The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Let me be clear from the outset: we support this motion. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others—abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere. It is not just the people who participated in the abuse; it is the many, many more who turned a blind eye, out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit—just as complicit—and I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now.
I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern: a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle; a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were delighted and excited to meet a member of the royal family, but he insisted on coming by helicopter, unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and by car. He left early, and he showed next to no interest in the young people. That is, of course, not a crime, nor is arrogance—fortunately, I suppose. [Laughter.]
Of course, we knew much of what is now in the public domain a very long time ago. It is all very well for some of us to say, “If only we had known then what we know now,” but I am afraid that doesn’t wash with me. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister David Cameron to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this Chamber on 28 February 2011 because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi—Gaddafi was just referred to—and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni. I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow for doing so because
“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
I did not disagree with that ruling, nor would I ever disagree with a ruling from the Chair, as you know, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant
I am taking your advice, Mr Speaker: I am just ignoring that.
Over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain—on television, on radio and in newspaper articles—citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive £15 million paid for his Sunninghill home and many other issues besides. I am afraid the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again. I was repeatedly told off, both in the Chamber and outside it.
The broadcaster John Humphrys actually told me on the “Today” programme on 7 March 2011—I think Members will be shocked by this—that Jeffrey Epstein was “not quite a paedophile”, drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on 11 March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction between Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it,
“none of the girls was pre-pubescent”,
although he did at least admit that both were “sordid and exploitative”. I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen.
Let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre was published in The Mail on Sunday on 27 February 2011—it is after the allegations, not before.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I entirely agree with the Minister on the abhorrence of the comments made in the media back then. Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?
Chris Bryant
I agree 100%. I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. Statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape—end of story.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister is speaking very powerfully about this issue and has one of the strongest track records in standing up on these types of issues. I have asked that the Government release the files concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, or whatever his new name is, when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Can the Minister review that decision and ensure that, in the new spirit of openness and transparency, those files are open for all to see?
Chris Bryant
I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that
“there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.
Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:
“The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]
Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:
“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”
He continued at some length, and concluded:
“He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]
Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.
Ed Davey
The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.
Chris Bryant
Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.
What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:
“Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]
Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called
“censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.
Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that
“the law must take its course”,
and that the Palace would provide its
“full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.
The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.
As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Minister is saying, but what is worrying quite a lot of us, in relation not just to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but to Mandelson, is that because of the ongoing police investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly, it may be years before we see any of these papers. I would like an assurance from the Government that—notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the police investigation—they will do their utmost to ensure that there is full transparency, because scandals are made much worse by any sense of a cover-up.
Chris Bryant
I could not agree more. I want to ensure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to ensure that justice happens, and I do not want to do anything that would undermine the police investigations. I hope that the police will be able to move as swiftly as possible, and we will certainly co-operate with them as swiftly as possible. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that most of the documents that might be envisaged are 25 years old—some are a bit more recent—they may be substantial in number, and many will be in hard copy. I hate to add to the right hon. Member’s fears about the speed with which things may happen, but I think we all want to ensure that we do all this in a proper fashion.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?
Chris Bryant
We will do two things. First, we will seek to comply with the Humble Address as soon as we possibly can, given the caveat that I have already issued about the police investigation. Secondly, we will ensure that every single part of Government co-operates entirely with Thames Valley police and with any other police forces, in respect of whatever they may be investigating. It is not for me, as a Minister, to instruct the police on what they should or should not investigate, or to point them in one direction or another. Former Prime Ministers have a different set of responsibilities. So the hon. Lady is right: I do not want to undermine the investigation, but I also do not want to delay it in any way.
Chris Bryant
I do not want to give way to every single Liberal Democrat Member, but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Lady.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister greatly. Does he agree that it is timely, right now, for the Government to press ahead with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill? Amendment 23, which is blocking everything at the moment, seems to present a way through, and to ensure not only that we have transparency and openness but that the Government, and other Members of the House, can be assured that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or security—and, indeed, matters relating to the police investigation—will not be released. There is an answer in the Government’s hands, and I know not why they are waiting and waiting and waiting to get this sorted out.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady might have to repeat what she thinks the answer that thus far evades me might be.
