and girls safety bearing in mind that this document sets out how we design and build the spaces and places we live in. The response from the MHCLG was jaw-dropping. They said,
[1:20:21]and I quote, "The NPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for house building and planning in England. The Borg strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny. It's unclear as to why anyone
[1:20:32]would expect the two things to be combined. If it's unclear to the department responsible for planning why violence and women and girls should be considered in their work, then we have a structural problem. >> And this is where structural sexism
[1:20:44]becomes inseparable from power because who makes the decisions matter. In this country, a remarkably small circle of people disproportionately male, disproportionately drawn from the same networks still make the most
[1:20:55]consequential choices. >> Would my honorable member give way? >> Sure. >> Um I thank my honorable member friend for giving way when she's making extremely important point and on the issue of structural violence against
[1:21:06]women and girls. Would my honorable friend agree with me that it is women and young girls who are the most vulnerable in the face of climate change and those disasters, natural disasters
[1:21:17]as a result and exposed to violence, rape against young women and girls when they are displaced from their homes as a result. Now as trade envoy Andrew
[1:21:29]Manbatton Windsor toured Gulf boardrooms met alongside Shell executives um energy conglomerates and that was you know
[1:21:39]Irmine royal access diplomacy. So just as in his personal life he showed no conscience towards those women and young girls of victims and survivors of a
[1:21:50]convicted pedophile Epstein in his role as trade envoy. nor did he think about those who were exposed to structural violence of women and young girls. Um, also,
[1:22:01]>> yeah, I I totally agree. I couldn't have said it better. Um, the people in these circles appoint one another, they defend one another, and they rehabilitate one another. And sometimes they do so in ways that many women looking on in that
[1:22:11]situation would not. And when the same small group repeatedly decides what's reputationally survivable, what's politically convenient, and what's worth overlooking, women's confidence in our institutions erodess, which is how this
[1:22:23]circles back to Andrew Mattbatam Windsor because the issue the issue isn't only his personal conduct. It's about cultures of deference. It's about protective networks. And it's about systems where rehabilitation for
[1:22:34]powerful men can move faster than justice or safety for women. Which is precisely why transparency matters. When decisions are taken within small powerful circles, sunlight is not a
[1:22:44]luxury, it's a safeguard. If Andrew Mountbatton Windsor was appointed and maintained as a special trade envoy, then the public is entitled to understand how that decision was reached, what advice was given, what
[1:22:54]risks were assessed, and who signed it off. We cannot say we are serious about accountability while withholding the very documents that would allow this house and the public to scrutinize how
[1:23:04]power was exercised. Releasing all correspondents, risk assessments, and internal advice relating to his role as trade envoy is not about political point scoring. It's about restoring trust
[1:23:14]because transparency is the antidote to institutional deference. And without it, structural sexism continues to operate behind closed doors. >> Helen Maguire Are you sure?
[1:23:35]>> Um, as I start to contribute to this debate, I I do have to pause to pay tribute to all the young women um who have risked so much to stand up and push for justice
[1:23:46]over the vile and corrupt web around the pedophile financia Jeffrey Epstein and the crimes and abuse they suffered as children. But turning to Andrew Manbat and Windsor and the motion before us
[1:23:57]today, transparency about the workings of an organization is a key way to prevent corruption. Sunlight really is the best disinfectant. And appreciating that there is an ongoing police
[1:24:09]investigation that mustn't be jeopardized. Green MPs support the motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats whilst noting the honorable member for Kingston and Zerbertton's
[1:24:18]apology for defending Andrew Manbat and Windsor as doing an excellent job whilst in office in 2011 and the reasons he gave for that. This is when Paul Flynn, the formidable late former MP for
[1:24:30]Newport West, held the debate in the House in 2011 that other members have referred to. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the royal family is sheltered from scrutiny in too many ways, and it's
[1:24:41]very, very clear now what a risk this can pose. We have heard many examples of MPs facing restrictions and limits on what we can ask about royal activity,
[1:24:51]but it is reasonable and right that we should scrutinize any work they do on the country's behalf in the fullest way possible. And we look at how these restrictions can be removed and others.
[1:25:02]Now, as I understand it, section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts communications between uh relevant authorities and members, not just the
[1:25:12]king, but wider members of the royal family from being released under freedom of information requests. Now, that really is one rule for the rich and powerful and one rule for the rest of us
[1:25:24]as the minister condemned earlier. And I believe this is a serious transparency loophole for royals that must be closed. For example, it could mean that if
[1:25:35]positions such as trade trade envoy are filled by members of the royal family, it would be predictably significantly harder for the press public and MPs to
[1:25:45]make sure things are above board and much harder to get details when things go very very badly wrong. One example of the effect of this um on transparencies
[1:25:55]is in today's Guardian um where there's a profile of the author Andrew Lai who's the author of a biography of Andrew called entitled and he talks about the
[1:26:06]stacks he has of rejected free freedom of information requests from different government departments. This is why this honorable this humble
[1:26:16]address is so important as it would uncover whether these restrictions in the FOI act were in fact part of the equation in making the appointment. I
[1:26:27]have tabled early day motion 2769 which now has support from MPs of six political parties calling for the king to release all communications between members of the royal family and the
[1:26:37]pedopal financier Jeffrey Epstein. But obviously that is just the start of what is needed. and I'm very grateful for the motion today. If reports are correct that the royal family were aware of concerns about Andrew's financial
[1:26:49]dealings ahead of his appointment, there are serious questions about whether and how that knowledge matches the king's statement following Mount Bat and Windsor's arrest, suggesting he had only recently learned about his brother's
[1:27:01]misconduct. And it is reasonable to raise these questions too and find out what advice was given from the palace at the time including as suggested by the
[1:27:11]current king for or against the appointment. And I want to add that reactive cooperation with any investigation cannot be enough on the royal family's part. That suggests
[1:27:22]waiting to be asked by the police. Whereas the royal family could be proactively checking its records and visitor logs. It could be speaking to palace and royal ard staff to encourage them to share information with the
[1:27:33]authorities and it could be making sure there is an effective whistleblowing policy within the palace. We also need to be able to scrutinize the exact provenence of the 12 million pound
[1:27:45]payout from Andrew to the brave late Virginia. So to conclude, Andrew Mountbatton Windsor should never have been a trade envoy for this country. But that is not
[1:27:55]the only matter that requires urgent transparency. His relationship with the child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has turned the nation's stomach. And we also need to know who in the royal household
[1:28:06]knew what and when, as well as what he did when he was trade envoy. As part of ensuring that, I hope the minister will make it clear today that royal freedom
[1:28:16]of information exemptions that have for too long allowed their power to act in the shadows, concealing important truths from MPs in the public also need to go.
[1:28:26]>> Helen Morgan Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Um, I'm one of a a handful of MPs uh on these Liberal Democrat benches and on the current government benches
[1:28:37]who is elected in the wake of a political scandal. >> Um, in my case, uh, in December 2021, a financial scandal followed by a cover up
[1:28:48]by, uh, the then Conservative government uh, trying to get one of their own off the hook. And then in the midst of that bi-election uh there was uh revelations
[1:28:58]about party gate where it emerged that the prime minister had concluded at the time the prime minister of the time had concluded that uh there was probably a number of rules that the people in this country that was were subject to that
[1:29:10]didn't apply to him and I can remember very very clearly knocking on doors uh during that bi-election and feeling the anger of my constituents that a small
[1:29:22]group of elite people had concluded that there was rules that applied to them that didn't apply to the people at the top of our society and I think they
[1:29:34]would have described that as entitlement and that's why this debate today is so important because we must to restore the trust of the people who voted for me and for those other people who uh were
[1:29:45]elected in the wake of bi-elections following scandals uh and the wider British public we need to tell them that we've learned those lessons about political scandal, about cover up, about
[1:29:57]entitlement, and are taking actions to restore their trust in what this house is up to and what the wider establishment is allowed to get away
[1:30:07]with. It's so important to hold the powerful to account. And since then, we've had another of other scandals which have destroyed trust in politics. We've had
[1:30:17]the VIP lane for COVID contracts. We've had the treachery of Nathan Gil. Um, and we've had the the concerns surrounding the appointment of of Peter Mandlesson.