Tessa Munt
I could talk to him about the whistleblowing Bill and the independent office of the whistleblower. People should be able to reveal what they know and should tell the truth. It is shocking that we have to have legislation to tell people to tell the truth, but all this falls under the same remit: people should be free to declare exactly what they know, papers should be released, and there should be an independent High Court judge—that is what happens at the moment and that is what is in amendment 23—who says what may and may not be released.
Mr Speaker
May I suggest that we shorten interventions, rather than make speeches?
Chris Bryant
I return to what I said earlier: we will put everything into the public domain when we can. I do not want to do so at a time that would make it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes that they need to be able to carry out. I am not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process, but I would be happy to listen, Mr Speaker, if the hon. Lady catches your eye later on in the debate. With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate as well, so I will be happy to answer lots of questions.
Daisy Cooper
Specifically on this point, I am grateful that the Minister is willing to comply with the terms of this motion and that he is trying to manage expectations about the speed with which the Government may act. None the less, he will know that there will still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm, worried that the Government might be trying to long-grass it or put it in the too-hard basket. Will the Minister commit, either now or by the end of the debate, to the Government regularly updating this House so that Opposition parties do not repeatedly have to bring Ministers to the House to answer urgent questions? Will he agree to set out, by the end of the debate, how often the Government would intend to inform the House in regular updates?
Chris Bryant
I am happy to commit to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is informative to the House. The hon. Lady is quite right, however, that I am slightly trying to manage people’s expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of material and partly because there is a live police investigation and I do not want to jeopardise that.
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment.
If there are things that are embarrassing to the Government, who cares? I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If there are charges brought, that has to go through a judicial process as well and I do not want to undermine that. I am very happy, both privately and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say.
I am trying to get to the end of my speech. People normally like it when I get to the end of my speech—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have united the House, Mr Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
Jim Allister
I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely that investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there, which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?
Chris Bryant
If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I will quite happily explain to him outside the Chamber precisely why I disagree with him. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the Chamber, that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. I am happy to explain to him outside the Chamber and I think he might come back in and agree with me.
Chris Bryant
I think he might. Just sometimes, he agrees with me, but not very often. Small mercies and all.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the former Duke of York’s role as a special trade representative was very different to the one performed by the Government’s current trade envoys. That is often confused in the public discussion. Today, trade envoys are appointed by Ministers with a formalised set of rules of conduct, they are unpaid and they work with my Department on attracting and retaining inward investment, while supporting UK firms to take full advantage of new trade opportunities. They are all Members of either this House or another.
I have recently emphasised to all those trade envoys the importance of maximising the programme’s impact and ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial strategies. They are under the same obligations as Ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, which are the same ones outlined in the ministerial code. In sum, trade envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies, and helping British businesses to export. I will stress this again: the role held by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today. I am enormously grateful to today’s trade envoys who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK plc. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role was a separate one entitled UK special representative for international trade and investment.
There is unanimous agreement across this House that those who may be guilty of misconduct in public office should face the full force of the law. That applies to everyone, regardless of who they are or how they were appointed. This was a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister prior to the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest. One of the core principles of our constitutional system is the rule of law. That means that everyone is equal under the law and nobody is above the law.
I share the anger and the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated by the police and in that investigation they will, of course, have the Government’s unwavering co-operation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. Actually, there is only one rule: the rule of law.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion.
The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on.
I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address. However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.
Alex Burghart
Very humble.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country. Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light.
The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.
Alex Burghart
The Minister shakes his head, so I will go through the chronology again for him—there is no harm in doing so.
Alex Burghart
Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head.
In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.
Chris Bryant
I urge hon. Members not to speculate on what the police might or might not be investigating.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for that reminder.
I have been astounded by the brilliance of the British media and the journalists who have sifted through thousands and thousands of documents from the Epstein files and, within a really short period, have uncovered a scandal that has rocked the British establishment to its heart, and that has got everybody in this place acting to try to uncover the appalling rot at the heart of the Epstein circle. Yet other jurisdictions have been sitting on those thousands of documents, potentially for decades, and have apparently had no curiosity whatever. That in itself speaks volumes.
The Polish Government have launched an investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia. His links with Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must be causing enormous concern in the light of that development. It is therefore right that we seek transparency about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to this role. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, this is not about one mistake that led to an individual being in an inappropriate position; it is about the fact that the entire establishment failed to exercise curiosity and undertake due diligence. People put aside what accountants call professional scepticism and carried on with the appointment regardless because an entitled person needed a role.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to comply with the requests in the Humble Address by publishing the documents. That is really important, because the public need transparency. They need to understand quickly what happened and, crucially, what can be done in the future to prevent such an appointment from being made again. Their trust needs to be restored, including in this place. We need to show that we care enough to hold powerful people to account and ensure that we are always improving public life, not slipping backwards.
The Humble Address seeks answers about how a man with such a questionable reputation came to be appointed to represent the British state, but this debate has highlighted the impenetrable networks of privilege that for decades protected a paedophile and those who surrounded him, possibly for their own gain, and who totally disregarded the victims of his crimes and the wider public, to whom they were apparently indifferent.
When the Government came to power, they promised to clean up British politics, and they have a real opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about that mission. I hope that they take the opportunity and do the job properly.
Luke Taylor
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber.
To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.
Chris Bryant
I hate to add to the hon. Gentleman’s anguish, but there is a convention in the House that we do not refer to requests for urgent questions that have been made to the Speaker.
Luke Taylor
I apologise for breaking that convention, but it is a useful demonstration that, however right the Speaker is in acting with such utter wisdom that we will never question, it remains a challenge to raise issues like this one in the Chamber.
During the debate, Liberal Democrat Members have been clear that we have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow the criminal investigations to be completed, but the inquiry must be able to compel witnesses to appear, require them to give evidence under oath, and produce documents and other evidence. The inquiry must be used to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes we have heard about in the media. To echo the comments made by other hon. Members, the media and journalists have done incredible work investigating the crimes and poring over the files, and their effort cannot be overstated.
To conclude, we have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years as part of the Epstein scandal can never be repeated. The investigation must allow us to fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I was going to call Olly Glover, but I was not sure whether the Minister would want to do that, given his earlier intervention.
Chris Bryant
I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again. I am not going to speak at great length. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have united the House twice today. That is a great comfort to me.
First of all, may I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debate that they have held and on bringing this issue to us? Members on both sides of the House have made very powerful speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is not able to be here; he sent me a kind note to explain why.
As I said right at the beginning of my opening speech, it is the Government’s intention to comply with the motion as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I have said from the beginning, my only caveat is that my Department and the whole of Government will work towards maximum transparency and timeliness, but I have to say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. It is a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think it is an important one.
I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things in which I was engaged in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the News of the World, and we demanded a public inquiry. We ended up with a two-part public inquiry, and the second part was not going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. Of course, it never happened, because so much time had elapsed, so I am somewhat cautious about seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this issue. I want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible.
I will issue another word of caution. I was in the House when Members, understandably, used their privilege to talk about Sir Leon Brittan. It turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people had been misled by somebody. We always have to be cautious about the way we use our privilege in this House, and I will come on to the bigger point about what others have referred to as “negative privilege” in a moment.
We are very keen to work with the prosecuting authorities as fast as possible, but the timetable for that is set by them, not us. We want them to do their job without fear or favour. The one message that we have sent today to the whole of society is that the prosecuting authorities must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Although the prosecuting authorities will clear up the criminal matters, the implications go way beyond that. What thought has the Minister given to how they are dealt with—for instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports, access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision making at the heart of Government?
Chris Bryant
I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.
I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.
However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.