[1:30:28]Now, Andrew Matt Batton Windsor was intimately involved with Jeffrey Epstein. And we've learned in recent weeks that the relationship was probably
[1:30:40]uh much more deep than we first thought and continued much longer than maybe we first thought. And this association with one of the most despicable pedophiles in
[1:30:50]history uh at the heart of the British establishment is absolutely poisonous. The victims and survivors of Epstein's
[1:30:59]crimes uh must have been ret-raumatized many times over the year by the complicity of all those who are closely closely associated with him and did
[1:31:10]nothing to bring his crimes to public awareness and bring him to account. >> On that point, >> I will give way. I >> I thank the the the honorable member for
[1:31:21]giving way. Um she makes a really really important point about um victim people who are victims of um of crimes perpetrated by people in the public eye because it's particularly difficult for them because it's almost like the trauma
[1:31:32]is repeated again and again when these things come to light and obviously they're in the press and the media. Would you agree with me that we need to particularly support victims who are who are victims of uh crimes of this nature?
[1:31:44]makes an excellent point and I can't imagine what it must have been like to be one of those victims or one of those survivors and to see repeatedly over the years the establishment uh closing ranks
[1:31:55]around those that knew him uh and telling us everything was okay and he's entirely right this this whole um this whole process must be extremely painful for everyone involved and we should put
[1:32:06]them at the first and foremost of everything we do as we go forward >> on that point >> I'll give I'm honorable friend for giving way. Um, one of the things that I've been struck by is that as we hear
[1:32:18]more and more and more revelations, I think it's quite difficult for some members of the public to keep up. Um, and for many of them, particularly a number of women, they'll want to turn away from what they see um, on their
[1:32:29]screens. Does my honorable friend agree with me that as we see what unfolding in front of our eyes is a conspiracy of silence where horrific acts were allowed
[1:32:41]to take place in the shadows and increasingly we are seeing that arms of the British state were either protect protected facilitated or colluded with
[1:32:51]these horrific acts by people in power. Does she agree with me that this house must make the boldest statement it can that we will not rest until every single
[1:33:03]stone is unturned? >> Helen Morgan. >> Well, I thank my honorable friend for that intervention and uh she puts it better than I could. She's entirely
[1:33:11]right because what we have seen here is uh complicity by people at the heart of the British establishment who we are in the right place to hold to account but
[1:33:23]people in as part of the internationally the international establishment >> either turning a blind eye to the act of Jeffrey Epstein or possibly being
[1:33:34]implicated by them. We don't know that for sure yet. But those who did turn a blind eye must have known. They must have known what was going on. It isn't
[1:33:44]normal for an older businessman to be surrounded by young teenagers all of the time to be receiving massages and all
[1:33:54]sorts of other, as we know, terrible uh uh involvements. Uh and for other people to think that that was somehow normal or acceptable or even admirable. uh as we
[1:34:04]suggest uh as we heard Donald Trump say some of those girls were on the younger side as if that was something to be applauded. It was appalling. Those people must have known and if they chose not to look they are part of the
[1:34:16]problem. The decades long cover up as I've said must have compounded and worsen the trauma that those women they were children at the time compounded the trauma that they suffered. So on first
[1:34:27]and foremost, let's put the victims first and let's allow the police investigations to go ahead, but we need to look at the wider elements of the scandal as well. As we've heard, >> would she give way? >> I will.
[1:34:39]>> I'm extremely grateful to her. My does she share my worry though that as it currently stands the potential for human
[1:34:48]trafficking which is at its core what those victims would have been the victims of is actually not subject to a
[1:34:58]police inquiry currently and would she recognizing of course that the police will make their own decisions that is absolutely right does she not agree that it is for this government to make sure
[1:35:10]they've got all possible resourcing that they might need so that if they wanted to go down that particular rabbit hole and I would urge them to do so actively that they wouldn't be stymied by any
[1:35:20]lack of resource in that. >> Well, my honorable friend makes a really important point actually. I will >> just urge honorable members not to speculate about what the police might or
[1:35:31]might not be investigating. >> Thank you very much. I thank the minister for that that reminder. Um I have been astounded I have to say by the
[1:35:41]brilliance of the British uh media and the journalists who have sifted through thousands and thousands of um documents from the Epstein files and uncovered a scandal within a really really short period of time that has rocked the
[1:35:52]British establishment to its heart and has got everybody in this uh place acting to try and uncover the appalling rot at the heart of the at the heart of the Epstein circle. And yet other
[1:36:04]jurisdictions who've been sitting on those thousands of documents for potentially decades have apparently had no curiosity whatsoever. Um and that in itself I think speaks volumes. Um I was
[1:36:15]going to say that the Polish government has launched an investigation into Epstein's links with Russia. Um and his links with both uh Peter Mandlesson and Andrew Mountbatton Windsor must be
[1:36:27]causing enormous concern in the light of that development. And so I think it's right now that we seek transparency into the appointment of of um Andrew Mount
[1:36:36]Baton Winders to this role because as my honorable friend um has just said this wasn't about one mistake that led to an individual in an inappropriate position.
[1:36:47]This has been about a failure of an entire establishment to exercise curiosity to undertake due diligence and to uh put aside it's uh as an accountant
[1:36:58]we would call it our professional skepticism uh to put that aside and uh carry on with that appointment regardless because that was an entitled person who needed a role. And so it's
[1:37:09]really really important now and I'm pleased that the government have agreed to uh comply with the request in this humble address and publish those documents. It's really really important because the public need transparency.
[1:37:20]They need to understand quickly what happened and crucially what can be done in future to prevent such an appointment happening again. um they need to have their trust
[1:37:32]restored and they need to have their trust in this place restored that we care enough to hold uh those powerful people to account and to make sure that we are always improving public life and
[1:37:43]not slipping backwards. Um the humble address itself uh seeks answers as to how a man with such a questionable reputation came to be appointed to represent the British
[1:37:54]state. But the debate today has highlighted the impenetrable networks of privilege that for decades have protected a pedophile and those who
[1:38:05]surrounded themselves with him, possibly for their own gain, and with total disregard for the victims of his crimes uh and the wider public to whom they
[1:38:15]were apparently indifferent. The government, when it came to power, promised to clean up British politics. There is a real moment of opportunity for them to demonstrate now that they
[1:38:26]are serious about that mission and I hope they take that opportunity and I hope they do this job properly. >> Ian Sen. >> Thank you madame deputy speaker. Um this
[1:38:38]last week has been by any measure an extraordinary one in British public life. Within 5 days two people have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in
[1:38:49]public office. one a former member of the royal family, the other a veteran Labour politician who was simultaneously, we now understand the
[1:39:00]man who championed the first's appointment to his public role in the first place. Now, this motion is not an attempt to
[1:39:10]prejudice a police investigation. We are clear, let the police do their work. That investigation must proceed on its own terms. free from political
[1:39:22]interference. But the criminal law and parliamentary accountability are not the same thing and they have never been mutually
[1:39:33]exclusive. Parliament has its own duty to scrutinize public appointments to follow public money and ensure that the
[1:39:44]institutions of state are answerable to the people they serve. That duty did not disappear when Tempame's Valley Police opened their
[1:39:54]case files. So let us ask the question that this house should have been asking for years. How did Andrew Mountbatton Windsor come
[1:40:05]to be appointed as Britain's special representative for international trade and investment in 2001? And what did those responsible for that
[1:40:16]appointment know? Because here is what we do know. His appointment was by multiple accounts controversial from the start.
[1:40:28]Concerns were raised within government, within the foreign office, and reportedly within the royal family itself.
[1:40:38]And yet he was appointed for a decade. He traveled the globe on the public purse, meeting heads of state
[1:40:48]and billionaires with expenses described by former officials as lavish and poorly scrutinized, effectively given a rubber stamp. And
[1:41:00]all the while, his relationship with Epstein deepened. A relationship that the Epstein files now suggest may have been entangled with his official duties
[1:41:11]in ways that potentially breach both his duty of confidentiality and even the Official Secrets Act. The documents that might answer these
[1:41:22]questions should by now be in the National Archives under the 20-year rule. They are not. Every available exemption has been
[1:41:32]deployed to keep them sealed. National security, international relations, and more. Some, we are told, are locked away until
[1:41:43]2065. Most of us in this chamber would not be here to read them if they were. As the member for Argyle and the member
[1:41:53]for Brighton Pavilion who's no longer in her place have already raised the historian Andrew Lowry Lowry has spent years attempting to access these files
[1:42:04]through the proper channels. What when asked what he made of this he said simply every single reason has been deployed to stop these papers getting
[1:42:15]out. You have to ask why. Madame Deputy Speaker, we are asking why.
[1:42:25]Now, at this point, some may ask, if Parliament has had the tools to scrutinize this through a substantive motion, why is this happening only now?
[1:42:37]And it's a fair question. No party in over a decade successfully used the parliamentary mechanisms available to force this issue properly.
[1:42:48]Not because the rules prevented it, but because the cultural gravitational pull of deference was so strong that sustained rig that sustained
[1:42:59]rigorous scrutiny of a public figure who happened to be a member of the royal family felt to too many people like it
[1:43:09]simply wasn't the done thing. The unwritten convention was as powerful, if not more powerful, than the written rule.
[1:43:20]That aspect is not a procedural failure. It is a failure of political culture. >> And it is precisely that culture that
[1:43:29]this motion challenges today. Now, I came to this place with a background in science. And in any field
[1:43:38]of systemic inquiry, there is an important principle. You cannot correct a failure you refuse to examine.
[1:43:48]Institutional failures do not disappear when you look away from them. They compound. The question of how Andrew Mountbatton
[1:43:57]Windsor came to be appointed against objections reportedly raised from multiple directions and how he was then allowed to operate for a decade with expenses rubber
[1:44:09]stamped and minimal oversight is not ancient history. It is the context in which every subsequent failure of public appointment
[1:44:19]standards must be understood. Beyond this motion, the Liberal Democrats are calling for structural reforms that match the scale of what has
[1:44:28]been revealed so far. We want a genuinely independent ethics advisor, able to initiate investigations, not waiting for permission from the
[1:44:40]ministers they are supposed to scrutinize. We want an office of the whistleblower with real legal protections so that civil the civil servant who was
[1:44:50]overruled when they tried to question an expenses claim has somewhere to go. We want a rigorous, transparent, confirmatory process for all significant
[1:45:02]public appointments with proper parliamentary involvement from the outset, not as an afterthought, not after the damage has already been
[1:45:12]done. And we want to see an end to government by WhatsApp. All official business on the record, all lobbying published. No
[1:45:23]more deals done in the dark. Madame Deputy Speaker, deference is not respect, silence is not discretion, and
[1:45:34]secrecy in public life is not safety. It is the condition under which misconduct flourishes. The documents we are asking for today
[1:45:45]should have been in the public domain years ago. This house has the power and the responsibility to require their release
[1:45:54]and it should do today. Thank you, >> Luke Taylor. I know you're in a lot of pain, Luke. >> Thank you very much, uh, Madame Deputy Speaker, and, uh, you'll have to forgive
[1:46:05]me for my dancing around to aid my pain back. Um, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[1:46:16]full quote from 1887 uh by British historian Lord Actton and it explained how power
[1:46:27]in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. And I think we've discussed here today how that absolute power, that
[1:46:37]feeling of in invincibility um has led to the behavior that we are also utterly disgusted um about around
[1:46:46]the chamber. Um I speak on behalf of all um residents who've been in touch with me um over the last few weeks. whether
[1:46:55]you are a Republican, a a a monarchist, a uh ambivalent to the general principle. Um what we see is a scandal
[1:47:04]that is not just engulfing uh Andrew Mountbat Windsor but also dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family because as has been uh raised by the
[1:47:16]honorable member for Brighton Pavilion so correctly, we have to ask who knew what and when. what was known about the£12 million
[1:47:27]that was paid out to Virginia Guthrie in 2022 um and how was that allowed to be used
[1:47:34]to settle a civil suit of allegations of Andrew's offenses alleged offenses I should say how was
[1:47:46]that allowed to happen in the first place as my right honorable friend the member for Kingston and serverton's already said, we've seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of
[1:47:58]Epstein and then a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially and has now resulted in the two arrests for
[1:48:09]misconduct in public office. This humble address talks about how that began and I think it is absolutely the right place to start as a politician coming here
[1:48:19]trying to convince the public that we are there to serve. we are there to represent them. That the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the
[1:48:30]internet are nonsense and that there isn't a elite pedophile ring that runs the world's institutions becomes increasingly difficult to maintain when
[1:48:40]actually we see these links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between including the British royal family. We
[1:48:51]talk about standards in public life. We talk about integrity, it's very difficult to maintain if not only that that is known and the information in those files is understood
[1:49:03]by the public, but that then we're unable to scrutinize, we're unable to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. So,
[1:49:14]as discussed, this humble address covers quite a narrow uh set of papers that surround the appointment um as the special envoy to the UK trading industry. Um however, I think we've all
[1:49:25]discussed as well the parliamentary gymnastics that has been required to get a discussion of outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man um to be
[1:49:37]discussed in this chamber. And it's those parliamentary gymnastics that I think we have to call out as being so outrageously
[1:49:47]an outrageous impediment to what our jobs are in this very chamber that we need to dispel from this place entirely.
[1:49:55]Um we talk about as well the implications of Andrew and his line of his position in the line of succession. Um, I think at the time that the photos
[1:50:07]were published of him uh uh walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. Like we talk now of his position, but at
[1:50:18]the time that that scandal was occurring, how close he was to the throne. It's disgusting.
[1:50:29]I think I'm going to ask the minister specifically if he can give us an update on legislation that the government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the
[1:50:38]line of succession. We speak about um I think he's eighth in the line now and maybe not such a worry, but the principle of that position
[1:50:48]to our head of state is obnoxious in the extreme and and I'd like to hear if he's got any update. >> He give way. >> Absolutely. >> I think people just find this. We understand we have a living, breathing
[1:51:00]constitutional uh democracy that grows as society better understands things. But it just makes no sense, does it? That if the king doesn't want him to be
[1:51:09]a prince, it makes no sense that we have to still bring legislation in order to strip him of his dukedom and his eldoms and equally that he remains uh in the line of succession and could potentially
[1:51:21]be a king. Now, yes, we've got plenty of other things we need to be getting on with, but there's a certain logic here that just needs tidying up, if nothing else. >> Um, I I thank my honorable friend for um for her intervention and and I
[1:51:33]completely agree. Um, I also want to thank the minister for his very early um acknowledgement of the support for uh the humble address today and and I and I
[1:51:43]also think that he has engaged constructively with um uh uh comments about it, scope, about um exactly what it says. And I think that that has been done in and and broadly around the
[1:51:54]chamber um very much a supportive um uh uh uh attitude. So I I do thank him for that. Um I'm just going to return to the
[1:52:03]point about the negative privilege that we cannot speak freely and have had to um use this gymnastic approach to get to the point that we're at today. I've
[1:52:15]submitted a number of UKQ requests to uh the speaker's office who has um absolutely understandably uh uh not
[1:52:24]managed to get to uh uh justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. But the necessity that we've had to take to um phrase it in the sense
[1:52:36]of a um an examination of the prince's arrangements and his use of property and
[1:52:44]all sorts of um confusing uh uh uh attempts to not then discuss it as we've as we've mentioned around the chamber
[1:52:53]today has precluded us from doing. I need to add to this >> anguish but um there is a convention in the house that we don't refer to urgent uh question requests that we've put
[1:53:04]through to the speaker >> and and I will apologize for breaking that but I think it is a useful demonstration however rightfully and and with such utter wisdom that we will
[1:53:14]never question uh that the speaker chooses again it's that challenge to raise issues of this type uh in the chamber I I I will move to to to close.
[1:53:25]Thank you. So I specifically now and I think the Liberal Democrat benches have been pretty clear on this throughout the afternoon. We we have to have um a full
[1:53:36]statutory inquiry uh into the whole Epstein affair um and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. Um
[1:53:46]we must allow those criminal investigations to be completed. Um but that investigation must be able to compel witnesses um and required to give evidence under oath and to produce
[1:53:58]documents um and other evidence. Um this must be used not only to punish those who have been complicit and have been
[1:54:09]involved in the heinous crimes that we've heard about and seen about in the media. um who again and I will reflect uh other colleagues comments about the incredible work that the media and
[1:54:20]journalists have done in investigating these crimes and pouring through those files. Um I really do think that that can cannot be overstated at the effort that they've taken on that. Um so just
[1:54:30]to conclude we do have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 30 years um from Epstein's
[1:54:41]scandal can never be repeated and that the investigation must allow us to um fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.