Chris Bryant
I will continue for a moment, if the hon. Members do not mind.
We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is precious. As hon. Members will know, article 8 of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place, which means we can say things here without the threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. It is a really important and precious privilege, and one that we must guard carefully, which is why we have a sub judice rule. Mr Speaker has decided that the rule does not apply to today’s debate, because no charges have yet been brought—when the sub judice rule applies is quite specific.
I do think that we need to guard that privilege quite carefully, because we have a separation of powers. We do not think that we should have Acts of attainder, with the House deciding by a Bill that somebody is guilty of some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I think the hon. Gentleman with a bad back wanted to intervene.
Luke Taylor
I thank the Minister—I am not sure whether I do thank him—but I want to push back gently on that, and I would be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we have had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and it did not come before Parliament demonstrate that there is such a reluctance, or is it a true misunderstanding of process that that did not come before the House for us to discuss and really get into the weeds of the matter? Does he not see that as demonstrating the need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these issues?
Chris Bryant
Well, yes, and I also think that the truth of the matter is that we probably need more Paul Flynns. I have always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I have always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs, who are one of the backbones that really allow Parliament to function effectively. I love the Whips—of course I love the Whips—but there is a but.
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really do want to finish my remarks.
Layla Moran
I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I myself made all those arguments about phone hacking in 2011. A chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the matter at a time when that was not easy, because the whole media were not in favour of us moving on that. The point I would make is that I think the single most important thing for a Member of Parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favour.
Chris Bryant
All the Lib Dems are now trying to intervene on me, and I am trying to make a very short speech. It was meant to be five minutes, and it is now already nine minutes, so I am failing miserably. All right, I give way.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I want to press him on that point again. There are some specific allegations that an inquiry might want to look at, but there is the broader point about culture, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. He will know very well—in the context of phone hacking, but also in looking at the culture of the Metropolitan police—that there are many examples in the not-too-distant history, or in our recent history, when an inquiry has looked separately at the culture of an institution as opposed to specific allegations and what specifically went wrong. If he is concerned about a two or three-part inquiry, with a second or third part being cancelled in the future, that simply requires a small amendment to the Inquiries Act 2005. I do think it is important to press him on the point that there is a cultural issue here, and we do want the cultural issue to be looked at.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree that there is a cultural issue that needs to be looked at. I am certainly not able to commit the Government today to a public inquiry—I think all Members accept that I am not going to do that—but I am also not entirely convinced that public inquiries actually often end up changing culture. Culture changes because we choose to. [Interruption.] I note that the Whips have a terrible case of coughing, but I want to end with a few more short points.
The first point relates to trade envoys. I want to praise the work of our present trade envoys—not just from the Labour party and not just from this House—who are helping us to win contracts around the world. They are all accountable through the Minister for Trade and the Department. I would quite like there to be more questions about trade envoys at Business and Trade questions, which are coming up in the near future.
On the Act of succession, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me about, we are working at pace on this, and we intend to bring forward legislation when we can. I cannot commit to a particular date on that, but I note that Julie Andrews, in “The Sound of Music”, sang,
“I have confidence that spring will come again”,
so I have confidence that the Act of succession will come around at pace.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The cultural point I will make is that, actually, this was not about power; this was about influence. Influence can be just as pernicious in the body politic as anything else, and that is one of the things we need to address, because it can lead to corruption.
I will end with this point. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, “Let’s make sure this never happens again.” Of course, every single Member of this House would hope that we never again see the horrific abuse that happened under Jeffrey Epstein and the concatenation of different forms of abuse that were created by the complicity of people from so many different sectors—people turning a blind eye and people participating, whether because they loved wealthy people, they loved the wealthy lifestyle or whatever it may be. Of course, I would dearly love to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that 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, entitled people, and it will continue. Yes, we must do everything in our power to make sure that deference, influence and complicity do not allow that to happen, but in the end the only recourse we have is to the court of law, to ensure that those who abuse their position of trust face the full rigour of the law.
Question put and agreed to,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.