[1:54:53]I was going to call Ole Glover, but I wasn't sure whether the minister wanted to do that next, but I'll call Ollie Ollie Glover. Uh, >> thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Uh,
[1:55:04]Madame Deputy Speaker, this motion is first and foremost about the victims of the appalling crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his many associates, as well as prot the importance of protecting people from
[1:55:16]abuse of power. But it also has significant implications for wider political culture. As my honorable friend, the member for North Shropshire articulately outlined, this and previous
[1:55:28]governments have been racked by scandal of many kinds. And this whole Andrew Mountbatten Windsor affair adds to that by making a very significant
[1:55:38]contribution to already severe erosion of trust in our politics and institutions. And that is why we are calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of UK and British citizen
[1:55:48]involvement with Jeffrey Epstein over many years. Now that inquiry would include of course taking account of police and criminal investigations, disclosure and publication of re
[1:56:00]relevant documents but we must go further. I give way to my honorable friend. I >> I'm grateful to my honorable friend for giving way. Um, many people are talking about the different elements that could
[1:56:11]uh be examined during an inquiry. Um, I've even heard some people saying that an inquiry could become too big and take too long. Would he agree with me that there is precedent in this country of
[1:56:21]having public inquiries in two or more parts and that that is a particular structure that the government uh and government ministers who I would be listening would consider in order to make sure that some parts of the inquiry
[1:56:31]that we need to see urgently looked at could happen sooner rather than later. Mhm. >> I thank my honorable friend for her intervention and I think she makes a very uh practical proposal for how an
[1:56:43]inquiry could be conducted efficiently with appropriate prioritization so that the most urgent matters get looked at rather than being bogged down in something that would take much longer.
[1:56:53]But we must go further. We must also toughen the penalties for breaching the ministerial code. We must create an office of the whistleblower to both protect and to empower and encourage
[1:57:04]people with valuable information to come forward and to speak up. I also support our calls for an end to negative privilege protections which have prevented criticism of individuals in
[1:57:15]the royal family in this house for the reasons that we have heard today in this debate. >> Would he give way on that point? >> I give way to my honorable friend. >> I'm very grateful to to him for giving way. What strikes me as as I've listened
[1:57:27]to this excellent debate actually this afternoon is that everything that our establishment sort of depends on is that the people at the heart of it are nice
[1:57:37]trusted good sorts who won't step out of line and we don't have the mechanisms in place to challenge when that doesn't turn out to be the case. Would he agree with me that the points that he's
[1:57:47]outlining about duty about office of the whis whistleblower and other statutory bodies to uh to put a code around our our behavior in this place and in wider
[1:57:58]public life is so important so that we don't just rely on people being good bloss uh I thank my honorable friend for her intervention and I very much agree it's
[1:58:08]there is far too much in British political and wider culture that does rely on uh taking things on trust and assuming that uh good good good motives and good intentions will win the day.
[1:58:20]Very sadly the whole affair of Andrew Mountbat in Windsor shows that we cannot necessarily rely on that and that we do need strong processes and procedures and protocols to make sure that we have the
[1:58:30]highest standards in public life. Madame Deputy Speaker, we all hope that the necessary changes to prevent a repeat of the whole Andrew Mountbatten Windsor uh affair and abomination and the wider
[1:58:42]Epstein disgrace can be made within the structures of our current system of constitutional monarchy. Should that prove not to be the case, then we risk that calls for a change to our constitutional arrangements grow louder
[1:58:53]and more compelling. >> Ed Mcuire. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madame Deputy Speaker, before I turn to the wider implications of this debate, it's really important to acknowledge why
[1:59:05]the Liberal Democrats have pressed for full transparency today. Serious allegations have been raised about Andrew Mountbatten Winds's conduct during his time as the UK's trade envoy,
[1:59:15]including reports that he claimed taxpayer funded expenses for so-called massage services and other inappropriate costs. Former senior officials have described a culture of deference in
[1:59:27]which such claims were barely even questioned. Expenses were rubber stamped and scrutiny was effectively absent. >> Honorable friend give way. >> I will give way. Honorable friend for
[1:59:37]giving way. We rightly say that no one in the country is above the law and recent weeks have reinforced that principle. Surely it must also be true that no one is above our democratic. So do you think the government should now
[1:59:49]consider bringing the royal household within the scope of freedom of information act to strengthen competence in our institution? >> I thank my honorable friend for making that powerful point and I think it's a
[1:59:59]really important consideration. I hope the minister is listening to and can respond to today. These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatton
[2:00:10]Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants, officials who accompanied him and traveled with him were present during these official duties? What did they observe? What did
[2:00:21]they record? What did they raise? And crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not just trivial matters. They speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to
[2:00:33]behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him completely and seemingly failed to act. >> Just on that point, will he >> I will give way. >> Okay.
[2:00:44]>> Uh I thank my honorable friend for giving way. And just on this point about what the protection officers knew, for example, does it not show the outrageous
[2:00:54]power imbalance between a royal and an employee and how the the the fact that you have
[2:01:04]someone in that situation who then has to and and we're talking about whistleblowing. We're talking about reporting what has been seen. Doesn't just show how outrageous that even the prospect of having someone in that
[2:01:16]situation is that they are then being held to account for not calling out the behavior of someone whose position whose privilege whose
[2:01:27]um whose whose kind of birthright has put them into such a position? does does he agree that this just shows how how our constitution and our structure has
[2:01:36]put us into such an outrageous twist um and how difficult it's going to be to unwind that. >> I thank my friend for that intervention and I completely agree with him and I
[2:01:46]suspect this is just a small um start on something that's much much wider and I imagine there's probably much more information on that to come. As the house turns its attention to the matter
[2:01:57]of Andrew Mountbat and Windsor, I also want to use this moment to refocus our minds on those who have been most consistently forgotten throughout all of this, the victims and survivors of
[2:02:07]Jeffrey Epstein and the justice they've been denied for far too many years. It's only because of their bravery and coming forward that we know the true extent of Epstein's crimes and the deeply
[2:02:18]troubling implications that those crimes hold for our own establishment. As has just been mentioned, Madame Deputy Speaker, when we talk of these survivors, we must confront an
[2:02:27]uncomfortable truth. Many UK victims are simply too afraid to come forward right now. Their fear is well documented in UK reporting, which describes a greatest sense of fear and reticence among
[2:02:39]British survivors. Fear of stigma, fear of being disbelieved, fear of the powerful networks that have long silenced these women and girls. And yet, abuse did happen here in the UK. Epstein
[2:02:51]carried out wrongdoing during extensive and repeated trips to London. These weren't distant or abstract harms. They took place here on UK soil under UK
[2:03:00]jurisdiction. And so they demand a UKled response. But instead of justice here at home, victims were effectively steered and are still steered, Madam Deputy
[2:03:10]Speaker, into a US justice system. They're told to seek red address through the Epstein victim's compensation program and a fund that ultimately paid
[2:03:19]$120 million to around 135 survivors and did so more quickly and confidentially than litigation could. Now, that program has been open internationally and
[2:03:29]victims here in Britain could apply without needing a lawyer, making it less costly and less traumatic. But, Madame Deputy Speaker, what does it say about our own UK justice system when British
[2:03:40]victims who are abused here on British soil are left seeking justice 4,000 miles away? When we ask traumatized people to navigate foreign bureaucracies
[2:03:50]because we here in the United Kingdom have nothing equivalent to offer them? And what does it say that only less than a handful of UK victims even approached a solister? Not because abuse didn't
[2:04:01]happen. We know that it did, but because the absence of any UK prosecution meant they didn't feel empowered to speak. We can draw a stark contrast between
[2:04:11]figures like Andrew Mountbatton Windsor, Peter Mandlesson, who have allegedly allegedly enriched themselves through their associations with the survivors who are left fighting
[2:04:20]for justice. What the Epstein files reveal is a powerful network of wealthy people colluding with Epstein, using their privilege to silence and dismiss survivors. a pattern which has been
[2:04:32]highlighted by the end violence against women coalition. This exposes how powerful men evade consequences while their victims struggle even to be heard,
[2:04:41]reinforcing the very fear that continues to keep British survivors in the shadows. Surely the role of this house of any democratic institution worth its
[2:04:51]name is not simply to just reinforce that silence, but to finally break it. And that's why today we call clearly and firmly for the UK to open criminal
[2:05:01]prosecution and survivorled inquiries into Londonbased offenses. These alleged crimes fall squarely within the UK jurisdiction. The offender's nationality is irrelevant. The victim's nationality
[2:05:12]is irrelevant. What matters is that the harms occurred here and those harmed deserve justice here. Justice for British victims must not be outsourced
[2:05:22]abroad. Justice must not be dependent on the bravery of a handful willing to defy enormous pressure. Justice must not be conditional on navigating a foreign
[2:05:32]compensation scheme. Justice should be delivered transparently, confidently, and compassionately here in Britain. >> Would my honorable friend give way? >> I will give way. >> Thank my honorable friend for giving
[2:05:43]way. Would he agree with me that having a public inquiry would be a very public way for the British authorities, for the state to show those survivors that they
[2:05:54]have been the victim of some heinous crimes and that it would give them more confidence to come forward? And we know that survivors of all kinds of sexual
[2:06:04]abuse and and rape across this country, whether it be part of some big scandal like Muhammad al fired or Epstein or whether it be something much more local
[2:06:15]and and and individual. All of them will be being retraumatized again and again and again by seeing this splashed across the front pages of the papers and and all over the media day after day after
[2:06:27]day. And we have to make a stand and say enough. We will not tolerate this in this country and we have to stand up to these powerful men who silence their victims and ensure that they have to
[2:06:38]fight for justice every step of the way. >> I thank my honorable friend for that excellent intervention. I couldn't agree more that a public inquiry is very much needed to expose all of the harms that have been done to these victims and how
[2:06:50]the establishment of our country have seemingly played such a central role in that. Madame Deputy Speaker, if our government is sincere when it speaks of a fairer, safer, and more accountable society, it must now show leadership
[2:07:02]rather than continued difference. It must show survivors they will be believed, protected, and heard in the UK. Because at the heart of this matter, are not titles, reputations, or
[2:07:13]institutions, but people. Survivors whose lives, like the victims of domestic abuse, who have been shaped by fear, by silence, and by power wield against them rather than for them. They
[2:07:24]deserve far better. They deserve a justice system that will fight for them. And now is the time for immediate action. So please, will the minister consider not redacting any of the
[2:07:35]documents which don't relate to the ongoing police investigation? Will the government look at, as my honorable friend has just suggested, a public inquiry, a full public inquiry into
[2:07:45]Epstein and his links to the British establishment? And finally, will the minister please go away and look to end the appalling negative privilege which
[2:07:55]prevents MPs in this house from speaking freely about members of the royal household. This is a disgusting symptom of the deference we have shown to those
[2:08:05]in positions of power at the cost of victims. Our constituents should no longer be silenced in what should be our proud British democracy. Thank you.
[2:08:17]I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Lisa Smart. >> Very much indeed, Madame Deputy Speaker. I think we've had an extremely powerful debate today and I'll um address a number of the points that have been
[2:08:28]raised, but I want to start by talking about how the revelations of recent weeks and recent months have been shattering for the British public and deeply, deeply distressing for many of
[2:08:38]those directly impacted. We've listened to the gutwrenching stories of abuse enjoyed by v endured by vulnerable women and girls and we were reminded by my
[2:08:48]colleague the member for Northeast F that we are in many cases talking about children here. We've learned of the arrogance and cruelty of rich powerful men who felt that no rules applied to
[2:09:00]them and who made a mockery of our values and our laws. And we have seen laid bare the hollowess of a political establishment that was manipulated so
[2:09:10]easily and who treated state secrets like cheap gossip. Public trust has been catastrophically undermined by the Epstein saga and we are now at a crossroads in our public life. If
[2:09:22]parliament does not act with courage, faith in our institutions will suffer even more permanent harm and will remain under intense public suspicion and
[2:09:31]unease. To start to repair the damage, we must uncover the full and unvarnished truth. Critical to that process is demanding that every relevant department
[2:09:42]comes clean and shares what was known about Mount Batton Whit Windsor's appointment as special representative for trade and investment about what concerns were raised ahead of his
[2:09:53]appointment if his suitability came into question and what risks were identified throughout that process. The British people deserve to know what behavior was
[2:10:03]tolerated and by whom and they deserve to friend give way. >> I will give way. >> I thank my honorable friend uh for giving away because on that point I have a constituent who contacted me who um
[2:10:13]played a public role in the Middle East and uh during that role they said they had to go through incredible um checks, background checks, etc. Um and obviously the release of these files would enable us to see actually if the same
[2:10:24]background checks that are applied to people in public life, you know, to citizens like us are also applied to the royal family. Does my honorable friend agree? >> I'm I'm grateful to my honorable friend's intervention, also to her
[2:10:35]constituent who's contacted her about this really important point. My view and the view of the Liberal Democrats is that we should get to the bottom of how this role was created, the vetting that was done before the appointment to
[2:10:46]understand the extent of that vetting or the lack of the extent of that vetting. If somebody is being paid by the public purse, they should be held to an extremely high standard and there should
[2:10:57]be transparency about their role and the creation of that role to begin with. So I very much agree with her. Um the public deserve to know if sections of their government of its time put in
[2:11:08]place systems to shield Mountbatten Windsor from accountability even at a cost to the national interest. Now, of course, Madame Deputy Speaker, the police must undertake their work
[2:11:19]unimpeded. And of course, anybody who has committed a crime should face justice if they are found to have committed that crime. But a police investigation, no matter what
[2:11:31]prosecution it leads to, is not enough. It is essential for the strength of our constitution and our social fabric, that we go further and clean up the broken
[2:11:41]system that facilitated this scandal in the first place. on that point >> with pleasure. >> I'm I'm grateful to my um honorable friend for giving way. Um one of the
[2:11:51]points that's been raised this afternoon is that even whilst the police go ahead with their investigations, there is still a job for this house to do. And it strikes me that some of the most basic
[2:12:02]principles that we assume in this place and when we come to this place are really being questioned. And I just wondered if she would agree with me that it is worth restating for the record and for the public that there are certain
[2:12:14]principles in public life that this case is highlighting. We have to make sure uh remain in place that no one is above the law. That taxpayers money and public
[2:12:25]office must be used for the public interest and not for private gain. that Parliament has not just the right but the duty
[2:12:35]to hold the powerful to account and to pursue all means of transparency and that ultimately all powerful people must face a reckoning if they were involved
[2:12:46]in this scandal. >> I I wholly agree with my honorable friend. She's made a number of very powerful interventions throughout this
[2:12:53]debate. Um, this whole sorry saga uh repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy
[2:13:03]men, mostly men, who have behaved in a way that has sought to enrich them further and increase their power. >> Just just on
[2:13:12]>> with pleasure. I I hope this adds to her point because does she find the irony that the only person who has been imprisoned
[2:13:22]as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman? I uh he is not the only person to refer to structural sexism uh in this debate
[2:13:32]and I think uh particularly my colleague uh an honorable friend the member for Froom and East Somerset made an extremely powerful speech about how we
[2:13:42]could should we choose to do so as a parliament embed looking at sexism at violence against women and girls in our policym in our thinking in a way that
[2:13:52]would benefit the whole of society. Um and and I'm uh grateful for him raising the point that uh there remain many people for whom the hand of justice is
[2:14:04]yet to seek them out with the full vigor with which it should. Um we should be pulling back the curtain on Andrew's use of the special envoy role and the whole
[2:14:13]system around him on the power he had in an official state sanctioned position and on the many opportunities missed for scrutiny and accountability. not least,
[2:14:24]Madame Deputy Speaker, in this place. A number of um members across both sides of the house have talked about the importance of pace and of speed. I think the member for Sherwood Forest made a
[2:14:36]very good point uh that I think he raised earlier this week um to the chief secretary to the prime minister about making sure we get on with some of of this. And indeed, the father of the
[2:14:47]house reminded us that the wheels of justice often brand slowly. Um my friend uh my deputy leader indeed and the member for St. Alburn's uh gave some really practical solutions about how we
[2:14:57]can make sure progress continues at pace um to make sure that one thing isn't holding up another and indeed the shadow minister reminded us that that police um
[2:15:08]involvement in this should not unduly delay the whole of the process. It is of course an absolutely vital part that the police should be free to do their job and do it well. But that should not unduly hold up um the the release of the
[2:15:20]information we are seeking. Uh we Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the chamber for our motion today, including from the Treasury bench. I wonder when he's
[2:15:30]winding up if the minister could confirm um like when in when the government responding to the previous humble address that we discussed in this place that information will be rel released
[2:15:42]when it is available u that is any information will be released when it's available only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation and I'd be grateful if he could do that
[2:15:53]when he's on his feet in a few moments um >> on that point >> please go ahead I'm grateful to my honorable friend. Um, a few moments ago, she made reference to a a comment I made
[2:16:03]earlier in the debate. I'm mindful that the minister was not in his place at this time, so I wonder if I may be indulged. No, no, no. A separate point uh that I made later when you were out of the room for a sec a second. Uh
[2:16:13]Madame Deputy Speaker, um uh one of the points I made earlier in the debate was that because there are so many things that could be examined during a public inquiry. I had wondered whether ministers would consider having an
[2:16:24]inquiry made of two or three or more parts given there is precedence for such a thing. And I just wondered whether that might be an answer to make sure that some things that need to be examined earlier in the debate uh
[2:16:34]earlier um are not delayed too long. I just wonder whether whether whe the minister is now in his place whether she would agree with me that that is a point on which we might hear from the minister
[2:16:44]in his winding up in closing. Um very grateful for her uh reminding us all of the very insightful comment that she made. I think we on the Liberal Democrat benches have been fizzing with ideas. We
[2:16:54]have got a real opportunity to improve our processes, improve our systems. And if the bravery of the women who have come forward to talk about their
[2:17:03]horrific abuse and their experience um can reach its full potential, it is to improve the system so that things like this don't just keep happening. A number
[2:17:13]of colleagues on both sides of the house have talked about a conspiracy of silence. They've talked about the role of deference. And indeed the the leader of pride Cry took used the word sicker fancy and I think she was absolutely
[2:17:24]right to do so and this comes from the whole establishment um over several decades. A number of colleagues have talked about the role of journalists which I think was a really
[2:17:34]interesting point Madame Deputy Speaker and a number of colleagues have talked about those who can be rightly proud of the role they have played in bringing transparency bringing accountability uh
[2:17:44]bringing the public's understanding up but I think the minister was also absolutely right to talk about some of those people uh who minimized
[2:17:55]child abuse who minimized statutory rape uh who whose comment have not aged well
[2:18:03]and who uh should reflect upon the roles of some uh of what was said at the time. We've also this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker, spoken about our own procedures
[2:18:14]in this place and the my colleague and honorable friend, the member for Sutton and Chim used the phrase parliamentary gymnastics, which is one I'm not going to spend too long thinking about. Um but
[2:18:24]the the role of um some of our predecessors, Paul Flynn's been talked about a lot and the role of negative privilege not really being fit for purpose in this day and age. Uh we need
[2:18:36]processes and procedures that enable us to do our job. We should be holding the powerful to account. We should there should be um power within parliament to hold the
[2:18:47]powerful to account and to scrutinize before decisions are made as well as after decisions is made. >> Uh I will give way to my honorable friend. I'm very grateful to her for
[2:18:59]giving away the the scandals surrounding Jeffrey Epstein is reminiscent of other uh similar scandals perhaps not on the similar scale but certainly of similar
[2:19:11]magnitude in terms of their impact on their victims. I'm thinking uh the one that comes to mind is the Jimmy Savile scandal where people who knew what was going on didn't feel able to speak up,
[2:19:22]didn't feel able to break that uh conspiracy of silence and therefore victims didn't feel able to come forward either. Does she agree with me that by
[2:19:31]hopefully embracing this opportunity to change the way we do things in parliament, we can create a culture where people do feel empowered to come forward, where we can break that conspiracy of silence and people who
[2:19:43]have observed things that they knew they should have reported don't feel constrained in their ability to report them and and ensure that these terrible
[2:19:53]scandals don't happen in the future. >> Well, I'm very grateful to her. She's made a a a number of very good points this afternoon reminding us of previous scandals um and of making sure that we
[2:20:04]learn from previous scandals. I think um in the Peter Mandlesson uh debate on which I sat in the same place a few weeks ago, uh the honorable member, I think she's the honorable member for
[2:20:16]Bulover talked about shame needing to change sides. And I think that uh references some of the cultural changes that we need to bring about and that we as parliamentarians have a role to lead
[2:20:27]on bringing about the cultural changes we need to see so that anybody who is a victim or survivor um knows that the stigma is not with them, it's with the perpetrators and that anybody that turns
[2:20:39]a blind eye know that the stigma should absolutely be with them for doing so. because nobody should be above the law and nobody in public office or in
[2:20:50]receipt of public funds should be out of the reach of parliamentary scrutiny and with pleasure. very grateful for her um
[2:20:59]giving way and I'm reminded of uh the debate that we did have uh the uh conservative benches brought on Lord Manderson and the proverbial parliamentary knickers twisting that had
[2:21:11]to happen to work out that the way to deal with the um issue of intelligence services was indeed to allow the intelligence and security uh select
[2:21:20]committee to look at those papers. the issue um isn't it the case that we do have the mechanisms in this place to scrutinize most things but when it comes
[2:21:30]to the royal family we don't and even if a select committee wanted to do something uh on these matters we self censor by the own conventions that we
[2:21:42]apply to ourselves only we can change that what I'm curious to know is what is the government going to do what's the facilitation mechanism by which we change those conventions because they're
[2:21:53]clearly the nub of the issue in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This one >> um nobody should be above the law and nobody should be above scrutiny. I think when good people get together, there is
[2:22:05]a willingness to uh embrace creativity um and sufficient nery of parliamentary procedures, Madame Deputy Speaker, so that we can find a way through to get to
[2:22:16]the truth that we need to get to because trust in our politics is vital and trust in our institutions every time we have one of these debates is further eroded. and my colleague, the member, the
[2:22:27]honorable member uh and my friend from Edinburgh West talked about the impact on the reputation of this house and talked about the vital role of trust in politics. There are too many people, Madam Deputy Speaker, involved in
[2:22:39]politics who for whom a lack of trust in politics is really useful for them. That stoking of division, that stoking of mistrust means that there is space for
[2:22:49]voices that in my view are not welcome and we should reject. It is in all of our interests. in our whole country's interests for there to be some trust in
[2:22:59]our institutions, some trust in our political setup. Um, and we were reminded of the need uh for proper processes to be in place because as my uh honorable friend, the member for
[2:23:11]North Shshire reminded us, not everybody can be relied upon to be a good bloke. And I think many of our systems are based on gentleman's agreements and just expecting people to be a good bloke. And
[2:23:21]that, as has been repeatedly proven, is simply not the case. I will give way. >> I'm grateful to my honorable friend for giving way. In serving for a number of years as senior civil servant, I
[2:23:31]experienced in Whiteall the impression that the monarchy should be protected and that nothing should be done to embarrass the royal family. I wonder whether my honorable friend would agree that hopefully the materials that we're
[2:23:42]seeking the release of through this uh through today's humble address will ensure that we can scrutinize whether indeed that impeded the scrutiny of civil servants in order to check whether
[2:23:52]or not Andrew Mountb was an appropriate person to be a trade envoy and shed light on the relationship that should exist between Whiteall and the monarchy in the future. I I very much agree with my honorable
[2:24:04]friend and I think we've seen some press reports, Madame Deputy Speaker, about civil servants who were doing their job absolutely rightly questioning some of the expenses that were try were that were tried to put through but were but
[2:24:16]were overruled. Um and that clearly is not good enough is clearly not acceptable and is not what we should expect from our uh institutions and from
[2:24:27]our establishment. I completely agree uh with my honorable friend of the importance of being clear about what we expect when somebody takes on a public
[2:24:37]role at the cost to the taxpayer. We should have very very high standards and we should as the member for York Central mentioned talk about how we can ensure those with power are held to account.
[2:24:49]She was entirely right in some of the points she made about well what do we do with this information? Where do we go with it? How do we build from here? And my friend uh my honorable friend the member for Zent and Midcams made a
[2:25:00]really strong speech I thought uh where he gave some very constructive suggestions to the minister about some of the things we Liberal Democrats would support in terms of bringing about the change to the system that we need to
[2:25:11]see. Uh we're calling as part >> I would give way. >> I'd like to thank her for for giving way. Um she'll be aware of course that this is we're in the week of St. David's
[2:25:22]week, a terribly important day for all of us in Wales. And in terms of accountability, she'll be very aware of the longstanding
[2:25:32]policy stance that the Liberal Democrats have taken on the crown estate, which in Wales, regrettably, still has
[2:25:43]not been devolved. Its powers and its funding have been devolved to Scotland but not >> I just check >> member should be seated.
[2:25:53]>> Has the member just arrived as he been here for a while? Member should not be just traing in and intervening whilst the speech is taking place. So I'll just
[2:26:02]allow Miss Spot to continue. >> I'm going to stick more within the tramlines of the debate uh that we've all enjoyed today. Madame Deputy Speaker, although I think devolution is
[2:26:14]a very good thing, of which there should be more. Um, Parliament is calling today for transparency and the public deserves answers, not further silence because
[2:26:24]cleaning up public life means acting quickly, openly, and honestly um because this goes to the heart of public trust. Sadly, this what we're talking about uh
[2:26:34]ultimately is not an isolated incident. There has been a drum beatat of scandals and we've had mention of party gate in other debates recently. We've talked about Nathan Gil's treachery. Peter
[2:26:46]Mandlesson has also been mentioned and all of these further shatter trust in our politics. It is obvious that the current system is broken and so it's
[2:26:55]beholden on all of us to take action. We need to clear out the rot and we will keep pushing as Liberal Democrats until corrupt and criminal behavior is stamped
[2:27:06]out and the muk cleared out of our democracy. We are campaigning as a number of colleagues have mentioned for a public inquiry into Epstein and his relationship with the British
[2:27:16]establishment. A number of contributors this afternoon referenced the Polish government's investigation into Russian links of Epstein. And I think that would
[2:27:25]uh be very interesting to see what that investigation turns up. We are asking as the humble address is very clear that we want the publication of all of the
[2:27:35]relevant documents relating to the appointment as a special representative for trade and industry. We should be seeing an end to negative privilege. We should have it so that MPs can speak
[2:27:46]freely about concerns they have and disclose information in this place. even if the individual in a post in a public post is a member of the royal household.
[2:27:58]But we should go further. We should have criminal sanctions for public figures uh who failed to whistleblow. My colleague, my honorable friend uh the member for Wales talked about the importance of an
[2:28:08]office for the whistleblower and we should have new legal protections for whistleblowers and a dedicated office of the whistleblower. Please go ahead. >> I'm grateful to my honorable friend for
[2:28:18]giving away again very generous. Um uh we Liberal Democrats have had this policy for a very long time about having an office of a whistleblower. We hope very much the government uh takes that proposal up. We've tried a number of
[2:28:29]times in other pieces of legislation in the other house to introduce it into legislation uh in this session. Um but there'll be people at home listening to this debate who themselves may have information. They want to volunteer it.
[2:28:41]They don't know who to they don't know whether to write to their MPs. They don't know whether there's a formal way in which they can bring that information forward. We've had examples just this afternoon from some speakers of um um information that they heard or that
[2:28:51]intelligence officials, you know, just knew something. I wonder if she has any thoughts on that and whether she thinks that we might perhaps hear from the minister about what the government's message is to those people and who they
[2:29:03]should contact. Um, I'm very grateful to her and I I think she's entirely right that a quick inquiry uh is the best way to bring to
[2:29:14]light a number of the issues that we're talking about today. There is it is increasingly clear that there were people who were silent when they should have been loud. There are people who
[2:29:25]knew things who didn't share them. And there are people in our country today who will know information that could usefully contribute um to getting to the bottom of what happened, who knew what
[2:29:36]when, and importantly how we can stop this from continuing to happen in our system. So I think she's right to encourage anybody uh out there with information that they can usefully
[2:29:47]contribute. We've heard from colleagues who have worked internationally in different roles and that's just this sample who've been in the chamber today. There will be countless others across the country and she's entirely right to
[2:29:57]encourage people to come forward because the people who uh have led to us being here today are the victims and survivors of Epstein and his cronies. My colleague, the member for for Froom and
[2:30:07]East Somerset talked about structural sexism and talked about how people weren't listened to uh and other colleagues have referenced as well how victims and survivors were often not
[2:30:19]believed or thought they wouldn't be importantly and that stops us from getting to the bottom of things like this. >> Could you give away? >> I would. On the on the point about structural sexism, it wasn't so much
[2:30:30]about although it's absolutely right that people should be listened to. It was more about the fact that we have this problem in government at the moment particularly where there's a small a small group around uh leading figures in government who tend to be comprised of men and actually if you don't have women
[2:30:42]in those places and spaces a lot of these issues don't get picked up or they don't get treated in the way in which they might do if there were women in the women in the room and I wondered if she might agree with me that um it's it's good news to see that the the prime minister certainly has currently some
[2:30:54]chiefs of staff that are women and that we would be pleased to see more women in senior roles uh kind of key advisory roles not simply as as ministers and secretaries of state. I think she's entirely right to make that point. I think we've seen the tone of some of the
[2:31:05]briefings about government ministers, about secretaries of state being notably different when it's a woman who holds that office. And I think all of the evidence shows that the best decisions are made by teams that draw on a broad
[2:31:17]range of experiences uh and there is a balanced team. If everybody went to the same school or had the same experience, they're not they're going to be missing an awful lot. So she is entirely right
[2:31:28]to talk about elected members uh and ministers but also the officials who are working with them and advising them and supporting them. And it is an extremely well-made point. It is something that we
[2:31:38]should strive to that only uh when we have elected as many mediocre women to this place as we have mediocre men will we have achieved equality. Um >> uh but Madame Deputy Speaker, it should
[2:31:54]not have taken the bravery of victims speaking up about their experience and seeking justice over years for Epstein cycle of cruelty and criminality to
[2:32:04]finally be interrupted. Where would we be if victims of epsene like Virginia Duy had never come forward? >> If the right photograph hadn't been
[2:32:13]taken at the right time. We are left to wonder if Andrew might easily have remained a special representative today, operating without proper scrutiny and
[2:32:23]continually disgracing his office. So we urge the government once again to commit to a statutory inquiry into Epstein's links to our establishment, including
[2:32:34]Andrew Mountbatton Windsor, so that we can develop a full understanding of how it served him. so that we can understand what networks were formed that
[2:32:43]facilitated a prolific pedophile and how widespread the complicity goes. Crucially, it can point us to what must
[2:32:52]change to protect people in the future. But I also urge the government and members here to bring any further vital information to light right now and
[2:33:02]ensure there's no delay to essential scrutiny and transparency. Andrew's role as an envoy and the engagements he undertook were determined by those at the very highest levels of political
[2:33:14]power, including the Downing Street of the Time. And it's increasingly clear that he was protected. Even while he betrayed public trust in his position as
[2:33:25]special representative, he was protected by outdated rules that forbid members of this place from raising concerns about any member of the royal household in parliament in most debates. And I fear
[2:33:37]he was protected by powerful friends and allies repeatedly and by a number of people failing to raise the alarm. Today, we can start to set that right.
[2:33:48]If we really believe that nobody is above the law, then it must surely follow that no appointment is above scrutiny, that no one's abuse of their public office should be hidden from the
[2:33:59]public gaze, and that no truth is too uncomfortable to come in to the disinfectant of daylight. >> I call the minister, Sir Chris Brian. >> Uh, thank you very much, Madame Deputy
[2:34:10]Speaker. by leave of the House. Um I I I spoke earlier, so I I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again, and I'm not going to speak at great length.
[2:34:21]>> Again, I've united the House twice today. That's a a great comfort to me. Um first of all, can I commend the Liberal Democrats on um the debate that they've held um and uh and on bringing
[2:34:32]this to us. Um I lots of people have made very powerful speeches both on on both sides of the house including the honorable member for York Central my friend. Um the member for Isa and
[2:34:43]Walton. Uh the member for Argal Button Southern and South La Harour. Uh the member for Fman East Somerset. The member for Brighton Pavilion. The member for North Shropshire. Uh for Stats and
[2:34:54]Mid Cambridge for Sutton Chim for Ditkut and Wood Wantage for North Cornwall and for Hazel Grove. And I appreciate that the um the shadow spokesperson um the
[2:35:04]member for Brentwood Nanga isn't able to be here now. He he he sent me a kind note to say why he can't. Um ma madame deputy speaker it is the government's intention to comply with this um motion
[2:35:16]as I said right at the beginning of my speech as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. Um as I've said from the beginning my only caveat um is
[2:35:25]that I will work my department will work and the whole of government will work for maximum transparency and timeliness. Um, but I do have to just say that where
[2:35:36]documents may speak materially to the offense of misconduct in public office or any other offense that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting
[2:35:47]authorities. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. Um, and uh, it's a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other um, humble addresses, but I
[2:35:59]think it's an important one. I hear the calls that have been made by several honorable members for a public inquiry. Um, one of the other things that I was engaged in in 2011 was a big row about
[2:36:10]phone hacking um, at the News of the World and we demanded a public inquiry and we ended up with a two-part public inquiry. Um, and the second part of the public inquiry wasn't going to happen
[2:36:20]until the police had completed their investigations and then of course it never happened because so much time had elapsed. So I'm somewhat cautious about this process. um of seeking uh
[2:36:32]multi-part public inquiries in relation to this. I do want the police to be able to do their work um as effectively as possible. Um and I and I the one other
[2:36:43]thing I always issue just a word of caution around is I was also in the house when um members understandably used the privilege of this house to talk
[2:36:52]about um Sully on Britain. Um and it turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue. um people have been misled by somebody um and I think we
[2:37:03]always have to just be cautious about the way we use our um our privilege in this house. I'll come on to the bigger point of what others have referred to as negative privilege in a moment if you
[2:37:13]will allow me just a moment. Um um uh we are very keen um that to work with the prosecuting authorities um as as fast as
[2:37:23]possible um and but in the end the timetable for that is set by them not by us. We do want them to do their job without fear or favor. And I think the one message that has come from today, I
[2:37:34]think to the whole of society and the prosecuting authorities will be that they must proceed without fear or favor. Nobody is above the law. Um and um and of course I give way to my honorable
[2:37:45]friend. I was hoping to complete my remarks soon. >> I'm I'm really grateful and uh for what the minister has said. Um, whilst the prosecuting authorities will clearly
[2:37:57]clear up the criminal matters, there are implications which go way beyond that. And therefore, I just wonder what thought the minister is is giving to how they are dealt with. For instance, the
[2:38:08]closing of the loopholes around our airports and our access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision-m with at the heart of government.
[2:38:19]>> Well, I hear the points that she makes, and of course, I sympathize with them. However, it is actually remarkably difficult to disentangle some of these from possible prosecuting um issues and
[2:38:30]possible um offenses that might might be brought. So, I'm somewhat cautious in this area as she will hear and and and she will know that sometimes I can be as
[2:38:40]um viferous as her on some of these kind of issues. But I think at this particular moment I want to be cautious in this area. Um, I'd want to talk about the issue of negative privilege that several members have referred to because
[2:38:51]I don't think we I I fully understand the point and I made it myself back in 2011. I had a bit of a row with the speaker Burko about it. Um, and uh and I fully understand um the point that
[2:39:02]people are making. I don't think we should have excessive um difference. Um of course it's a matter for the house for Mr. speaker and and the deputy speakers and for the procedure committee
[2:39:12]and others whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the house um and honorable members um there's a back it's a backbench committee um if people want to take those issues to the procedure
[2:39:24]committee they should think of doing so but I don't think we should overstate the case because if at any point any of the um political parties had wanted to bring a motion to the house on a
[2:39:34]substantive motion um when in whether in opposition or for that matter in government anybody would have been able to do so. Um and uh but but all of us
[2:39:44]chose not to is the truth of the matter. Now whether that is because of deference or not um I I I I cannot judge but it is certainly true um that it is available
[2:39:54]to us to use a substantive motion to consider these matters. I I'm I'm not just for for one moment if if the honorable members don't mind. Um we do enjoy freedom of speech in this house
[2:40:05]and it is a precious thing. Um it's um as honorable members will know article 8 of the bill of rights says that no proceeding in parliament shall be impeached um in any court of law or any
[2:40:16]other place. That means that we can say things in here without threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. That is a really important and precious privilege which I think we have to guard quite
[2:40:26]carefully. Um and that's why we have a subjudicy rule which the speaker has um decided doesn't apply in today's debate because no charges have been brought yet. is quite specific when the
[2:40:36]subjudicy rule applies. Um but uh I I do think um we need to guard that um privilege quite carefully because we have a separation of powers. We don't
[2:40:47]think that we should have acts of attainer anymore where the house decides by a bill um that somebody is guilty of some offense or some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting
[2:40:57]authorities and a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now, I think the honorable gentleman with the bad back wanted to say something. >> I I thank the minute. I don't know
[2:41:08]whether I do thank him or not. Um, just to push gently back on that and I and I'd be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we've had 15 years
[2:41:17]since uh Andrew resigned in disgrace and that hasn't come to parliament demonstrate that there is a reluctance there is a uh uh whether if if it is
[2:41:28]indeed a true misunderstanding of process that that just hasn't come before the house to discuss and to really get into the weeds on this. Does he not see that as a demonstration of a
[2:41:38]need for a change in the process or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these sorts of issues? >> Well, yes. Um, and I also think probably
[2:41:49]we need more Paul Flynn's um is the truth of the matter. We I I've always been a bit skeptical about independent MPs, but I've always been very much in favor of independently minded MPs. Um, and I think that that's one of the
[2:42:01]backbones of making Parliament really function effectively. Um, I love the whips. Of course I love the whips. But um, but but but but
[2:42:14]um now the honorable lady and then I really do want to try and stop my remarks. >> Skepticism over over public in inquiries. But the reason why the more
[2:42:25]this debate has gone on, the more I I've felt this is an issue of culture. There are going to be things that um are material to how we've ended up where we are that won't meet an evidentiary
[2:42:37]threshold that haven't haven't contravened any laws but do clearly need changing and the thing that needs changing is the overall culture that we
[2:42:47]have in our establishment itself. If it isn't a public inquiry that needs to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know, if it isn't that, and I understand his arguments for why
[2:42:58]it shouldn't be that, then what is it? How do we do this? >> Um, yes, I I mean, I made all those arguments myself in 2011 about phone
[2:43:08]hacking. um and um and uh a chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the matter at a time when it wasn't easy because the whole of the
[2:43:18]media was not in favor of us moving on that. So the point I would make is I think the single most important thing for a member of parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favor. Um, it's one of the
[2:43:29]instructions I'm all the lib demss are now trying to intervene on me and and I'm trying to make a very short speech which was meant to be 5 minutes and it's now already
[2:43:39]uh 9 minutes so I'm failing miserably. >> All right, whatever. >> I'm I'm grateful to the minister for giving way. I I want to press him on that point again. Um, there are some
[2:43:50]specific allegations that an inquiry might want to look at, but there is this broader point about culture which my honorable friend mentioned. He will know very well both in the context of phone hacking but also looking at the culture
[2:44:01]of the metropolitan police. There are many examples in not that distant history in our recent history where look where an inquiry has looked separately at the culture of an institution as opposed to specific allegations and what
[2:44:12]specifically went wrong. If he is concerned about a two-part or three-part inquiry uh a second or third part being canceled in the future that simply requires a small amendment to the public inquiries act. Look, I I do think it's
[2:44:24]important to to press the minister on this point that there is a cultural issue here and we do want this cultural issue to be looked at. >> Yeah. >> I completely agree that there is a cultural issue that needs to be looked
[2:44:34]at. Um that my the only thing is I I'm certainly not able to commit the government here today to a public inquiry and I think all honorable members accept that I'm I'm not going to do that. Um but I'm also not entirely
[2:44:45]convinced that a public inquiry actually often ends up changing culture uh culture change changes because we choose to. I note that the whips have got a terrible coughing case. Um so I just
[2:44:55]want to end with a few more um short points. The first um is relates to trade envoys. I do want to praise the work of our present trade envoys. They are helping
[2:45:06]us uh win contracts around the world. Um not just from the Labor Party and not just from this house. They are all accountable through um the Minister for Trade and through the department. I I
[2:45:17]would quite like there to be more questions about trade envoys at business um and uh DBT questions uh which are coming up in the near future on the act of succession um which one honorable member asked me about. We are working at
[2:45:28]pace on this and we intend to um be able to bring forward legislation where we can. I I can't commit to a particular date on that. Um but I note that Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music sang, "I
[2:45:39]have confidence that spring will come again and so um I have confidence that the act of succession will come round at pace." Um the um the one honorable member said that power corrupts and
[2:45:50]absolute power corrupts absolutely the the con the cultural point I'd make is that actually this wasn't about power. This was about influence and actually
[2:46:02]influence can be just as pernicious in the body politic as anything else and that's what one of the things that we need to address because it can lead to corruption. Um and then the honorable member I'm going to end with this point.
[2:46:13]Um madame deputy speaker the honorable member for Suff and Chim said let's make sure that this never happens again. Of course, every single member of this house would hope that the the horrific
[2:46:24]abuse that happened under Jeffrey Epstein and the concatenation of different forms of abuse that um that were created by by people's complicity from so many different sectors, people
[2:46:36]turning their blind eye and people participating whether because they loved wealthy people or they loved a wealthy lifestyle or whatever it may be. Of course, I would dearly dearly love to be able to stand at this dispatch box and
[2:46:47]say it will never happen again. But I would bet my bottom dollar that there will be young people today who are being abused by rich, wealthy, arrogant,
[2:46:58]entitled people and it will continue. Yes, we must do everything in our power to make sure that the the difference and influence and complicity does not allow
[2:47:08]that to happen. But in the end, the only recourse we have is the court of law to take make sure that those who abuse their position of trust face the full
[2:47:18]rigor of the law. Yeah. Yeah. >> The question is as on the order paper as many as of that opinion say I >> I
[2:47:28]>> of the contrary no I think the eyes have it. The eyes have